Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byBonnie Garrett Modified over 9 years ago
1
LEAST SQUARES DATUMING AND SURFACE WAVES PREDICTION WITH INTERFEROMETRY Yanwei Xue Department of Geology & Geophysics University of Utah 1
2
OUTLINE VSP to SWP VSP surface related multiple to SSP Surface waves prediction and subtraction Summary 2
3
OUTLINE VSP to SWP Motivation Theory Numerical Results Conclusion 3
4
Why least squares datuming? Ideal case for datumimg Single ray-path 4
5
Why least squares datuming? Real case for datumimg Multi ray-path 5
6
OUTLINE VSP to SWP Motivation Theory Numerical Results Conclusion 6
7
7 Two state model State 1State 2 S S1S1 S0S0 8 B x S1S1 S 8 x A
8
8 State 1State 2 S1S1 S 8 x A S1S1 S0S0 8 B x
9
9 State 1State 2 S1S1 S 8 x A S1S1 S0S0 8 B x
10
OUTLINE VSP to SWP Motivation Theory Numerical Results Conclusion 10
11
11 Velocity Model Sources at surface: [-1500:15:1500] Receiver at datum: [0] v=1500 m/s, d=500 m v=2000 m/s, d=800 m v=2500 m/s, d=1200 m v=3000 m/s
12
Interferometric datuming with direct waves 0 2.0 -2.02.0 Time (s) Offset (Km) S.I 0 2.0 -2.02.0 Time (s) Offset (Km) L.S.I 0 2.0 -2.02.0 Time (s) Offset (Km) Ideal 12
13
Interferometric datuming with down-going waves 0 2.0 -2.02.0 Time (s) Offset (Km) S.I 0 2.0 -2.02.0 Time (s) Offset (Km) L.S.I 0 2.0 -2.02.0 Time (s) Offset (Km) Ideal 13
14
Limited acquisition aperture problem 14
15
L.S. Interferometric datuming with direct waves 0 5.2 -4.04.0 Time (s) Offset (Km) 15
16
L.S. Interferometric datuming with down-going waves 0 5.2 -4.04.0 Time (s) Offset (Km) 16
17
Difference between full&partial G’s function 0 5.2 -4.04.0 Time (s) Offset (Km) 17
18
OUTLINE VSP to SWP Motivation Theory Numerical Results Conclusion 18
19
Conclusion Least squares interferometric datuming with up-down going wavefields separation can provides datumed results without reflection from the structures above the datum line. Factors affect results: –Quality of up-down going separation; –Quality of acquisition geometry. 19
20
OUTLINE VSP to SWP VSP surface related multiple to SSP Surface waves prediction and subtraction Summary 20
21
OUTLINE VSP to SSP Motivation Theory Numerical Results Synthetic data test Field data test Conclusion 21
22
Shot radius Z 3D VSP Survey 22
23
OUTLINE VSP to SSP Motivation Theory Numerical Results Synthetic data test Field data test Conclusion 23
24
24 Two state model State 1State 2 S0S0 S1S1 S1S1 S 8 S 8 A xx B
25
25 State 1State 2 S0S0 S1S1 S1S1 S 8 S 8 A xx B
26
26 State 1State 2 S0S0 S1S1 S1S1 S 8 S 8 A xx B
27
27 Downgoing Multiples sx1x1 x2x2 R1R1 R2R2 s x1x1 x2x2 R1R1 R2R2 d1d1 d2d2 h
28
28 Upgoing Multiples 28 sx1x1 x2x2 R1R1 R2R2 s x1x1 x2x2 R1R1 R2R2
29
29 Comments Increase order of multiples, illumination area goes away from the well The deeper the reflectors, the narrower the illumination area. The illumination area goes closer to the well.
