1887
Volume 37 Number 8
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Seismic data often contain traces that are dominated by noise; these traces should be removed (edited) before multichannel filtering or stacking. Noise bursts and spikes should be edited before single channel filtering. Spikes can be edited using a running median filter with a threshold; noise bursts can be edited by comparing the amplitudes of each trace to those of traces that are nearby in offset‐common midpoint space. Relative amplitude decay rates of traces are diagnostic of their signal‐to‐noise (S/N) ratios and can be used to define trace editing criteria. The relative amplitude decay rate is calculated by comparing the time‐gated trace amplitudes to a control function that is the median trace amplitude as a function of time, offset, and common midpoint. The editing threshold is set using a data‐adaptive procedure that analyses a histogram of the amplitude decay rates.

A performance evaluation shows that the algorithm makes slightly fewer incorrect trace editing decisions than human editors. The procedure for threshold setting achieves a good balance between preserving the fold of the data and removing the noisiest traces. Tests using a synthetic seismic line show that the relative amplitude decay rates are diagnostic of the traces’S/N ratios. However, the S/N ratios cannot be accurately usefully estimated at the start of processing, where noisy‐trace editing is most needed; this is the fundamental limit to the accuracy of noisy trace editing.

When trace equalization is omitted from the processing flow (as in amplitude‐versus‐offset analysis), precise noisy‐trace editing is critical. The S/N ratio of the stack is more sensitive to type 2 errors (failing to reject noisy traces) than it is to type 1 errors (rejecting good traces). However, as the fold of the data decreases, the S/N ratio of the stack becomes increasingly sensitive to type 1 errors.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1989.tb02238.x
2006-04-27
2020-05-31
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akbulut, K., Saeland, O., Farmer, P. and Curtis, T.1984. Suppression of seismic interference noise on Gulf of Mexico data. 54th SEG meeting, Atlanta , Expanded Abstracts, 527–529.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, R.G. and McMechan, G.A.1988. Noise‐adaptive filtering of seismic shot records. Geophysics53, 638–649.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anstey, N.A.1986. Whatever happened to ground roll?The Leading Edge5, (3), 40–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beckman, R.J. and Cook, R.D.1983. Outlier………s. Technometrics25, 119–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bednar, J.B.1983. Applications of median filtering to deconvolution, pulse estimation, and statistical editing of seismic data. Geophysics48, 1598–1610.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Beresford‐Smith, G. and Rango, R.1988. Dispersive noise removal in t‐x space: application to Arctic data. Geophysics53, 346–358.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Berni, A.J.1987. Automatic surgical blanking of burst noise in marine seismic data. 57th SEG meeting, New Orleans , Expanded Abstracts, 477–478.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ergas, R.A.1982. Method of editing seismic traces, as say gathered by large multichannel collection systems. U.S. Patent4479183.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Evans, J.R.1982. Running median filters and a general despiker. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America72, 331–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Freedman, D. and Diaconis, P.1981. On the maximum deviation between the histogram and the underlying density. Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete58, 139–167.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hale, D.1984. Dip‐moveout by Fourier transform. Geophysics49, 741–757.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hu, L.‐Z. and McMechan, G.A.1987. Wave‐field transformations of vertical seismic profiles. Geophysics52, 307–321.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Huber, P.J.1981. Robust Statistics. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Katz, D., Landrum, M. and Schick, L.H.1985. Stacking of noisy seismic traces via maximum entropy with a correlation coefficient constraint. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal ProcessingASSP‐33, 1331–1333.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Klemperer, S.L.1987. Seismic noise‐reduction techniques for use with vertical stacking: an empirical comparison. Geophysics52, 322–334.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Mavko, G.1988. Spectra‐consistent automatic noise editing. 58th SEG meeting, Anaheim , Expanded Abstracts, 1275–1277.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. McFadden, P.L., Drummond, B.J. and Kravis, S.1986. The Nth‐root stack: theory, applications, and examples. Geophysics51, 1879–1892.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Naess, O.E. and Bruland, S.1985. Stacking methods other than simple summation. Developments in Geophysical Exploration Methods, A. A.Fitch (ed.), Vol. 6, 189–223. Applied Science Publishers Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Neff, D.B. and Wyatt, S.B.1986. Noise suppression by the radial amplitude‐slope rejection method. Geophysics51, 844–850.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Rietsch, E.1980. Estimation of the signal‐to‐noise ratio of seismic data with an application to stacking. Geophysical Prospecting28, 531–550.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rosner, B.1983. Percentage points for a generalized ESD many‐outlier procedure. Techno-metrics25, 165–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Waltham, D.A. and Boyce, J.F.1986. Signal‐to‐noise ratio enhancement in seismic multifold data using Bayesian statistics. Geophysical Prospecting34, 56–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. White, R.E.1977. The performance of optimum stacking filters in suppressing uncorrelated noise. Geophysical Prospecting25, 165–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Wiggins, R.A. and Miller, S.P.1972. New noise‐reduction technique applied to long‐period oscillations from the Alaskan earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America62, 471–479.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1989.tb02238.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