GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 66, NO. 4 (JULY-AUGUST 2001); P. 11951207, 21 FIGS.

Seismic array design by spatial convolution

Albin K. Kerekes

energy that propagates elsewhere, distribute the required total

ABSTRACT
Deriving the response of an array is one thing, design-
ing an array to match a desired response is quite another.
The rst is easy, the second is not. Given a selected pass
and reject requirement in the spatial frequency domain,
an array can be obtained that best matches such require-
ment within the limits of available hardware.
Optimum spatial arrays for 2-D and 3-D/4-D seismic
surveys can be designed using the technique of spatial
convolution. Such a technique relies upon uniform ar-
rays of differing shapes and sizes as building blocks.
These building blocks are convolved in space because
their selected responses matching notch points against
side lobes to achieve a desired end result in the spatial
frequency domain. The nal array design can be made
optimum for a given set of requirements, such as signal
preservation within the passband, attenuation within the
reject band, and azimuthal distribution for 3-D/4-D seis-
mic surveys. For any given design, solely the number and
the spacing of the elements limit the optimization.
A rule of thumb has been observed which shows that
the required number of elements in a 2-D array for
3-D/4-D seismic is equal to the square of the number
of elements in a 1-D equivalent array for 2-D seismic. It
is also observed that for a given number of elements, nar-
row azimuth designs can offer greater attenuation than
wide azimuth designs.
INTRODUCTION
Although there are many advocates of the point source,
point receiver approach to seismic eld acquisition, the fact
remains that weve always collected better data with arrays.
This was true in 2-D surveys, and, in view of the so called
acquisition footprints in the otherwise uniformly and sym-
metrically sampled 3-D and 4-D surveys, it seems to be true
today. Arrays have distinctly different functions at the source
and at the receiver.
Source arrays may be used to direct and/or beam-steer the
seismic energy towards the seismic targets while attenuating
charge into smaller unit charges to retain the high-frequency
bandwidth while maintaining the required pressure eld for
penetration, and attenuate ground-roll prone spatial frequen-
cies before propagation takes place.
The fundamental function of source arrays lies in transmit-
ting/radiating the seismic energy much the same way as an-
tennas transmit radio signals. The source environment is of
relatively high energy and transmission/radiation character-
istics depend upon the constructive and destructive interfer-
ence within the immediate vicinity of the source. In contrast
to the source, the receiver environment is of relatively low
energy, where the emphasis is in the selective reception of
weak signals often buried in source-generated and ambient
noise. For such a difference, the assumption of reciprocity be-
tween source and receivers, and the consequent convolution
of respective array responses can be deceiving. Receiver ar-
rays are used mainly to attenuate spatial frequencies that are
alias prone from both source-generated and ambient sources,
attenuate ambient random noise by the multiplicity of ele-
ments, and secure overall coupling by the multiplicity of
elements.
Depending upon the priorities of the use, the design of arrays
may vary. Since each seismic prospect has distinct and unique
eld conditions and exploration objectives, the array designs
for both source and receiver must address such uniqueness.
For these reasons, my paper focuses solely on the technique
of array design, avoiding any recommendation for a particular
set of source and receiver arrays for general eld use.
The optimum in array attributes can be dened as that ar-
ray conguration which provides the best possible performance
addressing the particular requirements of the seismic prospect
and the exploration objectives while falling within the limita-
tions set by the contractual hardware and economics. A more
general optimum can be dened in terms of the pass and re-
ject bands, which are derived from the exploration objectives.
We look for little or no attenuation in the passband, while we
seek maximum attenuation in the rejectband. These two bands
are generally next to each other, often overlapping. Ground
roll and alias-prone interference is generally of low spatial fre-
quency. In directional characteristics, the main lobe provides
the passband, whereas side lobes are the rejectband we need

Manuscript received by the Editor February 22, 1999; revised manuscript received September 29, 2000.

