Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
source wavelet
Ranajit Ghose*
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Summary
The amplitude of the shallow reflection events, and in
particular, the variation of reflection amplitude as a
function of offset (AVO) can provide useful information
about the lateral variation in the shallow subsurface. In this
research we have investigated the effect of accuracy and
shot to shot uniformity of the source wavelet on the result
of AVO analysis. For small vibrators, it is possible to
monitor accurately the effective source signature, including
the effect of source-ground coupling. This allows us to
deconvolve the raw vibrograms using the individual source
signature. For each shot the source signature can be
estimated separately and hence the effect of shot to shot
variation can be effectively removed by deconvolution. We
compare our result with that when the elimination of source
signature is not accurate and consistent (e.g., in case of
cross-correlation of vibrograms). We observe remarkable
improvement in the result of AVO characterization of soil
boundaries, with correct source signature deconvolution.
Introduction
120
20
sweep
correlation
groundforce
deconvolution
100
Time (msec)
120
150 300
150 300
(Hz)
15
0
0
20
15
0
15
0
0
20
0
80
150 300
0
20
groundforce
correlation
groundforce
dephasing
Phase
Spectrum
(deg x -1000)
80
(dB)
150 300
(Hz)
15
FFID 55
FFID 71
FFID 75
FFID 102
100
100
200
200
FFID 55
FFID 71
FFID 75
FFID 102
100
100
200
200
Time (msec)
(b)
Time (msec)
Time (msec)
(a)
Time (msec)
70
12
15
18
100
(msec)
130
70
12
15
18
100
(msec)
12
15 18
12
15
(a)
.0
Rf (%)
fs (MPa)
.1
.2
.3
.4
12
16
10 8 6 4 2 0
20
24
soil
layer
boundaries
interval
Vs
model
(m/sec)
28
qc (MPa)
Depth (m)
fs
4
A
qc
peat and
clay
Rf
B
sand
18
8
100
100
200
200
300 (Hz)
300 (Hz)
peat and
clay
10
sand
FD synthetic
shot gather
(b)
C
D
100
100
12
15
18
12
15
18
100
100
200
200
300 (Hz)
300 (Hz)
Time (msec)
Time (msec)
200
200
300
300
Figure 5: (a) CPT data, layer boundaries from soil testing and CPT, and
the interval Vs model, (b) synthetic shot gather, (c) field shot gather
Time (msec)
42
52
CMP #
62
72
32
82
40
80
120
82
80
5m
Horizon B
0
Intercept
+0.6
Horizon B
0
Horizon A
Horizon A
(a)
72
120
5m
-0.6
-3.0
CMP #
52
62
40
+0.6
Intercept
42
0
Time (msec)
32
0
Gradient
+3.0
(b)
-0.6
-3.0
0
Gradient
+3.0
Figure 6: Brute stack and AVO intercept-gradient crossplot for two seismic horizons (A,
B) for source signature elimination by (a) Fg cross-correlation, and (b) Fg deconvolution.
References
Ghose, R. and Goudswaard, J.C.M., 2000, Relating
shallow, S-wave seismic to Cone Penetration Testing
(CPT) in soft soil: a multi-angle, multi-scale approach, 70th
Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Exp. Abstr.
Ghose, R., 2002, High-frequency shear wave reflections
from shallow subsoil layers using a vibrator source: sweep
cross-correlation versus deconvolution with groundforce
derivative, 72nd Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.,
Exp. Abstr.
Kelly, K.R. and Marfurt, K.J., 1990, Numerical modeling
of seismic wave propagation, Geophysics Reprint Series,
No. 13, Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Acknowledgments
Conclusions
Our research shows that if a good estimate of the source
signature (including source coupling effects, harmonic
distortions, and eigenfrequencies) can be made for each
shot at every source location individually then deterministic