30
OUTLINE VSP to SSP Motivation Theory Numerical Results Synthetic data test Virtual source close to well. Virtual source far from well. Field data test Conclusion 30
31
31 0 4000 0 3-layer Velocity Model
32
32 Real SSPSI SSP 0 10 0 350 Time (s) Offset (Km) 0 10 0 350 Time (s) Offset (Km) Primaries Artifacts
33
33 Real SSPLSI SSP of Downgoing 0 10 0 350 Time (s) Offset (Km) 0 10 0 350 Time (s) Offset (Km) Primaries
34
34 Real SSPLSI SSP of Upgoing 0 10 0 350 Time (s) Offset (Km) 0 10 0 350 Time (s) Offset (Km) Primaries
35
35 Real SSPCorrected LSI SSP 0 10 0 350 Time (s) Offset (Km) 0 10 0 350 Time (s) Offset (Km) Primaries
36
primaries multiples 36
37
primaries multiples 37
38
primaries multiples 38
39
OUTLINE VSP to SSP Motivation Theory Numerical Results Synthetic data test Virtual source close to well. Virtual source far from well. Field data test Conclusion 39
40
40 Real SSPSI SSP 0 10 0 750 Time (s) Offset (Km) 0 10 0 750 Time (s) Offset (Km) Primaries Artifacts
41
41 Real SSPLSI SSP of Downgoing 0 10 0 750 Time (s) Offset (Km) 0 10 0 750 Time (s) Offset (Km) Primaries
42
42 Real SSPLSI SSP of Upgoing 0 10 0 750 Time (s) Offset (Km) 0 10 0 750 Time (s) Offset (Km) Primaries
43
43 Real SSPCorrected LSI SSP 0 10 0 750 Time (s) Offset (Km) 0 10 0 750 Time (s) Offset (Km) Primaries
44
Left side primaries multiples 44
45
Left side primaries multiples 45
46
Left side primaries multiples 46
47
Middle primaries multiples 47
48
Middle primaries multiples 48
49
Middle primaries multiples 49
50
Right side primaries multiples 50
51
Right side primaries multiples 51
52
Right side primaries multiples 52
53
OUTLINE VSP to SSP Motivation Theory Numerical Results Synthetic data test Virtual source close to well. Virtual source far from well. Field data test Conclusion 53
54
Standard Interferometric SSP 0 0.6 5500 Time (s) offset (ft) S.I (Down) 0 0.6 5500 Time (s) Offset (ft) S.I (up) 0 0.6 6000 Time (s) Offset (ft) Reference 54
55
L.S. Interferometric SSP 0 0.6 5500 Time (s) Offset (ft) L.S.I (Down) 0 0.6 5500 Time (s) Offset (ft) L.S.I (up) 0 0.6 6000 Time (s) Offset (ft) Reference 55
56
Real SSPCorrected LSI SSP 0 0.6 550 0 Time (s) Offset (ft) 0 0.6 600 0 Time (s) Offset (ft) 56
57
OUTLINE VSP to SSP Motivation Theory Numerical Results Conclusion 57
58
Conclusion Least squares interferometric VSP to SSP transform can attenuate the surface related multiples and crosstalk artifacts. A matching filter correction can attenuate more artifacts caused by limited acquisition geometry. Problem: –Non-surface related multiples may cause artifacts. 58
59
OUTLINE VSP to SWP VSP surface related multiple to SSP Surface waves prediction and subtraction Summary 59
60
OUTLINE Surface Wave Prediction 2D problem 3D problem 60
61
OUTLINE Surface Wave Prediction (2D) Motivation Methodology Field data Conclusion 61
62
Problem: Surface waves blur the seismogram. d 0 2.0 7200 Time (s) Receiver (m) A seismogram with surface waves and reflection data = d surf Surface waves +d ref Reflection waves 62
63
Solution: Filter the surface waves by NLF and Interferometric method 63
64
OUTLINE Surface Wave Prediction (2D) Motivation Methodology Field data test Conclusion 64
65
Prediction of Surface Waves Mid-Offset Surf. Wave Near-Offset Surf. Wave 65
66
The work flow Filter the surface waves by NLF Predict the residual and primaries by interferometry Predict the surface waves by NLF or wavelet transform Surface waves are removed completely? Least square subtraction Output data No Input data d Yes Lowpass filter 66
67
OUTLINE Surface Wave Prediction (2D) Motivation Methodology Field data test Conclusion 67
68
0 2.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) d 0 2.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) The original data from Saudi Remove surface waves only by NLF 68
69
0 2.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) 0 2.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) Remove surface waves only by NLF Remove surface waves Int.+NLF 69
70
0 2.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) d02.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) The original data from Saudi Remove surface waves Int.+NLF 70
71
0 2.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) 0 2.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) Surface waves predicted by NLF Remaining SW predicted by Int.+NLF 71
72
