SAGEEP 2014 Refraction/Reflection Session Optimized interpretation of SAGEEP 2011 blind refraction data with Fresnel Volume Tomography and Plus-Minus refraction.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Conceptual Physics 11th Edition
Advertisements

Tutorial 3 Refractor assignment, Analysis, Modeling and Statics
How to import and interpret seismic refraction data using IXRefraX
Interpreting Data in IX1D v 3 – A Tutorial
IXRefraX Shootout Tutorial Interpretation of Trimmed SAGEEP 2011 “Shootout” refraction tomography data using IXRefraX © 2011 Interpex Limited.
The Asymptotic Ray Theory
Optimizing and Learning for Super-resolution
Time-Lapse Monitoring of CO2 Injection with Vertical Seismic Profiles (VSP) at the Frio Project T.M. Daley, L.R. Myer*, G.M. Hoversten and E.L. Majer.
Illumination, resolution, and incidence-angle in PSDM: A tutorial
Reflection Seismic Processing
Chicxulub revealed with new seismic and gravity data Jo Morgan, Anneka Smith, Elinor Styles, Imperial College London, UK Anusha Surendra, Penny Barton,
Near-surface Imaging at Meteor Crater, Arizona Soumya Roy, Ph. D. Student Advisor: Dr. Robert R. Stewart AGL Annual Meeting University of Houston, 2 nd.
GG450 April 22, 2008 Seismic Processing.
1 Xuyao Zheng Institute of Geophysics of CEA. 2 Outline 1.Motivation 2.Model and synthetic data 3.Calculation of Green functions 4.Pre-stack depth migration.
I. Basic Techniques in Structural Geology
Processing of Seismic Refraction Tomography Data EEGS Short Course Processing of Seismic Refraction Tomography Data SAGEEP 2010 Keystone, Colorado April.
First Arrival Traveltime and Waveform Inversion of Refraction Data Jianming Sheng and Gerard T. Schuster University of Utah October, 2002.
Wavepath Migration versus Kirchhoff Migration: 3-D Prestack Examples H. Sun and G. T. Schuster University of Utah.
Refraction Procedures Interpretation
Advanced Seismic Imaging GG 6770 Variance Analysis of Seismic Refraction Tomography Data By Travis Crosby.
Reflection Field Methods
Arbitrary Parameter Extraction, Stationary Phase Migration, and Tomographic Velocity Analysis Jing Chen University of Utah.
Key Result Seismic CAT Scan vs Trenching.
Fresnel-zone Traveltime Tomo. for INCO and Mapleton Data Fresnel-zone Traveltime Tomo. for INCO and Mapleton Data Jianming Sheng University of Utah Feb.
Applications of Time-Domain Multiscale Waveform Tomography to Marine and Land Data C. Boonyasiriwat 1, J. Sheng 3, P. Valasek 2, P. Routh 2, B. Macy 2,
Seismic refraction surveys
Waves: Phase and group velocities of a wave packet
Body Waves and Ray Theory
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics This Week: No new lab assignment… But we’ll go over the previous labs 06 Feb 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 For Fri 07 Feb:
RESOLVING FOCAL DEPTH WITH A NEAR FIELD SINGLE STATION IN SPARSE SEISMIC NETWORK Sidao Ni, State Key Laboratory of Geodesy and Earth’s Dynamics, Institute.
Chapter 36 Diffraction In Chapter 35, we saw how light beams passing through different slits can interfere with each other and how a beam after passing.
Toward urgent forecasting of aftershock hazard: Simultaneous estimation of b-value of the Gutenberg-Richter ’ s law of the magnitude frequency and changing.
Siegfried R.C. Rohdewald Intelligent Resources Inc.
Diffraction is the bending of waves around obstacles or the edges of an opening. Huygen’s Principle - Every point on a wave front acts as a source of tiny.
