1887
Volume 11 Number 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In‐field real‐time data processing is still today a crucial factor that could definitively boost the success and spread of shallow seismic reflection and multichannel ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) methods in the near‐surface geoscience community, as it allows efficient data acquisition and cost‐effective results, especially for modern surveys generating large volumes of data in a short time. To help fulfil this need, we present a cloud‐computing solution combining the powerful computational capabilities of a cloud infrastructure with a subsurface imaging workflow based on a parallelized grid version of the Common‐Reflection‐Surface (CRS) stack, a macro‐velocity model independent imaging method that is very suitable for real‐time imaging, as its data‐driven implementation avoids time‐consuming human interaction in prestack velocity analysis. Our portal is accessible from the field by any mobile computer having a wireless data connection. The user‐friendly web‐browser interface allows, already during acquisition, uploading of the recorded data to remote computing facilities, where a quality control (QC) data analysis report is automatically produced. When the number of uploaded shot records is large enough to produce a subsurface image, stacking, velocity model determination and prestack time migration can be performed fast and highly automated, optionally after applying some preprocessing (e.g., gain, trace balancing and filtering) using the preprocessing toolbox of the portal. To demonstrate the use of the presented system, we simulate in‐field data processing for an already published shallow seismic data set and compare our results with the original ones. The data set, consisting in seismic P‐wave data, was collected to image Palaeozoic bedrock at the Flumendosa River Delta, Sardinia (Italy), with a data acquisition set‐up driven by the expected bedrock depth, which, turning out wrong, prevented a detailed velocity analysis and a good time migration. Using the QC data analysis repotrs to run the imaging routines of our cloud portal we produced within less than an half an hour stacked and migrated sections very close to those published in the original work. These results, if obtained in the field, would have allowed an immediate update of the experimental set‐up. Therefore, we are optimistic that the proposed cloud‐computing solution (or similar systems) can boost the spread of shallow seismic reflection and multi‐offset GPR surveys in near‐surface investigations, similar to what happened in the field of electrical and electromagnetic surveying after suitable real‐time imaging and data analysis systems emerged.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013018
2013-02-01
2020-04-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BaykulovM., DümmongS. and GajewskiD.2011. From time to depth with CRS attributes. Geophysics76, S151–S155.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BerglerS., HubralP., MarchettiP., CristiniA. and CardoneG.2002. 3D common‐reflection‐surface stack and kinematic wavefield attributes. The Leading Edge21, 1010–1015.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BonomiE., CristiniA.M., TheisD. and MarchettiP.2009. 3D CRS analysis: A new data‐driven optimization strategy for the simultaneous estimate of the eight stacking parameters. 28th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 3284–3291.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BrouwerJ.H.2002. Improved NMO correction with a specific application to shallow‐seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting50, 225–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. ClaerboutJ.F.1985. Imaging the Earth’s Interior . Blackwell Scientific Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CohenJ.K. and StockwellJ.J.W.2000. Seismic Un*x Release 34: A free package for seismic research and processing. Geophysical Journal International125, 431–442.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DeiddaG.P., RanieriG., UrasG., CosentinoP. and MartoranaR.2006. Geophysical investigations in the Flumendosa River Delta, Sardinia, Italy – Seismic reflection imaging. Geophysics71, 121–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DeiddaG.P., BattagliaE. and HeilmannZ.2012. Common‐reflection‐surface imaging of shallow and ultrashallow reflectors. Geophysics77, B177–B185.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DixC.H.1955. Seismic velocities from surface measurements. Geophysics20, 68–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DuveneckE.2004. Velocity model estimation with data‐derived wavefront attributes. Geophysics69, 265–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. GarabitoG., StoffaP.L., FerreiraC.A.S. and CruzJ.C.R.2012. Part II – CRS‐beam PSDM: Kirchhoff‐beam prestack depth migration using the 2D CRS stacking operator. Journal of Applied Geophysics85, 102–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. GierseG., TrappeH., PrüssmannJ., Eisenberg‐KleinG., LynchJ. and ClarkD.2009. Enhanced velocity analysis, binning, gap infill, and imaging of sparse 2D/3D seismic data by CRS techniques. 79th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 3279–3283.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. HeilmannZ.2007. CRS‐stack‐based seismic reflection imaging for land data in time and depth domains . PhD thesis, University of Karlsruhe.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. HeilmannZ., MannJ. and KoglinI.2006. CRS‐stack‐based seismic imaging considering top‐surface topography. Geophysical Prospecting54, 681–695.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HertweckT., JägerR., MannJ., DuveneckE. and HeilmannZ.2004. A seismic reflection imaging workflow based on the common‐reflection‐surface (CRS) stack: Theoretical background and case study. 74th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2032–2035.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HertweckT., SchleicherJ. and MannJ.2007. Data stacking beyond CMP. The Leading Edge26, 818–827.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HöchtG., de BazelaireE., MajerP. and HubralP.1999. Seismics and optics: Hyperbolae and curvatures. Journal of Applied Geophysics42, 261–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HoffaC., MehtaG., FreemanT., DeelmanE., KeaheyK., BerrimanB. and GoodJ.2008. On the use of cloud computing for scientific workflows. 