Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2022) 12:3021–3031

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-022-01461-w

ORIGINAL PAPER-EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS

Evaluation of 3D seismic survey design parameters through ray‑trace

modeling and seismic illumination studies: a case study
M Nagendra Babu1 · Baruneswar Baskey1 · Venkata Giri Thota1 · Sansar Singh2

Received: 16 June 2021 / Accepted: 13 January 2022 / Published online: 13 April 2022
© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
This paper describes a case study of wavefront construction-based ray-trace modeling to access the 3D seismic exploration
parameters that significantly impact achieving the exploration target in seismic data acquisition. The traditional methods
assessment is based on the horizontal reflector concept, which does not consider the subsurface's inhomogeneities. This
case study provides a methodology by considering the effect of subsurface variations on the estimation of seismic survey
parameters. As the first step in this methodology, an elastic earth model is created to propagate theoretical seismic rays
from a 3D seismic survey to generate seismic ray properties. Then illumination maps and synthetic seismic sections are
generated from these seismic ray attributes to evaluate seismic survey performance in seismic imaging targets. The results
proved that the method helps estimate seismic survey efficiencies in seismic target imaging. Therefore, the ray-trace mod-
eling methodology can help obtain the target fold coverage in complex geological settings by designing and verifying the
seismic survey parameters.

Keywords  3D Seismic survey design · CMP Fold · Ray-trace attributes · Illumination maps · Wavefront construction ·
Seismic ray-trace attributes

Introduction information requirements to image the target depth (Le et al.

2019).
Seismic data are one of the essential tools for identifying For few decades, the seismic method has been used to
hydrocarbon reserves and developing reservoirs because explore reservoirs by mapping the structural and strati-
of its spatial continuity nature (Nwaezeapu et al. 2019). A graphic information. The seismic reflection technique uses
seismic reflection survey is required to obtain the seismic a receiver network to record their refraction/reflection
data to understand the subsurface's structure and stratigraphy arrivals due to impedance variation distribution as elastic
(Hart 1999). For decades, the oil and gas industry has been waves propagate through the ground. Last few decades, 3D
using this seismic reflection technology to identify different seismic surveys have become an essential tool in exploring
prospects and ideal places for drilling wells for production and exploiting hydrocarbons. In the late 1970s, the first 3D
(Yao et al. 2018). The seismic survey begins with a geosci- seismic surveys were carried out but became widespread in
entist's quest to image subsurface features. These require- the early 1900s (Stone 1994). The 3D seismic survey design
ments will provide the idea of required survey parameters, mainly concentrated on bin analysis, fold, offset distribution,
fold, shooting direction, etc. A seismic survey can be either and azimuth distribution (Vermeer 1998). In seismic acqui-
two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional(3D). Gener- sition activities, the main agenda of seismic exploration is
ally, 2D/3D surveys can be chosen based on the subsurface to image the seismic target with proper resolution. A group
network of receivers (geophones/hydrophones) is placed
in the land data acquisition to record the ground vibrations
generated by active seismic sources such as explosives and
* M Nagendra Babu vibrators. These geophones are deployed using predefined
Mahadasu_Nagendrababu@ongc.co.in survey parameters such as spacing between receivers and
1
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Chennai, India the number of geophones in a single line for the 2D seismic
2 survey and more than one line for the 3D seismic survey.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Dehradun, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

