1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 64, Issue 6
  5. Article
Volume 64, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Surface waves in seismic data are often dominant in a land or shallow‐water environment. Separating them from primaries is of great importance either for removing them as noise for reservoir imaging and characterization or for extracting them as signal for near‐surface characterization. However, their complex properties make the surface‐wave separation significantly challenging in seismic processing. To address the challenges, we propose a method of three‐dimensional surface‐wave estimation and separation using an iterative closed‐loop approach. The closed loop contains a relatively simple forward model of surface waves and adaptive subtraction of the forward‐modelled surface waves from the observed surface waves, making it possible to evaluate the residual between them. In this approach, the surface‐wave model is parameterized by the frequency‐dependent slowness and source properties for each surface‐wave mode. The optimal parameters are estimated in such a way that the residual is minimized and, consequently, this approach solves the inverse problem. Through real data examples, we demonstrate that the proposed method successfully estimates the surface waves and separates them out from the seismic data. In addition, it is demonstrated that our method can also be applied to undersampled, irregularly sampled, and blended seismic data.

© 2016 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12347
2015-11-19
2024-04-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12347
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BerkhoutA.J.1982. Seismic Migration: Imaging of Acoustic Energy by Wavefield Extrapolation, Part A: Theoretical Aspects. Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BerkhoutA.J.2008. Changing the mindset in seismic data acquisition. The Leading Edge27(6), 924–938.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BerkhoutA.J.2013. The road ahead in seismic processing. 83rd SEG meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 4488–4492.
  4. BohlenT., KuglerS., KleinG. and TheilenF.2004. 1.5D inversion of lateral varitation of Scholte‐wave dispersion. Geophysics69, 330–344.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. DavydenkoM. and VerschuurD.J.2014. Full wavefield migration in three dimensions. 84th SEG meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 3935–3940.
  6. ErnstF.2013. Modal elastic inversion. 75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended Abstracts.
  7. IvanovJ., SchwenkT., MillerR.D. and PeterieS.2013. Dispersion‐curve imaging nonuniqueness studies from multi‐channel analysis of surface waves (MASW) using synthetic seismic data. 83rd SEG meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1794–1800.
  8. KontakisA. and VerschuurD.J.2014. Deblending via sparsity‐constrained inversion in the focal domain. 76th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended Abstracts.
  9. Le MeurD., BenjaminN., ColeR. and Al HarthyM.2008. Adaptive ground roll filtering. 70th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended Abstracts.
  10. Le MeurD., BenjaminN., TwiggerL., GarceranK., DelmasL. and PoulainG.2010. Adaptive attenuation of surface‐wave noise. First Break28(9), 83–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. LopezG.A. and VerschuurD.J.2014. Closed‐Loop SRME and its application to data reconstruction. 84th SEG meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 4097–4102.
  12. MulderW.A. and PlessixR.E.2004. A comparison between one‐way and two‐way wave‐equation migration. Geophysics69, 1491–1504.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. ParkC.B., MillerR.D. and XiaJ.1998. Imaging dispersion curves of surface waves on multi‐channel record. 68th SEG meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 1377–1380.
  14. ParkC.B., MillerR.D.XiaJ., IvanovJ., SonnichsenG.V., HunterJ.A.et al. 2005. Underwater MASW to evaluate stiffness of water‐bottom sediments. The Leading Edge24(7), 724–728.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. SoccoL.V. and StrobbiaC.2004. Surface wave methods for near‐surface characterisation: a tutorial. Near Surface Geophysics2, 165–185.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. SoccoL.V., FotiS. and BoieroD.2010. Surface‐wave analysis for building near‐surface velocity models: established approaches and new perspectives. Geophysics75, A83–A102.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. SoniA. and VerschuurD.J.2014. Imaging blended VSP data using full wavefield migration, 84th SEG meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 5046–5051.
  18. StaalX., VerschuurD.J. and BerkhoutA.J.2014. Robust velocity estimation by joint migration inversion. 76th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended Abstracts.
  19. StrobbiaC., VermeerP., LaakeA., GlushchenkoA. and ReS.2010. Surface waves: processing, inversion and removal. First Break28(8), 85–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. StrobbiaC., ZarkhidzeA., MayR., QuigleyJ. and BilsbyP.2011. Attenuation of aliased coherent noise: model‐based attenuation for complex dispersive waves. First Break29(8), 93–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. YilmazO.2001. Seismic Data Analysis, Vol. 1. Tulsa, OK. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12347
Loading
3D surface‐wave estimation and separation using a closed‐loop approach
Geophysical Prospecting 64, 1413 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12347
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12347
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12347
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Data processing; Inverse problem; Near surface; Noise; Parameter estimation; Separation; Surface wave

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error