Liberty Seismic Consultants Inc., P.O. Box 1118, Bandera, Texas 78003. E-mail: albin@pomarosa.com.
c 2001 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
1195
1196
to attenuate. In this sense, we can also say that optimum in ar-
ray performance is that which provides maximum attenuation
next to the main lobe. Uniform (linearly spaced), circular, or
podded (closely grouped) arrays are popular not because they
are optimum but, rather, because they are easily designed
and implemented. In a geophysical sense, the easiest in design
and implementation is seldom, if ever, the optimum.
Intricate but optimum arrays can be designed by a relatively
simple technique using the spatial convolution of uniform ar-
rays. The process starts with the responses of the basic convolu-
tional elements being manipulated to yield a desired response
in the spatial frequency domain. Once such a response is ob-
tained, the actual array is dened by the spatial convolution
of those basic convolutional elements. In fact, I start with the
desired pass and reject response and obtain the dimensions of
the array that will yield such a desired response.
The paper begins with a brief summary of the spatial con-
volution used for constructing array responses. Next, 1-D and
2-D array designs are discussed in detail with illustrations to
their pertinent responses in the spatial frequency domain.
THE PROCESS OF SPATIAL CONVOLUTION
The spatial convolution of two arrays can be best described
as follows. Upon each element of one array, we position a com-
plete version of the other array. The resultant array thus will
have a total number of elements that is the product of the num-
ber of elements in the two arrays being convolved. Figure 1
illustrates the spatial process for both 1-D and 2-D arrays. The
multiplication of the amplitude spectra and the summation of
the phase spectra give the response of such a resultant array. If
symmetrical arrays are desired and used for which the spatial
phase response is zero, the design involves solely the multipli-
cation of the amplitude spectra (summing the decibels). The
method was rst described in a part of an oral presentation
at the 49th Annual SEG Meeting (Kerekes, 1979) which re-
ceived Geosources Technical Paper Award from the late Harry
Mayne for its originality.
CONVOLUTION APPROACH TO ARRAY DESIGN
In this section, 1-D arrays are used to illustrate the basic
idea behind the convolution approach to array design. We start
with a close look on uniform arrays. These arrays have distinct
FIG. 1. The process of spatial convolution.
Kerekes
and simple characteristics. They are composed by a number
of elements (N ) spaced at a uniform in line spacing (d). The
response can be expressed by the following:




sin Ndk

R(k)

