1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 69, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 69 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Passive seismic has recently attracted a great deal of attention because non‐artificial source is used in subsurface imaging. The utilization of passive source is low cost compared with artificial‐source exploration. In general, constructing virtual shot gathers by using cross‐correlation is a preliminary step in passive seismic data processing, which provides the basis for applying conventional seismic processing methods. However, the subsurface structure is not uniformly illuminated by passive sources, which leads to that the ray path of passive seismic does not fit the hyperbolic hypothesis. Thereby, travel time is incorrect in the virtual shot gathers. Besides, the cross‐correlation results are contaminated by incoherent noise since the passive sources are always natural. Such noise is kinematically similar to seismic events and challenging to be attenuated, which will inevitably reduce the accuracy in the subsequent process. Although primary estimation for transient‐source seismic data has already been proposed, it is not feasible to noise‐source seismic data due to the incoherent noise. To overcome the above problems, we proposed to combine focal transform and local similarity into a highly integrated operator and then added it into the closed‐loop surface‐related multiple elimination based on the 3D L1‐norm sparse inversion framework. Results proved that the method was capable of reliably estimating noise‐free primaries and correcting travel time at far offsets for a foresaid virtual shot gathers in a simultaneous closed‐loop inversion manner.

© 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13034
2020-12-12
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13034
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Berkhout, A.J. (1982) Seismic Migration: Imaging of Acoustic Energy by Wave Field Extrapolation. Amsterdam/Oxford/New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Company, pp. 205–211.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Berkhout, A.J. and Verschuur, D.J. (1997) Estimation of multiple scattering by iterative inversion, part I: Theoretical considerations. Geophysics, 62(5), 1586–1595.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Berkhout, A.J and Verschuur, D.J. (2006) Focal transformation, an imaging concept for signal restoration and noise removal. Geophysics, 71(6), A55–A59.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Candes, E. and Donoho, D. (2005) Continuous curvelet transform: II. Discretization and frames. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 19(2), 198–222.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Y. and Fomel, S. (2014) Random noise attenuation using local similarity. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 4360–4365.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheng, H., Wang, D.L., Feng, F. and Zhu, H. (2015) Estimating primaries from passive seismic data. Exploration Geophysics, 46(2), 184–191.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Clarerbout, J.E. (1968) Synthesis of a layered medium from its acoustic transmission response. Geophysics, 33(2), 264–269.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Daubechies, I. (1992) Ten Lectures on Wavelets. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, pp. 152–155.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Draganov, D., CampmanX., ThorbeckeJ., Verdel, A. and Wapenaar, K. (2009) Subsurface structure from ambient seismic noise. 71st EAGE Annual International Meeting, Extended Abstracts, Z038.
  10. Dragoset, B., Verschuur, D.J., Moore, I. and Bisley, R. (2010) A perspective on 3d surface‐related multiple elimination. Geophysics, 75(5), A245–A261.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Feng, F., Wang, D.L., Zhu, H. and Cheng, H. (2013) Estimating primaries by sparse inversion of the 3D curvelet transform and the L1‐norm constraint. Applied Geophysics, 10(2), 201–209.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fomel, S. (2007) Local seismic attributes. Geophysics, 72(3), A29–A33.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hennenfent, G., Berg, E., Friedlander, M.P. and Herrmann, F.J. (2008) New insights into one‐norm solvers from the Pareto curve. Geophysics, 73(4), A23–A26.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hu, B., Wang, D.L., Zhang, L. and Zeng, Z.F. (2019) Rock location and quantitative analysis of regolith at the chang'e 3 landing site based on local similarity constraint. Remote Sensing, 11(5), 530–546.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Lin, T.T.Y. and Herrmann, F.J. (2010) Stabilized estimation of primaries by sparse inversion. 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC, Barcelona, Spain.
  16. Lin, T.T.Y. and Herrmann, F.J. (2013) Robust estimation of primaries by sparse inversion via one‐norm minimization. Geophysics, 78(3), R133–R150.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Lopez, G.A. and Verschuur, D.J. (2014) Closed‐loop SRME – a new direction in surface multiple removal algorithms. 76th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Extended Abstracts, E102.
  18. Lopez, G.A. and Verschuur, D.J. (2015) Closed‐loop surface‐related multiple elimination and its application to simultaneous data reconstruction. Geophysics, 80(6), V189–V199.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Ma, J.T., Sen, K.M. and Chen, X.H. (2009) Free‐surface multiple attenuation using inverse data processing in the coupled plane‐wave domain. Geophysics, 74(4), V75–V81.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Schuster, G.T. (2001) Theory of daylight/interferometric imaging: Tutorial. 63rd EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 11th June Extended Abstracts, SessionA‐32.
  21. Van den Berg, E. and Friedlander, M.P. (2009) Probing the Pareto frontier for basis pursuit solution. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 31(2), 890–912.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Van den Berg, E. and Friedlander, M.P. (2011) Sparse optimization with least‐squares constraints. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 21(4), 1201–1229.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Groenestijn, G.J. and Verschuur, D.J. (2009) Estimating primaries by sparse inversion and application to near‐offset data reconstruction. Geophysics, 74(3), A23–A28.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Van Groenestijn, G.J. and Verschuur, D.J. (2010) Estimation of primaries by sparse inversion from passive seismic data. Geophysics, 75(4), SA61–SA69.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Vasconcelos, I. and Snieder, R. (2008a) Interferometry by deconvolution: Part 1—Theory for acoustic waves and numerical examples. Geophysics, 73(3), S115–S128.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Vasconcelos, I. and Snieder, R. (2008b) Interferometry by deconvolution: Part 2—Theory for elastic waves and application to drill‐bit seismic imaging. Geophysics, 73(3), S129–S141.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Verschuur, D.J., Berkhout, A.J. and Wapenaar, C.P.A. (1992) Adaptive surface‐related multiple elimination. Geophysics, 57(9), 1166–1177.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Wang, T.X., Wang, D.L., Sun, J., Hu, B. and Liu, C.M. (2017) Closed‐loop SRME based on the 3D L1‐norm sparse inversion. Acta Geophysica, 65(6), 1145–1152.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Wapenaar, K. (2004) Retrieving the elastodynamic Green's Function of an arbitrary inhomogeneous medium by cross‐correlation. Physical Review Letters, 93(25), 254301.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Wapenaar, K., Van der Neut, J. and Ruigrok, E. (2008) Passive seismic interferometry by multidimensional deconvolution. Geophysics, 73(6), A51–A56.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Wapenaar, K., Draganov, D., Snieder, R., Campman, X. and Verdel, A. (2010a) Tutorial on seismic interferometry. Part I: Basic principles and applications. Geophysics, 75(5), A195–A209.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Wapenaar, K., Slob, E., Snieder, R. and Curtis, A. (2010b) Tutorial on seismic interferometry. Part II: Underlying theory and new advances. Geophysics, 75(5), A211–A227.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Wapenaar, K., Van der Neut, J. and Ruigrok, E. (2011) Seismic interferometry by cross‐correlation and by multidimensional deconvolution: A systematic comparison. Geophysical Journal International, 185(3), 1335–1364.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13034
Loading
Passive seismic data primary estimation and noise removal via focal‐denoising closed‐loop surface‐related multiple elimination based on 3D L1‐norm sparse inversion
Geophysical Prospecting 69, 122 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13034
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13034
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13034
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Closed‐loop SRME; Focal‐denoising; Noise removal; Passive seismic data; Primary estimation

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