1887
Volume 50, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The application of traditional NMO‐correction techniques in the processing of seismic data may result in severe distortion. This distortion is observed as a decrease in frequency content (NMO stretch) or even a total loss of data for steep velocity gradients. It is shown that the specific nature of the observed distortion is introduced by the particular implementation of the traditional NMO‐correction technique. It is also shown that other techniques that have been proposed in the literature suffer from similar artefacts. An alternative approach is suggested, based on the correction of tapered blocks of seismic data, followed by a coherence filter to compensate for the specific artefacts thus introduced. Correction of seismic amplitudes (e.g. geometrical spreading and attenuation) is implemented as an integral part of the NMO‐correction method thus allowing for both dynamic and kinematic reconstruction of interfering events. From the application of this method to synthetic and field data, it is concluded that the proposed technique may be particularly useful in the processing of shallow seismic (shear‐wave) data. Although not illustrated in this paper, it is emphasized that application of the proposed method is by no means restricted to shear waves; application to P‐wave data will prove equally useful, although the stretch effects involved may not be as severe as in the examples given in this paper.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2002.00310.x
2002-11-23
2024-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BrulandL. and JohansenT.A.1994. Resolving interfering events through cyclic sampling and median filtering. First Break12, 445–452.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BuchholtzH.1972. A note on signal distortion due to dynamic (NMO) corrections. Geophysical Prospecting20, 395–402.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. De BazelaireE. and ViallixJ.R.1994. Normal moveout in focus. Geophysical Prospecting42, 477–499.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DunkinJ.W. and LevinF.K.1973. Effect of normal moveout on a seismic pulse. Geophysics38, 635–642.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. GhoseR., BrouwerJ. and NijhofV.1996. A portable S‐wave vibrator for high‐resolution imaging of the shallow subsurface. 58th EAGE conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Extended Abstracts, M037.
  6. JohansenT.A. and BrulandL.1994. A method to remove interfering events with amplitude variations with offset. 56th EAGE meeting, Vienna, Austria, Extended Abstracts, P158.
  7. MillerR.D. and XiaJ.1998. Large near‐surface velocity gradients on shallow seismic reflection data. Geophysics63, 1348–1356.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. RupertG.B. and ChunJ.H.1975. The block move sum normal moveout correction. Geophysics40, 17–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. ShatiloA. and AminzadehF.2000. Constant normal‐moveout (CNMO) correction: a technique and test results. Geophysical Prospecting48, 473–488.DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2478.2000.00190.x
    [Google Scholar]
  10. UrsinB. and EkrenB.O.1995. Robust AVO analysis. Geophysics60, 317–326.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2002.00310.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2002.00310.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