= 20 log

, (1)
N sin dk

where R(k) is the response in decibels, N is the number of ele-
ments, d is the spacing between elements, and k is the spatial
frequency in wavenumbers. Such a response in decibels in the
domain of spatial frequency (k) is equally simple. The num-
ber of lobes from the main lobe at k = 0 to the rst-alias lobe
at k = 1/d is equal to the number of elements in the array.
The notch positions are at k = 1/Nd, 2/Nd . . . N /Nd. Side-lobe
attenuation will be symmetrical between the main lobe and
the rst alias lobe, and its maximum in decibels is given by
20 log(N ). Figure 2 shows the response of a uniform array of
seven elements spaced at d interval.
We can convolve a uniform array by itself, for example,
(N 1, d1) (N 2, d2), where N 1 = N 2 and d1 = d2. The resul-
tant array will have increased attenuation with lobes and notch
positions unchanged. Figure 3 shows an example of a three-
element array being repeatedly convolved with itself. The top
is the three-element array with the response on the left and the
layout on the right. The middle right illustrates the convolution
of this three-element array with itself, i.e., for each element of
the one, we position a complete array of the same, resulting in a
nine-element array with resulting unit-weights of 1, 2, 3, 2, 1.
The lateral component on the drawing is only to facilitate the
illustration of the otherwise 1-D array design. The middle left
FIG. 2. Uniform array characteristics and response shown for
a seven-element array.
FIG. 3. Example of convolution for N (the number of elements)
and d (the spacing of elements) being kept constant.
 Seismic Array Design by Spatial Convolution
shows the corresponding response with notch positions iden-
tical to the top case but with increased attenuation. Further
convolution of the kind results in the case illustrated at the
bottom of Figure 3.
We can convolve two uniform arrays of different number of
elements but the same spacing, i.e., (N 1, d1) (N 2, d2) where
N 1 = N 2 but d1 = d2, or the same number of elements but
different spacing, i.e., (N 1, d1) (N 2, d2) where N 1 = N 2 but
d1 = d2. The resultant array will have increased attenuation
with lobes and notches according to N 1 and N 2, or d1 and d2,
respectively. Figure 4 shows an example of these types of arrays.
We can also convolve two uniform arrays that have a
different number of elements and a different spacing, i.e.,
(N 1, d1) (N 2, d2) where N 1 = N 2 and d1 = d2. The resultant
array will have variable attenuation with side lobes and notches
according to the pertinent N 1, N 2, d1, and d2. Figure 5 shows
an example of these types of arrays.
In summary, uniform arrays can be convolved in three dis-
tinct manners, each of which yields predictably differing results.
These are (1) number of elements and spacing being constant,
(2) number of elements being different with spacing being con-
stant, or number of elements being constant with spacing being
different, or (3) number of elements being different and spac-
ing being different.
FIG. 4. Example of convolution for N (the number of elements)
being variable and d (the spacing of elements) being kept
constant.
FIG. 5. Example of convolution for both N (the number of
elements) and d (the spacing of elements) being variable.
1197
The design technique described in this paper involves the
changing of elements and spacings in order to induce attenua-
tion at any desired spatial frequency band by the interaction of
pertinent notches and lobes. We must reduce the spacing of el-
ements on any component array if we wish to move its notches
towards the higher spatial frequencies. With some practice and
the use of a commercially available interactive computer pro-
gram, such design technique is relatively easy to master. Pass
and reject bands can be manipulated to yield attenuation that
is proportional to the particular signals we wish to attenuate.
Complete optimization, as outlined in the introduction of this
paper, is therefore possible for a given number of elements and
spacing limitations.
Figure 6 illustrates the process for a 24-element array as the
result of three successive convolutions. The upper portion is
the result of the following convolutions:
A1(N=2,d=5) A2(N=3,d=10) A4(N=2,d=10)
A6(N=2,d=12.5) = A7 (2)
The responses in color to the left on Figure 6 are the individual
component arrays involved in the convolution. The response
in black is the resultant array response, which is the sum of all
the component responses in decibels. Notches of component
arrays will produce notches in the resultant array response. By
altering the position of notches in any of the component arrays
(changing the spacing), the attenuation and shape of the resul-
tant array changes in a rather predictable manner. On the right
are the layouts corresponding to the spatial convolutions of the
component arrays. The process is indicated by the markings on
the right edge from A1 through A7. A1 is the two-element ar-
ray of 5 m spacing and A2 is the three-element array of 10 m
spacing. A3 is the result of A1 convolved in space with A2 (i.e.,
for each element of A2 we have a complete array of A1). This
result of A3 is then convolved with the array A4, which is a
two-element array of 10 m spacing. The convolution yields the
next result marked A5. This result is then convolved with the
array A6, which is a two-element array of 12.5 m spacing, to
yield the nal result marked A7. The lower portion of Figure 6
shows the change introduced by altering the interval from 10
to 12 m on the three element (blue) array. The previously opti-
mum resultant array which has maximum side lobe attenuation
near the main lobe, has changed to one that has maximum side
lobe attenuation away from the main lobe.
Figure 7 shows two subsequent alterations to the original in
Figure 6. The upper portion shows a change of interval from
10 to 11 m for the two-element (pink) array. The resultant
array has a narrow rejectband with the second side lobe being
maximally attenuated. The lower portion shows changing the
interval from 10 to 11.5 m on the three-element (blue) array
and from 10 to 11 m on the two-element (pink) array. The result
of these changes produced a wider reject band with maximum
attenuation in the middle.
Once the design is nal and optimum for our purpose, these
arrays designed in the wavenumber domain can be constructed
in the spatial domain, i.e., in the eld. The process involves
the spatial convolution of the component arrays as shown to
the right of each corresponding response. The uppermost on
Figure 6 results in a eld array with a combination of weight
and distance tapering (variable weight, variable spacing). The
subsequent examples on Figures 6 and 7 result in distance ta-
pered arrays (variable spacing).
1198 Kerekes

FIG. 6. Examples of design techniques. The responses of the components are shown on the left with the corresponding geometric
convolution processes on the right. The box insert shows the particular arrays being convolved with the corresponding color on the
graphs. Highlight circling shows changes between the upper and the lower examples.