3rd International Workshop on Scientific Workflows and Business Workflow Standards in e‐Science (SWBES), 640–645.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HubralP.1977. Time migration – Some ray theoretical aspects. Geophysical Prospecting25, 738–745.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. HubralP.1983. Computing true amplitude reflections in a laterally inhomogeneous earth. Geophysics48, 1051–1062.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. HunterJ.A., PullanS.E., BurnsR.A., GagneR.M. and GoodR.L.1984. Shallow seismic reflection mapping of the overburden‐bedrock interface with the engineering seismograph – Some simple techniques. Geophysics49, 1381–1385.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. JägerR., MannJ., HöchtG. and HubralP.2001. Common‐reflection‐surface stack: Images and attributes. Geophysics66, 97–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. KoglinI., MannJ. and HeilmannZ.2006. CRS‐stack‐based residual static correction. Geophysical Prospecting54, 697–707.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. MannJ.2002. Extensions and Applications of the Common‐Reflection‐Surface Stack Method Logos Verlag, Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. MannJ., JägerR., MüllerT., HöchtG. and HubralP.1999. Common‐reflection‐surface stack – A real data example. Journal of Applied Geophysics42, 301–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. MarchettiP., OriatoD., PellO., CristiniA.M. and TheisD.2010. Fast 3D ZO CRS Stack – An FPGA Implementation of an Optimization Based on the Simultaneous Estimate of Eight Parameters. 72nd EAGE Conference, Expanded Abstract.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. MarchettiP., PrandiA., StefanizziB., ChevanneH., BonomiE. and CristiniA.2011. OpenCL implementation of the 3D CRS optimization algorithm. 30th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 3475–3479.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. MarsdenD.1993a. Static correction – A review, Part I. The Leading Edge12, 43–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. MarsdenD.1993b. Static correction – A review, Part III. The Leading Edge12, 210–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. MasoomzadehH., BartonP.J. and SinghS.C.2010. Nonstretch moveout correction of long‐offset multichannel seismic data for subbasalt imaging: Example from the North Atlantic. Geophysics75, R83–R91.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. MejuM.A.1995. Simple effective resistivity‐depth transformation for infield or real‐time data processing. Computer and Geosciences21, 985–992.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. MillerR.D. and XiaJ.1998. Large near‐surface velocity gradients on shallow seismic reflection data. Geophysics63, 1348–1356.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. MudgeJ.C., ChandrasekharP., HeinsonG.S. and ThielS.2011. Evolving inversion methods in geophysics with cloud computing – A case study of an eScience collaboration. 7th IEEE International Conference on eScience, 119–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. MüllerT.1999. The Common Reflection Surface Stack Method – Seismic Imaging Without Explicit Knowledge of the Velocity Model . Der Andere Verlag, Bad Iburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. MurgiaF., BiddauR., ConcasA., DemontisR., FanfaniL., HeilmannB.Z.et al. 2009. GRIDA3 – A shared resources manager for environmental data analysis and applications. Earth Science Informatics2, 5–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. ParkesG. and HattonL.1987. Towards a systematic understanding of the effects of velocity model errors on depth and time migration of seismic data. First Break5, 121–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. PerroudH. and TygelM.2005. Velocity estimation by the common‐reflection‐surface (CRS) method: Using ground‐penetrating radar data. Geophysics70, B43–B52.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. PrüssmannJ., FrehersS., BallesterosR., CaballeroA. and ClementeG.2008. CRS‐based depth model building and imaging of 3D seismic data from the Gulf of Mexico Coast. Geophysics73, VE303–VE311.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. PullanS.E. and HunterJ.A.1990. Delineation of buried bedrock valleys using the optimum offset shallow seismic reflection technique. In: Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics , Vol. III (ed. S.A.Ward ), 75–87. SEG.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. RizvandiN.B., BolooriA.J., KamyabpourN. and ZomayaA.Y.2011. MapReduce implementation of prestack Kirchhoff time migration (PKTM) on seismic data. 12th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing, Applications and Technologies (PDCAT), 86–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. RobeinE.2003. Velocities, Time‐imaging and Depth‐imaging in Reflection Seismics. Principles and Methods . EAGE Publications, Houten.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. RonenJ. and ClaerboutJ.F.1985. Surface‐consistent residual statics estimation by stack‐power maximization. Geophysics50, 2759–2767.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. SpinnerM.2007. CRS‐based minimum‐aperture Kirchhoff migration in the time domain . PhD thesis, University of Karlsruhe.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. SteeplesD.W., GreenA.G., McEvillyT.V., MillerR.D., DollW.E. and RectorJ.W.1997. A workshop examination of shallow seismic reflection surveying. The Leading Edge16, 1641–1647.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. SubramanianV., MaH., WangL., LeeE.J. and ChenP.2011. Rapid 3D seismic source inversion using Windows Azure and Amazon EC2. IEEE World Congress on Services, 602–606.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. SubramanianV., WangL., LeeE.J. and ChenP.2010. Rapid processing of synthetic seismograms using Windows Azure Cloud. 2nd IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science, 193–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. VecchiolaC., PandeyS. and BuyyaR.2009. High‐performance cloud computing: A view of scientific applications. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Pervasive Systems, Algorithms, and Networks, 4–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. YilmazO.2001. Seismic Data Analysis. Processing, Inversion and Interpretation of Seismic Data. Vol. 1, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013018
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013018
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