3022 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2022) 12:3021–3031

Usual seismic survey design starts from analyzing criti- parameters in a seismic survey to be effective, appropriate
cal information of subsurface in the acquisition area such illumination of the target zone should be reached. However,
as maximum target depth, target thickness, maximum geo- an ideal seismic survey design not only fulfills this condi-
logical dip (if not virgin area) (Galbraith 1994). Based on tion but requires comfortable acquisition logistics with the
the requirements, minimum fold requirements will be cal- lowest probable cost.
culated. The critical acquisition parameters such as receiver The solution for these issues may be addressed by evaluat-
group interval, source interval, the maximum offset, bin size, ing each geometry and comparing the target surface results.
active channels, number of receiver lines (for 3D), number Illumination maps can be created at the target reflectors for
of shots in a salvo (for 3D), and type of spread (symmetric each of a few competing geometry templates, with the best
or asymmetric). The survey design concentrates on achiev- one chosen by a qualitative evaluation of those maps. Over
ing the regular offsets and good azimuthal coverage at each the years, 3D seismic ray modeling has become an opera-
bin using selected acquisition parameters. In the conven- tional tool for studying subsurface illumination in seismic
tional approach, quality control is qualitative only, and it just studies (Saffarzadeh et al. 2018). A preferable procedure
relies on the offset distribution and azimuthal distribution of would be to begin with a subsurface structural and velocity
surrounding CMP bins (Stork 2011). On the target surface/ model and utilize it to prepare/finalize acquisition settings.
depth, the offset distribution and azimuthal distribution of However, we do not have a complete subsurface model at
a bin are ignored. The conventional acquisition parameters the time of acquisition; otherwise, we might not have needed
are based on the common-midpoint method, which uses the to acquire the data at all. The required information for the
horizontal layer concept without considering lateral and ver- preparation model may get from earlier seismic data stud-
tical subsurface variations. However, none of these are valid ies, from well logs, from geological interpretation, from any
in the entire field of acquisition. As a result of these assump- other conceptual geological model, from a combination of
tions, the acquired data may have significant footprints, and all of these.
there is no guarantee of uniformity in the target surface/zone Ray-trace modeling studies are one way to model the
illumination (Mahgoub et al. 2012). target zones and illumination of the target surface. These
The general practice of designing seismic survey param- ray-trace methods provide the theoretical travel times and
eters assumes that the subsurface comprises horizontal lay- amplitudes between source and receiver through the model.
ers of constant velocity and density. Based on this concept, Ray-trace modeling studies can have comprehensive scope
a collection of source-receiver geometries has been used for studies such as survey planning and assessment, synthetic
understanding the coverage in the acquisition area (Xia et al. seismogram generation, velocity inversion, wave propaga-
2004). The range of target depths and dips, maximum and tion studies, and 4D analysis. Rahimi Dalkhani et al. (2018)
lowest propagation velocities, and desired fold of coverage used perfectly matched layers and absorbing boundaries to
are the only parameters included during the design process. evaluate finite & spectral element modeling techniques. The
The fundamental assumption of flat horizontal layers ignores advantage of ray-trace modeling is that it allows geoscien-
the complexities frequently present in subsurface layers in tists to access different scenarios and analyze the impact
high oil exploration or production interest regions (Evans of various parameters on the quality of seismic illumina-
1997). However, the conventional survey designing process tion. The acquisition geophysicist can optimize the survey
ignores these complexities. In conventional geometry analy- parameters associated with technical and financial con-
sis, seismic survey parameters are evaluated only on surface straints (Lines and Newrick 2004). Many researchers have
attributes, providing uniformity in fold coverage and regular- contributed to various studies in accessing the acquisition
ity in offset distribution (Shukla et al. 2014). parameters using modeling studies before actual acquisition.
Geometry parameters generated using traditional methods Suarez (2004) employed seismic ray-trace modeling studies
might be subjected to an optimization issue (Li and Dong to assess 3D seismic survey design to give a better image
2006). With the growing interest of geoscientists in high- and optimize acquisition parameters for various surveys.
quality subsurface images, seismic data acquisition plan- de Oliveira et al. (2009) were applied ray-trace modeling
ning should focus on, and the geometry preparation should techniques for accessing marine acquisition parameters
meet all acquisition targets. The success of every oil or gas by illumination maps. Zühlsdorff et al. (2020) explained
exploration hinges on the design of the 3D seismic survey practical benefits of ray-trace modeling studies in geom-
(Mondol 2010). In complex geological settings, studies etry evaluation. Zühlsdorff and Drottning (2013) planned a
related to optimizing and assessing seismic survey param- survey design for VSP using ray-trace approaches. A com-
eters for target depth play a key role in petroleum exploration prehensive discussion on illumination analysis and differ-
before the actual acquisition (Liu et al. 2005). When dealing ent levels measurements was discussed by (Xie et al. 2006).
with complex structures, traditional methods for defining Lecomte et al. (2009) applied modeling studies for illuminat-
3D seismic survey parameters are insufficient. Acquisition ing target horizons to access the designed seismic surveys.