FIG. 7. Examples of design techniques. The responses of the components are shown on the left with the corresponding geometric
convolution processes on the right. The box insert shows the particular arrays being convolved with the corresponding color on the
graphs. Highlight circling shows changes between the upper example in Figure 6 and these examples.
 Seismic Array Design by Spatial Convolution 1199

Looking at these results it is fairly clear that if we start with the number of elements per array would remain the same. By
an array in the eld, followed by deriving its response to match increasing the dimension of our interest, we must consider in-
a given pass and reject scenario in the wavenumber domain, creasing the number of elements in the arrays we intend to
we would require many trials before a near satisfactory result use. A simple expectation is the power of two. If 12 geophones
could be obtained. The procedure in this paper is an inverse per receiver were adequate in our 2-D survey, the 3-D might
process to the above. It starts in the response domain by ad- require as much as 12 12 = 144 geophones.
dressing the pass and reject scenario, then moves to the eld Similarly to the 1-D array design, we use uniform arrays
to construct the array that corresponds exactly to the desired with a minimum number of elements as building blocks for
response. Such arrays are likely to be complex, requiring a the design of 2-D arrays. One of the simplest of these building
marked chain for the eld layout. Based on my three decades blocks is a square of four elements. Figure 8 shows the response
of eld experience and contrary to common intuition, such in the domain of azimuth, spatial frequency, and amplitude in
complex arrays do not require more time or greater eld effort. decibels (color). The graph also shows a slice response taken
Once the layout crew is equipped and trained, it will achieve at 90 azimuth. These responses can be derived separately for
comparable daily production rates to that which uses a simple each azimuth by taking the 1-D response for that azimuth using
uniform design. the following equations.
In summary, we can design 1-D arrays for 2-D seismic sur- For odd number of elements, we have



veys using uniform arrays of minimal number of elements as
m

building blocks for the convolutional process. We add their
g + 2 gi cos(2i dk)



0
responses in decibels to match a desired response of pass and


= 20 log



i=1
R(dk)

reject characteristics in the spatial frequency domain. We can

 m


achieve this by manipulating the notch positions of these com-
g0 + gi

ponent arrays (varying the spacing of elements) to interfere
i=1


with the other component arrays in order to affect attenuation  
N1
of resulting side lobes as needed. Once the desired optimum m= , (3)
in pass and reject characteristics is achieved in the spatial fre- 2
quency domain and knowing the attributes of all the compo- and for even number of elements, we have

m

nent arrays, we proceed to construct the total array in space



2 gi cos{(2i 1)dk}


by the spatial convolution of these component arrays. Such a


i=1

= 20 log



process can be extended into the domain of 2-D arrays for 3-D
R(dk)

and 4-D seismic surveys.
m



gi


i=1


2-D ARRAY DESIGN
 
N
As seismic acquisition moves from two dimensions to three, m= , (4)
from 1-D to 2-D arrays, we can not reasonably expect that 2

