1887
Volume 68, Issue 7
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Seismic modelling of the shallow subsurface (within the first few metres) is often challenging when the data are dominated by ground‐roll and devoid of reflection. We showed that, even when transmission is the only available phase for analysis, fine‐scale and interpretable P‐wave velocity () and attenuation (−1) models can still be prepared using full‐waveform inversion, with data being preconditioned for ground‐roll. To prove this idea, we suppressed the ground‐roll in two different ways before full‐waveform inversion modelling: first, through a bottom mute; second, through a novel wavelet transform‐based method known as the redundant‐lifting scheme. The applicability of full‐waveform inversion is tested through imaging two buried targets. These include a pair of utility water pipes with known diameters of 0.8 m and burial depths of 1.5 m, respectively. The second target is the poorly documented backfill, which was the former location of the pipe(s). The data for full‐waveform inversion are acquired along a 2D profile using a static array of 24, 40 Hz vertical component geophones and a buried point source. The results show that (a) the redundant‐lifting scheme better suppresses the ground roll, which in turn provides better images of the targets in full‐waveform inversion; and (b) the and −1 models from full‐waveform inversion of redundant‐lifting scheme data could detect the two targets adequately.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12987
2020-06-30
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aghayan, A., Jaiswal, P. and Siahkoohi, H.T. (2016) Seismic denoising using redundant lifting scheme. Geophysics, 81, V249–V260.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aghayan, A., SiahKoohi, H.R. and Raissi, H.T. (2012) Seismic denoising using adaptive wiener filter in redundant‐lifting wavelet domain. Society of Exploration Geophysicists and The Chamber of Geophysical Engineers of Turkey, 1–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aki, K. and Richards, P.G. (2002) Quantitative Seismology. Mill Valley, CA: University Science Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alam, M.I. (2019) Near‐surface characterization using traveltime and full‐waveform inversion with vertical and horizontal component seismic data. Interpretation, 7, T141–T154.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bement, L.C., Carter, B.J., Varney, R.A., Cummings, L.S. and Sudbury, J.B. (2007) Paleo‐environmental reconstruction and bio‐stratigraphy, Oklahoma Panhandle, USA. Quaternary International, 169–170, 39–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, J., Zelt, C.A., and Jaiswal, P. (2017) Detecting a known near‐surface target through application of frequency‐dependent traveltime tomography and full‐waveform inversion to P‐ and SH‐wave seismic refraction data. Geophysics, 82, R1–R17.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Claypoole, R.L., Baraniuk, R.G. and Nowak, R.D. (1998) Adaptive wavelet transforms via lifting. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 3, 1513–1516.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Donoho, D.L. and Johnstone, J.M. (1994) Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage. Biometrika, 81, 425–455.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Duncan, J.M. and Wright, S.G. (2005) Soil Strength and Slope Stability. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gauthier, O., Virieux, J. and Tarantola, A. (1986) Two‐dimensional nonlinear inversion of seismic waveforms: numerical results. Geophysics, 51, 1387–1403.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. George, A. and Liu, J. (1981) Computer Solution of Large Sparse Positive Definite Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Halliday, D.F., CurtisA., Robertsson, J.O. and van Manen, D.J. (2007) Interferometric surface‐wave isolation and removal. Geophysics, 72, A69–A73.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hole, J.A. and Zelt, B.C. (1995) 3D finite‐difference reflection traveltimes. Geophysical Journal International, 121, 427–434.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jo, C.H., Shin, C. and Suh, J.H. (1996) An optimal 9‐point, finite‐difference, frequency‐space, 2‐D scalar wave extrapolator. Geophysics, 61, 529–537.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Londoño, E.G., López, L.C. and Kazmierczak, T.D.S. (2005) Using the Karhunen‐Loève transform to suppress ground roll in seismic data. Earth Sciences Research Journal, 9, 139.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Marfurt, K.J. (1984) Accuracy of finite‐difference and finite‐element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equations. Geophysics, 49, 533–549.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Pratt, R.G. (1999) Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain, Part 1: theory and verification in a physical scale model. Geophysics, 64, 888–901.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. PrattR.G., ShinC. and HicksJ.G.1998. Gauss–Newton and full Newton methods in frequency‐space seismic waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 133, 341–362.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T. and Flannery, B.P. (1992) Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Robertsson, J.O.A., Holliger, K., Green, A.G., Pugin, A. and De Iaco, R. (1996) Effects of near‐surface waveguides on shallow high‐resolution seismic refraction and reflection data. Geophysics Research Letter, 23, 495–498.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Sacchi, M. (2002) Statistical and Transform Methods in Geophysical Signal Processing. Edmonton, Canada: Department of Physics, University of Alberta.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Shieh, C.F. and Herrmann, R.B. (1990) Ground roll: rejection using polarization filters. Geophysics, 55, 1216–1222.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Smithyman, B., Pratt, R.G., Hayles, J. and Wittebolle, R. (2009) Detecting near‐surface objects with seismic waveform tomography. Geophysics, 74, WCC119–WCC127.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Sweldens, W. (1996) The lifting scheme: a custom‐design construction of biorthogonal wavelets. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 3, 186–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Tarantola, A. (1984) Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics, 49, 1259–1266.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Woldearegay, A.F., Jaiswal, P., Simms, A., Alexander, H., Bement, L. and Carter, B. (2012) Ultrashallow depth imaging of a channel stratigraphy with first‐arrival traveltime inversion and prestack depth migration: a case history from Bull Creek, Oklahoma. Geophysics, 77, B87–B96.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Wu, R. and Toksöz, M.N. (1987) Diffraction tomography and multisource holography applied to seismic imaging. Geophysics, 52, 11–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Yarham, C. and Herrmann, F.J. (2008) Bayesian ground‐roll separation by curvelet‐domain sparsity promotion. SEG Annual Meeting, 2576–2580.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Zelt, C.A. and Barton, P.J. (1998) Three‐dimensional seismic refraction tomography: a comparison of two methods applied to data from the Faeroe Basin. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 103, 7187–7210.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12987
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12987
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Inversion; Near‐surface; Seismics

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