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2022) 12:3021–3031 3023

Paraschivoiu (2016) has worked on crooked line effect on the

illumination of subsurface after data acquisition.
In the present study, we utilized ray-trace modeling to
evaluate the seismic acquisition parameters in KG Basin,
India. For this study, we have considered the stratigraphic
heterogeneity in subsurface geology in terms of velocity,
density, and structural complexity found and designed by
horizons. Illumination maps were generated on the target
surface and compared. By this comparison, seismic ray-
trace modeling studies can test the acquisition parameters
of geometry for the target objective, especially in complex
reservoirs. This paper has assessed a 3D seismic acquisition
survey design using ray-trace modeling techniques through
illumination maps.

Methodology

This study used ray-trace modeling to estimate seismic

acquisition parameters in heterogeneity medium using
NORSAR modeling software. As part of this study, elastic Fig. 1  The ray network of the wavefront (white mesh) reflected from
earth was generated using strati and structural interpreta- the interface (black mesh) (Vinje et al. 1999)
tion information like horizons, interval velocity, and density.
The theoretical seismic waves were created using the wave-
front construction (WFC) technique to travel into the elastic These ray-trace modeling (WFC) studies are an approxima-
earth model by a 3D seismic acquisition design (Chambers tion of high frequencies in seismic wave propagation.
and Kendall 2008). From these theoretical wavefront rays,
we generated ray attributes (travel times and amplitudes). Model preparation
The illumination maps were created on the target horizon/
depth by ray attributes to analyze the effect of the seismic The important part of seismic modeling studies is prepar-
acquisition parameters. Synthetic seismic shot gathers were ing the most realistic model analogous to the subsurface
generated for every shot using the seismic ray attributes in inhomogeneities. Previous interpreted information such as
the seismic survey and applied general processing sequence different structural horizons and varying vertical velocity
on shot gathers to get migrated post-stack section. This and density uses a subsurface model for seismic wave propa-
synthetic post-stack migrated section was compared to the gation (Astebøl 1994; Vinje et al. 1999). The model contains
previous survey's post-stack migrated section and the brute different blocks with specific material properties (density
stack section of the selected seismic survey. and velocity) separated by interfaces.
Each interface structurally followed the pre-interpreted
Ray‑tracing modeling horizons and internally developed a triangular network with
many nodes. The triangular representation of interfaces
In seismic acquisition, ray shooting and bending are the provides smoothness for an approximate solution on WFC
traditional methods that simulate the seismic acquisition ray-tracing interfaces, requiring first and second derivative
parameters. Nevertheless, these methods are time-consum- smoothness. The explicit discontinuity between the blocks
ing due to calculating only a single ray between the shot and in the subsurface model requires applying Snell's law during
receiver. In this application, the WFC method generates the the seismic wave propagation (Vinje et al. 1993b). Figure 1
mathematical seismic rays for generating the illumination shows the triangular framework of the interface (Black) and
maps and synthetic data to evaluate the survey design and theoretical ray network of the wavefront from source by
parameters on the target horizons in heterogeneous subsur- WFC (white).
face (Cerveny 2001). The WFC method is flexible to esti-
mate seismic modeling attributes by maintaining uniform Wavefront construction Method
ray density concerning wavefront propagation. The WFC
technique works on the concept of asymptotic, high solution The WFC method was applied in 2D models (Vinje et al.
from the elastodynamic equation (Babich and Kiselev 1989). 1993a) and later adopted for 3D models (Vinje et al. 1993b,