FIG. 8. Array response of a square of four elements. The response is in decibels as indicated by the color in the domains of azimuth
angle and spatial frequency. A single slice along the wavenumber axis at 90 is shown in the upper part of the gure.
1200
where R(dk) is the response as the function of the dimension-
less (dk) domain, g0 is the center weight, gi are the weights of
elements from center outward, N is the total number of ele-
ments in the array, d is the spacing of elements, and k is the
spatial frequency in wavenumbers.
A convenient display of results is a 3-D display where the
x-axis is the wavenumber, the y-axis is the azimuth, and the
z-axis is the response amplitude in color. We will examine re-
sponses with respect to the main lobe, which is the passband,
and the side lobes, which usually represent the rejectband.
These uniform arrays can be of simple geometry like a square
of four elements, a parallelogram, a hexagon, and so on. Fig-
ure 9 shows some of these examples with the corresponding
responses. These fundamental building blocks may or may not
be symmetrical along all azimuths. If they are not, the convolu-
tion must take spatial phase response into consideration. The
pentagon and the triangle are examples of arrays with nonsym-
metrical characteristics along azimuths. Initially, we should use
symmetrical and uniform arrays, such as the square, the rectan-
gle, the cross, and the hexagon. Since they are symmetrical, the
spatial phase response for these will be zero for all azimuths.
Their amplitude responses can be derived and shown for all
azimuths in a 3-D plot of spatial frequency, amplitude, and
azimuth.
We will start with the square of four elements. We can con-
volve this uniform array by itself. The resultant array will be
a 4 4 = 16 elements array. Similarly to the 1-D case, further
convolution of this kind will increase attenuation on the lobes
and around the notches, but will leave the lobe and notch posi-
tions unchanged. This type of array will be centrally weighted
with uniform spacing of elements. Figure 10 shows responses
of this type of convolution.
We can convolve the square of four elements with another
square of four, which has spacing that is half of the rst one.
The resultant array will be a 4 4 = 16 elements array. Some
FIG. 9. Samples of some basic 2-D uniform arrays with 90 slice-responses.
Kerekes
notches will fall on lobes, and we will obtain lobe attenuation.
This type of convolution process will yield uniform square ar-
rays with increased number of elements. Figure 11 shows this
type of successive convolution. Such uniform array combined
with the stacking process produces a response similar to the
popular stack array with anti-aliasing reliance on the stack
(Anstey, 1986). A more effective anti-aliasing can be achieved
by the use of tapered arrays (Kerekes, 1997).
We can convolve the square of four elements with another
square of four, which has spacing that results in optimum side
lobe attenuation close to the main lobe. The resultant array
will be a 4 4 = 16 elements array. Naturally this process can
be continued with another convolution to yield 4 4 4 = 64
elements, and so on. Figure 12 shows examples of convolution
where we varied the spacing to achieve such optimization. This
kind of optimization consists in placing the maximum attenu-
ation, which is the reject zone, next to the main lobe, which is
the pass zone.
Figure 13 compares the above-mentioned 64-element opti-
mum array with the uniform equivalent. The actual attenua-
tion achieved by this 64-element, wide-azimuth, 2-D array is
roughly equivalent to the attenuation of an 8-element, single-
azimuth, 1-D array. It seems that if we wish to retain the
same rejectband attenuation, going from 2-D seismic surveys
to 3-D/4-D seismic surveys, from single azimuth to wide az-
imuths, we should increase the number of elements approxi-
mately by a power of two. A lesser number of elements for
3-D/4-D seismic surveys will likely compromise attenuation,
azimuthal distribution or both.
We can also convolve squares with rectangles, triangles,
pentagons, and hexagons of different spacing. Such con-
volution offers increased versatility for the total number of
elements, but the process of optimization becomes increasingly
difcult and azimuthal distribution will likely become nar-
row. Lets look at two options of convolution with the hexagon.
 Seismic Array Design by Spatial Convolution 1201

FIG. 10. Successive spatial convolution of identical square arrays. The number and position of the side lobes
remain constant while the attenuation of the reject zone increases.

FIG. 11. Successive spatial convolution of square arrays where the spacing of the second array is half of the rst
array. The results yield uniformly spaced arrays along the 90 slice.
1202 Kerekes

FIG. 12. Spatial convolution of square arrays where the spacing have been arranged such that side lobe attenuation
is progressively maximized near the main lobe. Based upon the assumption that most harmful interference is
located near the passband represented by the main lobe, this process is considered optimum for any particular
case.