© 2013, PARADIGM. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Long Offset Moveout Approximation in Layered Elastic Orthorhombic Media Zvi Koren and Igor Ravve.
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 19 Feb 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 For Fri 21 Feb: Burger (§ ) Last Time: Reflection Data Processing Step.
Ch 16 Interference. Diffraction is the bending of waves around obstacles or the edges of an opening. Huygen’s Principle - Every point on a wave front.
Bryce Hutchinson & Sumit Verma
1 Wavefield Calibration Using Regional Network Data R. B. Herrmann Saint Louis University.
Velocity Estimation by Waveform Tomography in the Canadian Foothills: A Synthetic Benchmark Study Andrew J. Brenders 1 Sylvestre Charles 2 R. Gerhard Pratt.
A Blind Test of Traveltime and Waveform Inversion Colin A. Zelt 1, R. Gerhard Pratt 2, Andrew Brenders 2, Sara Hanson-Hedgecock 1 and John A. Hole 3 1.
Modeling of the sound field fluctuations due to internal waves in the shelf zone of ocean Boris G. Katsnelson Voronezh State University, Russia.
Introduction to Geophysics Ali Oncel Department of Earth Sciences KFUPM Thin Layer Effect Dipping Layer Refractions Introduction to.
RAYFRACT ® Tutorialfor Seismic Refraction Tomography Copyright © Intelligent Resources Inc. All rights reserved.
Info Read SEGY Wavelet estimation New Project Correlate near offset far offset Display Well Tie Elog Strata Geoview Hampson-Russell References Create New.
Velocity Estimation by Waveform Tomography in the Canadian Foothills: A Synthetic Benchmark Study Andrew J. Brenders 1 Sylvestre Charles 2 R. Gerhard Pratt.
Wave-Equation Waveform Inversion for Crosswell Data M. Zhou and Yue Wang Geology and Geophysics Department University of Utah.
Migration Velocity Analysis of Multi-source Data Xin Wang January 7,
Seismic Refraction Data interpretation with RAYFRACT™ Software A short overview. For more instructions, see our manual and PDF help as available on our.
Waveform tomography and non-linearity  L  38 m N s = 101 N r = 101  10 m 30 m 21 m10.5 m.
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 23 Feb 2016 Lab 3 © A.R. Lowry 2016 Seismic Reflections Next assignment due one week from now Due noon Mar 1.
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 12 Feb 2016
Lee M. Liberty Research Professor Boise State University.
I. Basic Techniques in Structural Geology Field measurements and mapping Terminology on folds and folds Stereographic projections From maps to cross-sections.
Tutorial : improving first break picks for profile SLOPE1
ABSTRACT –Basic Principles and applications
I. Basic Techniques in Structural Geology
Introduction to Seismology
R. G. Pratt1, L. Sirgue2, B. Hornby2, J. Wolfe3
Applied Geophysics Fall 2016 Umass Lowell
EEGS Short Course Processing of Seismic Refraction Tomography Data
Modeling of free-surface multiples - 2
Layer Thickness and Map Width
Steepest Descent Optimization
Volume 111, Issue 2, Pages (July 2016)
Regulation of Airway Ciliary Activity by Ca2+: Simultaneous Measurement of Beat Frequency and Intracellular Ca2+  Alison B. Lansley, Michael J. Sanderson 
Jacques JENNY Geo2X Genève
Part I: Seismic Refraction
Valerio Mante, Vincent Bonin, Matteo Carandini  Neuron 
Wave Equation Dispersion Inversion of Guided P-Waves (WDG)
Presentation transcript:

SAGEEP 2014 Refraction/Reflection Session Optimized interpretation of SAGEEP 2011 blind refraction data with Fresnel Volume Tomography and Plus-Minus refraction Siegfried R.C. Rohdewald Intelligent Resources Inc. Vancouver, British Columbia Canada

Smooth Inversion = 1D gradient initial model + 2D WET Wavepath Eikonal Traveltime tomography Top : pseudo-2D DeltatV display 1D DeltatV velocity-depth profile below each station 1D Newton search for each layer velocity too low below anticlines velocity too high below synclines based on synthetic times for Broad Epikarst model (Sheehan, 2005a, Fig. 1). Bottom : 1D-gradient initial model generated from top by lateral averaging of velocities minimum-structure initial model DeltatV artefacts are completely removed Get minimum-structure 1D gradient initial model :

2D WET Wavepath Eikonal Traveltime inversion rays that arrive within half period of fastest ray : t SP + t PR – t SR <= 1 / 2f (Sheehan, 2005a, Fig. 2) nonlinear 2D optimization with steepest descent, to determine model update for one wavepath SIRT back-projection step, along wave paths instead of rays natural WET smoothing with wave paths (Schuster 1993, Watanabe 1999) partial modeling of finite frequency wave propagation partial modeling of diffraction, around low-velocity areas WET parameters sometimes need to be adjusted, to avoid artefacts see RAYFRACT.HLP help file Fresnel volume or wave path approach :

Interpretation with Plus-Minus refraction method (PMR) Assign traces to 3 layers : weathering layer, overburden layer, basement. See next slide. Velocity and thickness of weathering layer determined with slope-intercept, between adjacent shot points. Model can vary laterally. Velocity of overburden layer also determined with slope-intercept method Bottom of overburden layer (top of basement) determined with Plus-Minus refraction (PMR) Velocity of basement from PMR

Semi-automatic mapping of traces to refractors  yellow is weathering layer, red is overburden layer, green is basement  mapping is not required for Smooth inversion. Station spacing is 3m.  specify 1D velocity model : upper velocity limits for weathering, 1 st refractor  specify lateral and vertical smoothing of CMP-sorted traveltime field  map traces to refractors by matching apparent velocity to 1D velocity model  lateral smoothing of crossover distance, after mapping to refractors

Plus-Minus refraction interpretation  basement velocity dips to below 2,000 m/s at station no. 63  this hints at a basement fault zone, dip of fault is not visible  lateral smoothing of refractors, for Plus-Minus method (Hagedoorn, 1959)  overburden refractor colored blue, basement refractor colored black

1D initial model : smooth DeltatV inversion

WET with Ricker wavelet weighting e) 7 th run, 6 th run as starting model, wavepath width 3%, 100 WET iterations, RMS error 0.6% Figure 1: WET with wavepath velocity update weighted with a Ricker wavelet (a) 1D-gradient starting model, (b) velocity tomogram obtained with wavepath width 30%, (c) 10%, (d) 5%, (e) 3%. Color scale is velocity in m/s. Contour interval is 250 m/s. Horizontal axis is offset from first profile receiver, in m. Vertical axis is elevation in m. Overburden Plus-Minus refractor is colored cyan, basement refractor colored orange. These two refractors are the same in (b) through (e). See Figure 4. Wavepath width 30%, 100 Iterations Wavepath width 10%, 100 Iterations Wavepath width 5%, 100 Iterations Wavepath width 3%, 100 Iterations

WET with Gaussian weighting Wavepath width 30%, 100 Iterations Wavepath width 10%, 100 Iterations Wavepath width 5%, 100 Iterations Wavepath width 3%, 100 Iterations

Wavepath coverage for Ricker weighting Wavepath width 30%, 100 Iterations Wavepath width 10%, 100 Iterations Wavepath width 5%, 100 Iterations Wavepath width 3%, 100 Iterations

Discussion Wide wavepaths (low frequency) make WET inversion less dependent on the starting model and more robust but produce a smooth tomogram Narrow wavepaths can give a sharper tomogram, but WET becomes more dependent on the starting model (previous run) and less robust WET images the dipping low-velocity fault zone (Zelt et al., 2013) more realistically with iteratively decreasing wavepath width Contours for velocity 2,500 m/s and higher velocities become more parallel to the fault zone, which dips down to the right (towards offset 250m at elevation of -80m). Thin wavepaths make WET tomography more prone to generating artefacts, especially with bad or noisy first break picks and strong refractor curvature.

Conclusions Plotting 1.5D Plus-Minus refractors on the WET tomogram allows interactive adaptation of parameters, until the layered analysis matches the 2D velocity tomogram Layered refraction modeling is non-unique and subjective due to mapping of traces to assumed refractors and lateral smoothing, necessary for refractor velocity estimation and time-to-depth conversion WET interpretation depends on the maximum allowed basement velocity, which may not be well-constrained by the first break picks Gaussian weighting can produce more focused tomograms for wide wavepaths than Ricker weighting Tomograms obtained with an iterative approach of wavepath adjustment show improvement compared to the standard ray-based approach.