Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Bulletin427 89-91

    Uploaded by

    crazybear
    This document discusses the common depth point (CDP) and common offset (CO) techniques for shallow reflection seismics. It explains that CDP provides better signal-to-noise but can poorly define shallow reflectors due to time stretching, while CO requires less processing but has lower signal-to-noise. The document presents examples from Norway comparing CDP and CO records from the same data, showing how CO better images shallow reflectors. It concludes that combined use of CDP and CO from multichannel data provides more information than either technique alone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bulletin427 89-91

    Uploaded by

    crazybear
    13 views3 pages
    This document discusses the common depth point (CDP) and common offset (CO) techniques for shallow reflection seismics. It explains that CDP provides better signal-to-noise but can poorly define shallow reflectors due to time stretching, while CO requires less processing but has lower signal-to-noise. The document presents examples from Norway comparing CDP and CO records from the same data, showing how CO better images shallow reflectors. It concludes that combined use of CDP and CO from multichannel data provides more information than either technique alone.

    Original Description:

    depth point and common offset techniques in shallow reflection seismics.

    Original Title

    Bulletin427_89-91

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the common depth point (CDP) and common offset (CO) techniques for shallow reflection seismics. It explains that CDP provides better signal-to-noise but can poorly define shallow reflectors due to time stretching, while CO requires less processing but has lower signal-to-noise. The document presents examples from Norway comparing CDP and CO records from the same data, showing how CO better images shallow reflectors. It concludes that combined use of CDP and CO from multichannel data provides more information than either technique alone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    13 views3 pages

    Bulletin427 89-91

    Uploaded by

    crazybear
    This document discusses the common depth point (CDP) and common offset (CO) techniques for shallow reflection seismics. It explains that CDP provides better signal-to-noise but can poorly define shallow reflectors due to time stretching, while CO requires less processing but has lower signal-to-noise. The document presents examples from Norway comparing CDP and CO records from the same data, showing how CO better images shallow reflectors. It concludes that combined use of CDP and CO from multichannel data provides more information than either technique alone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Eirik Mauring & Jan Steinar Ranning

    NGU - BULL 427, 1995

    89

    Combined use of common depth point and common offset


    techniques in shallow reflection seismics
    EIRIK MAURING & JAN STEINAR R0 NNING

    Eirik Mauring & Jan Steinar Rann ing, Norges geologiske underseketse, P.O.Box 3006-Lade, 7002 Trondheim, Norway.

    Introd uction
    The application of high-resolution shallow reflection seismics is dependent on the ability of the
    near-surface material to propagate high-frequency seismic energy in the 100-500 Hz range. In
    overburden, this is normally encountered in areas with a high water-table and fine-grained surface materials (Hunter et al. 1984). Under these
    conditions, reflectors at depths of ten to several
    hundred metres can be mapped. Over the last
    ten years equipment has been developed to
    transmit and record high-frequency seismic
    energy using in-hole shotguns, high-frequency
    geophones and digital seismographs with a high
    dynamic range. The method has become more
    cost-effective through the introduction of the

    The common depth point and common offset techniques

    Ground ro ll Airwave

    1&

    Choos ing the optimum window

    ....o
    2

    microcomputer for data acquisition and processing. High-resolution shallow reflection seismics
    can now be successfully applied to geological,
    engineering and environmental problems (e.g.
    Meekes et al. 1990, Pullan & Hunter 1990, Miller
    & Steeples 1994). The most commonly applied
    shallow reflection seismic techniques are common offset (CO) (or optimum offset) (Hunter et
    al. 1984) and common depth point (COP). In this
    contribution we discuss the pros and cons of
    both methods. We also show how CO-data can
    be derived from data recorded with the COP
    technique and how CO- and COP-data both can
    be used in the interpretation of reflection seismic
    time sections.

    Offset " ,

    Optimum window

    Fig. 1. Common events on a wal kaway noise test reco rd.