FIG. 13. Comparison of the uniform and optimized arrays. The signicant difference is that the uniform array
reaches maximum attenuation of side lobes away from the main lobe, whereas the optimized array attenuates
side lobes in the immediate vicinity of the main lobe.
 Seismic Array Design by Spatial Convolution 1203

Figure 14 shows the combined results. The middle image shows
the convolution of the rst with a second unit that has half the
spacing of the rst. If we convolve the hexagon with an identi-
cal duplicate, we get the response shown by the bottom image.
I would value the middle image more but, given certain objec-
tives, the bottom image might serve well. Everything depends
upon our requirements of passband, rejectband, attenuation,
and azimuthal uniformity.
WIDE-AZIMUTH DESIGNS
Wide-azimuth arrays can be designed by a circular distri-
bution of elements. The rather popular single radius array
offers excellent azimuthal uniformity but very poor attenua-
tion. Figure 15 shows the response of a single circle together
with the 1-D equivalent of a two-element array. Given a con-
stant number of elements per array, we may increase the num-
ber of circles of differing radii to obtain increasingly bet-
ter attenuation. Such increase, however, will cost azimuthal
uniformity.
The spatial convolution technique can be very useful in the
design of multiple circles with distinctly different radii to ac-
commodate an ideal and optimum balance of attenuation and
azimuthal uniformity. Such design strategy can secure optimum
results within the usually narrow hardware limitation of ele-
ments per receiver. The radii are derived using the principles
outlined in the 1-D array designs to seek the best t to a given
pass and reject requirement. Figure 16 shows an example of a
two-circle design with the 1-D equivalent of a four-element ar-
ray (upper right). Figure 17 shows an example of a three-circle
design with the 1-D equivalent of a six-element array (upper-
left). Figure 18 shows an example of a four-circle design with
the 1-D equivalent of an eight-element array (upper left). In all
of these cases in Figures 1618, the 1-D equivalent is designed
to yield side-lobe attenuation near the main lobe.
Contrast is shown on Figure 19 depicting the response of a
single-circle and an optimized four-circle array, both limited
to a total of 24 elements per receiver. The single-circle array
has good azimuthal uniformity and poor attenuation. The four-
circle array has poor azimuthal uniformity but good attenua-
tion. Increasing the number of elements per array will likely
increase attenuation, azimuthal uniformity, or both.
NARROW-AZIMUTH DESIGNS
Narrow-azimuth arrays may be adequate and even desirable
for certain 3-D/4-D seismic prospects where the emphasis is in
the strike direction. Midpoint consistency for stacking requires
nondipping reectors, more so if reection quality is poor. In
such cases, the 3-D seismic survey may be oriented predom-
inantly in the strike direction for both azimuthal and offset
distribution. Arrays, therefore, can be oriented in the same di-
rection, permitting the design for narrow azimuths. Having a
constant number of elements per array, we can increase atten-
uation by limiting the response to a certain range of azimuths.
There are a great many ways that narrow-azimuth arrays can
be designed for a given set of requirements. One of the sim-
plest designs involve the use of crossarrays. This is similar to
the previously discussed multiple and concentric circles except
that we take out the azimuths that are not required.
Figure 20 shows a cross array of six-arms, four elements per
arm, together with the corresponding response. This would be

FIG. 14. Spatial convolution of hexagon arrays. The middle response shows the case where the second arrays
spacing have been halved to achieve juxtaposing peak-to-trough. The bottom response shows the convolution of
identical arrays. According to the requirements of the exploration objectives, either could be optimum.
1204 Kerekes

FIG. 15. Response of a one-circle array. The response shown in the upper left is a 1-D reference equivalent. The middle left is the
90 slice.

FIG. 16. Response of a two-circle array. The response shown in the upper left is a 1-D reference equivalent. The middle left is the
90 slice.
 Seismic Array Design by Spatial Convolution 1205

similar to a four-circle array with about 67% of the azimuths imuths of 330 30 and 150 210 . Figure 21 shows a narrower
taken out. The six arms spread out to cover 60 , 30 of az- cross array of six-arm, four elements per arm, together with the
imuths, around the principal y-axis. Attenuation is centered corresponding response. Again, this would be similar to a four-
around the 0 , whereas the worst is at 90 azimuth. The array is circle array with about 83% of the azimuths taken out. The six
designed for good performance within 30 from its principal arms spread out to cover 30 15 of azimuths around the prin-
axis, and attenuation is optimized near the main lobe for az- cipal y-axis. Attenuation is centered around the 0 , whereas the

FIG. 17. Response of a three-circle array. The response shown in the upper left is a 1-D reference equivalent. The middle left is the
90 slice.

