1887
Volume 43, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0263-5046
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2397

Abstract

Abstract

Throughout the decades of its use, there has always been a requirement to obtain an accurate estimate of the propagating wave emitted by the vibrator mechanism. This is even more relevant in today’s recording environment of a low signal amplitude and high noise when employing a single source, single receiver, and ‘overlapping signals’ from simultaneous acquisition techniques. The ground force estimate (or its time derivative) is assumed by many to be a representation of the seismic wave (its source signature) that is transmitted into the surrounding medium. However, from published articles, many authors have questioned this assumption noting significant phase and amplitude differences between the ground force and the signal received at a remote sensor, especially at higher frequencies. Having an accurate source signature estimate at each location has significant ramifications beyond improving the quality of acquisition (and processing) that today is heavily reliant on ‘shooting blind’ into single channel nodes: it implies that the vibrator-earth model used is an accurate representation of the changing ground conditions at each shot-point whose properties can then be determined. In addition, an accurate vibrator-earth model may also lead to improvements in the design of vibrators for increased amplitude (greater signal) of the propagating wave. In this paper, we discuss the interaction between the vibrator mechanism and the surrounding media, the forces and energies generated during a sweep, re-examine the assumptions made in the ground force models and show that current source signature estimates are not an accurate representation of the propagating wavelet.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2025007
2025-01-01
2025-01-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. MustafaAL-ALI et al.Vibrator attribute leading velocity estimation. The Leading Edge, May 2003.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. D.Boucard and G.Ollivri, Developments in vibrator control, Geophysical Prospecting, 2010, 58, 33–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Castanet, A. et al. USPTO 3208550, September 28, 1962, Vibrator controlling system.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. LerwillW.E., 1981, The Amplitude and Phase Response of a Seismic Vibrator, Geophysical Prospecting29, 503–528.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Miller, G.F. and Pursey, H. (1954) The Field and Radiation Impedance of Mechanical Radiators on the Free Surface of a Semi-Infinite Isotropic Solid. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 223, 521–541.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. G. F.Miller and H.Pursey, (1955) On the Partition of Energy between Elastic Waves in a Semi-Infinite Solid. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences Vol. 233, No. 1192 (Dec. 6, 1955), pp. 55–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lysmer & F. E. Richart Dynamic Response of Footing to Vertical loading. Proc. ASCE 1966 S.L Rowse & Bob Heath. WSGF – Time for a change part 1: Damped Harmonic Oscillators and the Vibrator/ Ground model, First Break, 38, January 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. SaIlasJ. J.Seismic vibrator control and the downgoing P-wave. Geophysics. 49(6), (JUNE 1984); P. 732–740.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Wei, et al., Harmonic distortion reduction on seismic vibrators, The Leading Edge, March 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Wei, Z.Design of a P-wave seismic vibrator with advanced performance. GeoArabia, 13(2), 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2025007
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2025007
Loading

Data & Media 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