0 2.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) 0 2.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) Remove surface waves by F-K Remove surface waves by Int.+NLF 72
73
0 2.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) 0 2.0 0 3600 Time (s) Receiver (m) Surface waves predicted by F-K Surface waves predicted by Int.+NLF 73
74
OUTLINE Surface Wave Prediction (2D) Motivation Methodology Field data test Conclusion 74
75
The NLF+interferometry method can remove the surface waves successfully. The NLF+interferometry method can keep more details than the fk method. The NLF+interferometry method can remove surface waves with very low energy. 75
76
OUTLINE Surface Wave Prediction 2D problem 3D problem 76
77
OUTLINE Surface Wave Prediction (3D) Motivation Methodology Field data test Conclusion 77
78
Problem: No perfect geometry for 3D interferometry Solution: Convert the 3D problem to 2D problem 78
79
0 4.0 Time (s) 5000 Receiver (m) 0 A 3D seismic data with surface waves Nonlinear moveout Highly aliased 79
80
OUTLINE Surface Wave Prediction (3D) Motivation Methodology Field data test Conclusion 80
81
d x Sqrt(d^2+x^2) Shift(x)={Sqrt(d^2+x^2)-x}/v nonlinear moveoutlinear moveout time shift 81
82
Original data Time (s) receiver (m) surface wave Shifted data Time (s) receiver (m) Time Shift Linearized moveout Predicted surface waves Time (s) receiver (m) NLF+Interferometry predicted surface wave Predicted reflections Time (s) receiver (m) Match filter Predicted reflections 82
83
The work flow Predict the residual and primaries by interferometry Predict the surface waves by NLF or wavelet transform Surface waves are removed completely? Least square subtraction No Filter the surface waves by NLF Time shift d to make the surface waves linear moveout Input data d Output data Yes Lowpass filter 83
84
OUTLINE Surface Wave Prediction (3D) Motivation Methodology Field data test Conclusion 84
85
Line8 before and after removing surface waves 0 4.0 Time (s) 0 5000Receiver (m) 0 4.0 Time (s) 0 5000Receiver (m) 85
86
Line9 before and after removing surface waves 0 4.0 Time (s) 0 5000Receiver (m) 0 4.0 Time (s) 0 5000Receiver (m) 86
87
Line10 before and after removing surface waves 0 4.0 Time (s) 0 5000Receiver (m) 0 4.0 Time (s) 0 5000Receiver (m) 87
88
Line11 before and after removing surface waves 0 4.0 Time (s) 0 5000Receiver (m) 0 4.0 Time (s) 0 5000Receiver (m) 88
89
Line12 before and after removing surface waves 0 4.0 Time (s) 0 5000Receiver (m) 0 4.0 Time (s) 0 5000Receiver (m) 89
90
OUTLINE Surface Wave Prediction (3D) Motivation Methodology Field data test Conclusion 90
91
The nonlinear time shift can make a nonlinear event a linear event.The nonlinear time shift can make a nonlinear event a linear event. The linear shift can weaken the aliasing problemThe linear shift can weaken the aliasing problem After the nolinear and linear shift, the 2D surface waves elimination technique can be apply on the 3D data.After the nolinear and linear shift, the 2D surface waves elimination technique can be apply on the 3D data. This technique solves 3D interferometry geometry problem.This technique solves 3D interferometry geometry problem. 91
92
problems The angle between the signal events and the noise event are too small. It will be not easy for the nonlinear local filter to choose the noise from signal Both the signal events and the noise event are nearly linear. They share the same stationary phase points and this leads to a low contrast of signal/noise in the interferometry and make it difficult to separate the noise from the data 92
93
OUTLINE VSP to SWP VSP surface related multiple to SSP Surface waves prediction and subtraction Summary 93
94
Summary Wavefield decomposition improves the interferometric results. Least squares interferometric scheme can attenuate surface related multiples and crosstalk artifacts. Matching filter help to improve interferometric prediction results 94
95
Future Work Apply LSD to target oriented RTM Up-down going wavefields separation for complicated medium 3D data test on least squares interferometric techniques 95
96
Acknowledgements My supervisory committee: Ronanld L. Bruhn, Hugues Djikpesse, Richard D. Jarrard, and Michael S. Thorne My wife Jing and my Son Daniel My advisor: Gerard T. Schuster My UTAM colleagues and my other friends 96
97
Thank you 97
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.