FIG. 18. Response of a four-circle array. The response shown in the upper left is a 1-D reference equivalent. The middle left is the
90 slice.
1206 Kerekes

FIG. 19. Comparison of the one- and four-circle arrays. As we move from wide-azimuth to narrow-azimuth
distribution, the response tends to loose azimuthal uniformity. The four-circle design in this case also shows
increased side-lobe attenuation near the main lobe.

FIG. 20. Cross array of 30 . The layout is shown on the left, and the upper right is a 0 slice along the orientation of the cross array.
 Seismic Array Design by Spatial Convolution
FIG. 21. Cross array of 15 . The layout is shown on the left, and the upper right is a 0 slice along the orientation of the cross array.
worst is at 90 azimuth. The array is designed for good perfor-
mance within 15 from its principal axis, and attenuation is
optimized near the main lobe for azimuths of 345 15 and
165 195 .
Comparing the 3-D responses, it seems that the narrower the
azimuths, the greater the attenuation around the principal axis
for a given number of elements per array. Such is evidenced
by the noticeably poorer response around the 90 azimuth
for the narrower design. Elements being constant, we can
increase attenuation by limiting the response to a certain
range of azimuths. Such an array optimization process to
address a given set of conditions is not only cost-efcient, but
also paramount to best resolve the exploration objectives.
SPATIAL SAMPLING AND ARRAYS
The spatial sampling provided by the source and receiver
intervals is an integral part of array design, setting the require-
ments for anti-aliasing characteristics. Such sampling is usually
derived from the exploration objectives, the seismic velocities,
far-offsets, maximum dips to be imaged and other specics. Be-
cause we generally undersample in space due to economic lim-
itations, arrays are used to minimize the side effects of such
undersampling, particularly the effects of aliasing. Spatially
aliased seismic energy, mostly from surface waves (ground roll
and the like) is especially harmful to the integrity of 3-D/4-D
seismic data. A large bin size combined with a small circle ar-
ray, or often just a small number of bunched geophones per
group, leaves the door open for the spatially aliased and other
harmful interference. Interpolation might help smoothing the
footprints and it is relatively inexpensive in terms of cost.
In terms of signal enhancement however, a properly designed,
1207
often overlapping receiver array will always be more efcient.
Proper array design technique for 3-D/4-D seismic surveys is
not only simple and available, but should be an essential part
of every 3-D/4-D seismic survey worldwide.
CONCLUSIONS
The design technique using spatial convolution of uniform
and symmetrical arrays offers a relatively simple way to match
problems with solutions. The predictability of simple uniform
array responses is being used to facilitate such design tech-
nique. The method can be used for both 2-D and 3-D/4-D seis-
mic surveys with standard, state-of-the-art seismic equipment,
and it is limited only by the available number of elements and
spacings of the hardware. The examples shown here are in-
tended only for the illustration of the method and are prob-
ably too large to be cost-efcient today in most cases. These
examples are not in any way recommended for any particu-
lar seismic survey. However, the technique described here can
make a signicant contribution in reducing the so-called acqui-
sition footprints within the ever-expanding limits of available
hardware. As the seismic industry moves towards a better geo-
phone and more geophones per receiver station, the technique
described here can, and hopefully will, help the eld geophysi-
cist to design increasingly better arrays.
REFERENCES
Anstey, N. A., 1986, Whatever happened to ground roll: The Leading
Edge, 5, no. 12, 1921.
Kerekes, A. K., 1979, Seismic array designA practical approach: Pre-
sented at the 49th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.
1997, The stack array and the spatial alias: The Leading Edge,
16, 345348.