    A seismic time section is shown in Fig. 1 (from


    Hunter et al. 1988). The section was recorded as
    a walkaway noise test (Knapp & Steeples 1986).
    The optimum window (Hunter et al. 1984) is the
    horizontal range in which reflectors of interest
    can be viewed with a minimum of noise interference. To reduce the amount of surgical muting,
    the left (near-offset) side of the window is chosen
    so that noise events from surface waves (ground
    roll and ground-coupled airwaves) arrive after
    the reflections from the deepest target of interest. There are several factors governing the
    choice of the right (far-offset) side of the window;
    (1) reflections from shallow targets will interfere
    with the direct wave or refractions at great offsets; (2) reflections from shallow targets will be
    wide-angle and suffer from phase- and amplitude
    changes according to the Zoeppritz equations
    (Pullan & Hunter 1985); (3) apparent low frequency pulses and loss of resolution will be the
    result after time stretching from NMO corrections
    (see below) of wide-angle reflections.
    From the points listed above, it is obvious that
    the choice of the position of the right side of the
    optimum window will affect the definition of shallow reflectors.

    90

    Eirik Mauring & Jan Steinar Ronning

    GU BULL 427. 1995

    -' .

    Profile
    directio n

    Reflector
    Co verage for
    eaeh record

    I I I I 1 I 11 I I1 111 111 1111111111 I

    I I

    Hi~~ge

    Fig. 2. Common depth point profiling.

    I 2 3 4 5 6
    f

    <.':" ." \
    '-': ', "
    " ,

    '\

    \
    \

    .... . ,' ,\\ \


    '\

    k
    " .: '

    I /'

    '\

    '. ". ,

    '

    , ".. ~,.... ,

    I / , ' ., .:'

    // ~: ~ : :- .

    -, ~:~ ,\ \

    /f:~: "

    .: .~. ~\
    "

    Fig. 3. Example of source-receiver configurations in a CDP


    gather.

    into COP gathers (Fig. 3). Prior to stac king the


    traces in the COP gathers, one has to perform
    normal mov e-out (NMO) correction. This correction has the effect of moving the source and
    receiver to the location directly above the reflection 'point'. The correction is dynam ic, and its
    magnit ude is depe ndent on source-rec eiver offset, two-way trave ltime to a reflector and the
    seism ic velocity of the medium above a reflector.
    Velocit ies can be found by performing velocity
    analysis on COP gathers . The NMO correct ion
    involves time stretching that becomes severe at
    large offsets and for shallow reflectors. Thus,
    shallow reflectors won't stack or they become illdefined and blurred. To be able to record both
    shallow and deep reflectors with a minimum of
    surgical muting, the optimum window can be quite narrow, and the produc tion rate becomes
    small.
    The extraction of common offset (CO) data
    from multichannel records allows us to broaden
    the optimum window . By doing so, there will be
    noise from surfa ce waves on the near-offset traces late on the COP record that can be removed
    by surg ical muting. CO-data can be assembled
    by picking the same channel from subsequent
    COP records . CO can also be carried out as a
    stand -alone acquisition technique as shown in
    Fig. 4. Depth conversion of CO records is nonlinear.

    Common of fset

    Pros and cons of the COP and CO


    techn iques

    >1

    4
    a

    Fig. 4. Common offset profiling.

    Short outline of the COP and CO


    techn iques
    When conduct ing a COP seismic reflection survey, it is ideal to place all receivers equal spaced
    in-line inside the optimum window . Once having
    found the appropriate source -and-receiver spacing and the offset from source to the near-offset
    receiver, a COP survey can be conducted acco rding to Fig. 2. The recorded traces are sorted

    Whi le the COP technique requires cost- and


    time-consum ing processing , very little proces sing is needed with the CO technique , allowing
    the user to quic kly obtain a picture of the subsurface without having to first determine its velocity
    structure . Oata acquis ition efficiency is quite
    similar for the two techn iques. Oue to multifold
    coverage of subsurface reflectors , the signal-tonoise ratio is better with the COP techn ique.
    Shallow reflectors are often ill-defined with the
    COP technique due to large offsets and wideangle reflections. The definition of shallow reflectors can in some cases be improved by performing amplitude versus offset (AVO) analysis to
    reduce move-out errors (Ursin & Ekren in press).

