1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 46, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 46 Number 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Vibroseis data recorded at short source–receiver offsets can be swamped by direct waves from the source. The signal‐to‐noise ratio, where primary reflections are the signal and correlation side lobes are the noise, decreases with time and late reflection events are overwhelmed. This leads to low seismic resolution on the vibroseis correlogram. A new precorrelation filtering approach is proposed to suppress correlation noise. It is the ‘squeeze‐filter‐unsqueeze’ (SFU) process, a combination of ‘squeeze’ and ‘unsqueeze’ (S and U) transformations, together with the application of either an optimum least‐squares filter or a linear recursive notch filter. SFU processing provides excellent direct wave removal if the onset time of the direct wave is known precisely, but when the correlation recognition method used to search for the first arrival fails, the SFU filtering will also fail. If the tapers of the source sweeps are badly distorted, a harmonic distortion will be introduced into the SFU‐filtered trace. SFU appears to be more suitable for low‐noise vibroseis data, and more effective when we know the sweep tapers exactly. SFU requires uncorrelated data, and is thus cpu intensive, but since it is automatic, it is not labour intensive.  With non‐linear sweeps, there are two approaches to the S,U transformations in SFU. The first requires the non‐linear analytical sweep formula, and the second is to search and pick the zero nodes on the recorded pilot trace and then carry out the S,U transformations directly without requiring the algorithm or formula by which the sweep was generated. The latter method is also valid for vibroseis data with a linear sweep. SFU may be applied to the removal of any undesired signal, as long as the exact onset time of the unwanted signal in the precorrelation domain is known or determinable.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.1998.00092.x
2008-06-28
2024-04-28

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.1998.00092.x
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BernhardtT. and PeacockJ.H. 1978. Encoding techniques for the vibroseis system. Geophysical Prospecting26,184–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CunninghamA.B. 1979. Some alternate vibrator signals. Geophysics44,1901–1921.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. EdelmannH.A.K. 1966. New filtering methods with Vibroseis. Geophysical Prospecting14,455–469.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. EdelmannH.A.K. and WernerH. 1982. Combined sweep signals for correlation noise suppression. Geophysical Prospecting30,786–813.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. EnsingL. 1983. The autobalancer — an automatic system for the reduction of powerline interference with seismic signals. Geophysical Prospecting31,591–607.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. GeyerR.L. (ed.) 1989. Vibroseis. Geophysics Reprint Series No. 11. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
  7. KlauderJ.K., PriceA.C., DarlingtonS. and AlbersheimW.J. 1960. The theory and design of chirp‐radars. The Bell System Technical Journal39,745–808.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. LinvilleA.F. and MeekR.A. 1992. Cancelling stationary sinusoidal noise. Geophysics57,1493–1501.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. PressW.H., FlanneryB.P., TeukolskyS.A.VetterlingW.T.1989. Fourier transform spectral methods. In: Numerical Recipes, pp. 381–449. Cambridge University Press.
  10. ScottP.J. 1987. Ambient noise in Vibroseis surveys. First Break5,310.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. SmytheD.K. 1996a. 3‐D seismic reflection trial: data acquisition report. UK Nirex Ltd Report No. 622. Harwell, UK.
  12. SmytheD.K. 1996b. 3‐D seismic reflection trial survey of the potential nuclear waste repository zone, Sellafield, West Cumbria. UK Nirex Ltd Report No. 760. Harwell, UK.
  13. SmytheD.K., HoltJ.M., ElstobM. and RobsonC. 1995. A high‐resolution 3D vibroseis trial survey of a potential nuclear waste repository. 57th EAGE meeting, Glasgow, UK, Extended Abstracts, C054.
  14. SmytheD.K., SmithsonS.B., GillenC., HumphreysC., KristoffersenY., KaraevN.A., GaripovV.Z., PavlenkovaN.I. and the Kola‐92 Working Group . 1994. Project images crust, collects seismic data in world's largest borehole. EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union75,473–476.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. StanleyP.J. 1986. Some comments regarding ambient noise in Vibroseis surveys. First Break4,31–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. StanleyP.J. 1988. A neglected area of Vibroseis development. First Break6,113–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. WernerH. and KreyT. 1979. Combisweep — a contribution to sweep techniques. Geophysical Prospecting27,78–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. WienerN. 1949. Extrapolation, Interpolation, and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series with Engineering Applications. M.I.T. Press and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  19. YilmazO. 1987. Seismic Data Processing, pp. 501–506. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.1998.00092.x
Loading
Filtering vibroseis data in the precorrelation domain[Link]
Geophysical Prospecting 46, 303 (0198); https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2478.1998.00092.x
/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.1998.00092.x
/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.1998.00092.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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