1887
Volume 22 Number 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

A

A seismic trace after application of suitable amplitude recovery may be treated as a stationary time‐series. Such a trace, or a portion of it, is modelled by the expression

where represents trace number on the record, is time, α is a time delay, α () is the seismic wavelet, is the reflection impulse response of the ground and is uncorrelated noise. With the common assumption that is white, random, and stationary, estimates of the energy spectrum (or auto‐correlation function) of the pulse α() are obtained by statistical analysis of the multitrace record. The time‐domain pulse itself is then reconstituted under the assumption of minimum‐phase. Three techniques for obtaining the phase spectrum have been evaluated: (A) use of the Hilbert transform, (B) Use of the ‐transform, (C) a fast method based on inverting the least‐squares inverse of the wavelets, i.e. inverting the normal time‐domain deconvolution operator. Problems associated with these three methods are most acute when the ‐transform of α() has zeroes on or near the unit circle. Such zeroes result from oversampling or from highly resonant wavelets. The behaviour of the three methods when the energy spectra are perturbed by measurement errors is studied. It is concluded that method (A) is the best of the three. Examples of reconstituted pulses are given which illustrate the variability from trace‐to‐trace, from shot‐to‐shot, and from one shot‐point medium to another. There is reasonable agreement between the minimum‐phase pulses obtained by this statistical analysis of operational records and those estimated from measurements close to the source. However, this comparison incorporates a “fudge‐factor” since an allowance for absorption has to be made in order to attenuate the high frequencies present in the pulse measured close to the shot.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1974.tb00108.x
2006-04-27
2019-12-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bayhi, J. F., Chalmers, F. L., Barry, A. and PearsonJ. B., 1969, The Sleeve Exploder—A Nondynamite Marine Source, Offshore Technology Conference Paper 1120.
  2. Galbraith, J. N., 1963, Computer Studies in Microseism Statistics with Applications to Prediction and Detection, Ph. D. Thesis, M.I.T.
  3. Jolley, L. B. W., 1961, Summation of Series, Dover, New York .
    [Google Scholar]
  4. O'Brien, P. N. S., 1969, Some Experiments Concerning the Primary Seismic Pulse, Geophysical Prospecting17, 511–547.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Robinson, E. A., 1967a, Statistical Communication and Detection, Griffin, London.
  6. Robinson, E. A., 1967b, Predictive Decomposition of Time Series with Application to Seismic Exploration, Geophysics32, 418–484.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Sakrison, D. J., Ford, W. T. and Hearne, J. H., 1967. The z‐Transform of a Realizable Time Function, IEEE Trans. Geoscience Electronics GE‐5, 33–41.
  8. White, R. E., 1973, The Estimation of Signal Spectra and Related Quantities by Means of the Multiple Coherence Function, Geophysical Prospecting21, 660–703.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1974.tb00108.x
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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