    Examples of COP and CO records


    The first example is from Vigra, western Norway.
    The objective of the survey was to map bedrock
    topography. Fig. 5 shows the COP record (left)
    and the CO record. The records are derived from
    the same multichanne l records . Recording time
    is 100 ms, distance from source to the near-offset receiver is 20 m and the receive r spacing is 4

    Eirik Mauring & Jan Steinar Ronning

    NGU BULL 427. 1995

    spacing is 5 m. The records are dominated by


    horizontal reflectors, probably representing layered sand/silt (according to Riis, 1992). The event
    at 105-110 ms is the bedrock reflector. Events
    between 20 and 30 ms on the COP record appear low-frequent and incoherent due to NMO time
    stretching. Shallow reflectors can more reliably
    be detected on the CO record. In the example, a
    weak overburde n reflector can be observed at
    about 30 ms (indicated by arrows).

    " .,. ... u .. ' '' f

    11

    ~ II

    Nil

    11
    I

    11

    I~

    za

    .[

    30

    J)

    4 1\

    ~
    ~ 50
    w 60 _
    J:
    ;: 70

    t
    t

    Bil

    se

    Conclusions

    lee
    Fig. 5. COP (left) and CO records derived from the same multichannel records . Arrows denote bedrock reflector.

    m. The CO record was assembled by picking the


    first trace from each multichannel record. The
    example illustrates the problem with shallow
    reflectors on COP records. The shallow bedrock
    reflector on the CO record (indicated by arrows)
    cannot be recognised on the COP record due to
    NMO time stretching and far-offset interference
    with direct/refracted waves.
    The second example is from Haslemoen,
    southeastern Norway. The objective of the survey was to delineate intra-alluvial structures. Fig.
    6 shows the COP record (left) and the corresponding CO record, illustrating the better signal-tonoise ratio that can be achieved with the COP
    technique. Recording time is 300 ms (only a part
    of the record is shown). Distance from source to
    the near-offset receiver is 10 m and the receiver

    50

    50

    100

    0
    10
    2B
    40
    60
    "....

    lI\

    '" a 0
    w

    !
    .

    ;-

    J:

    0-

    91

    10B
    120
    14B

    Fig. 6. COP (left) and CO records derived from the same multichannel records. Arrows denote shallow , overb urden reflect or.

    COP- and CO-data can both be derived from


    multichannel records. While COP-data offer a
    higher signal-to-noise ratio than CO, it is shown
    that using only COP-data can give poor resolution of very shallow reflectors. In the interpretation
    of seismic reflection data the combined use of
    COP- and CO-data has proven to give more
    information than by using either COP- or COdata.
    Ackno wledgements
    The authors wish to than k Drs, Bo H. Jacobsen, Ole B. Lile and
    Mark A. Smethurst for reviewing this paper.

    References
    Hunter, JA , Pullan, S.E., Burns, RA , Gagne, R.M. &
    Good, R.C. 1984: Shallow seismic reflection mapping of the overburden-bedrock interface with the
    engineering seismograph - some simple techniques. Geophysics 49, 1381-1385.
    Hunter, JA, Pullan, S.E. & Higgins, R. 1988:
    Geometrics short course on shallow seismic reflection for engineering and geotechnical studies.
    Unpublished course notes.
    Knapp, R.W. & Steeples, D.W. 1986: High resolution
    common-depth-point reflection profiling: Field
    acquisition parameter design. Geophysics 51 , 283294.
    Meekes, JA C., Scheffers, B.C. & Ridder, J. 1990:
    Optimization of high-resolution seismic reflection
    parameters for hydrogeological investigations in the
    Netherlands. First break 8, July 1990 , 263-270.
    Miller, RD. & Steeples, D.W. 1994: Applications of
    shallow high-resolution seismic reflection to various
    environmental problems. Journ. Appl . Geophys . 3t ,
    65-72.
    Pullan, S.E. & Hunter, JA 1985: Seismic model studies of the overburden-bedrock reflection. Geophysics 50 ,1 684-1688 .
    Pullan, S.E. & Hunter, JA 1990: Delineation of buried
    bedrock valleys using the optimum offset shallow
    seismic reflection technique. In Ward, S.H. (ed.),
    Geotechnical and environmental geophysics , vollll:
    Soc. Expl. Geophys., 75-88.
    Riis, V. 1992: Avsetningsmodell og hydrog eologi av
    Haslemoen. Cand. Scient. Thesis, Univ. Oslo, 168
    pp.
    Ursin, B. & Ekren, B.O. in press: Robust AVO analysis.
    Geophys ics.

    You might also like