13

3024 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2022) 12:3021–3031

1999). In the WFC method, the ray field generates by propa- distance and angle, attributes estimation at a receiver such as
gating wavefront step by step other than the ray concept as travel time and amplitude. The WF topology is named con-
in conventional methods. The wavefront is generated step by nection points between WFs and ray field (node) and interior
step in time to maintain a uniform density of rays (Coman connecting lines. The triangle framework of WF topology
and Gajewski 2001). It means that the entire wavefront is is shown in Fig. 2. These triangle frameworks are able to
moved a one-time step forward through the model for cre- stretch and twist while transmitting through the model. The
ating a new wavefront. The uniform ray field is not able triangle framework can be made relatively simple in propa-
to maintain in ray shooting and ray bending methods. So, gation, interpolation, and approximation of the receiver's
the WFC method controls the divergence between the rays attributes.
(Vinje et al. 1999). Each node of WF topology is at time t defined by its posi-
The main essential steps in the WFC method are the crea- tion, direction from source, wave type, normal, and dynamic
tion of a primary WF, the transmission of WF in model with properties of each ray. With the assistance of these param-
one-time step, maintain the uniform density of rays on the eters of nodes in WF at time t, new WF can create at time
WF, creation of new rays at beyond the predefined limits of step Δt. So, a new wavefront has been created at t + Δt. The
information at two times (t, t + Δt) will create new rays and
calculate the ray attributes at the receiver location. The WF
creation in successive time intervals with generating new
triangles for all sides is shown in Fig. 3. The new triangles
created and interpolated new rays based on distance excess
than the limit of maximum distance ­(DSmax) and angular
distance ­(DAmax) between rays. The wavefront ray can be
reflected and transmitted at interfaces in the model where
the same characteristics of the triangles network are avail-
able (Rueger 1993).
Gjøystdal et al. (2002) explain the procedure of the esti-
mation of arrivals at each receiver. There is a need to modify
the attributes from the propagating WF to find the parameter
information at receivers. The ray cells are generated from
the volume between the old WF and the new WF. These
ray cells connected the old & new WFs through the triangle
and three rays, which are the boundaries for ray cells. A box
Fig. 2  Triangle network connecting between points (nodes) the rays was created with the ray cell's complete information using
in 3D (Vinje et al. 1996) these six boundaries of the ray cell. The ray cell, along with

Fig. 3  a WF propagation in the model by ray-tracing at different times (t and t + Δt) and b The concept of identifying the information at receiver
bounded by ray cell. The rays (r1, r2, and r3) are interpolated for estimating the travel time and amplitude. (Vinje et al. 1993a)

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2022) 12:3021–3031 3025

a receiver shown in Fig. 3b. Coordinates of ray cells found and flexible and valid for high-frequency waves. The results
the arrival information such as amplitude and travel time of ray-tracing on the target surface are used to generate maps
details of a receiver within the ray cell. These coordinates for analysis. These analyses can help acquisition geophysi-
such as barycentric coordinates (u, v) and travel time infor- cists understand the regions having the high reflection points
mation (t) at the ray cell. The information on travel time fall and low reflection fall regions (shadow areas) on the
and amplitude at the receiver can be used for computing the subsurface target depth for a specific acquisition geometry.
synthetic seismogram. In this study, a synthetic seismogram The illumination maps (hit maps) provide information about
is generated based on the 1D convolution modeling equa- hits (reflection points) in each cell of the target reflector
tion. The convolution of subsurface earth reflectivity creates (Bear et al. 2000).
a time-domain seismic trace with a wavelet or time series. In conventional techniques, a grid is defined based on
The ray-tracing method produces synthetic seismograms and the flat surface for creating the CMP fold maps, and the
simulates time migrated sections by the concept of image ray earth's geometry and elastic properties are assumed uniform.
(Gjøystdal et al. 2007; Lecomte et al. 2015). However, in reality, it is no more valid. In the highly com-
plex areas, hitting the reflections lead to uneven illumina-
Illumination study tion on the target reflector. However, the earth subsurface is
not uniform, and in such cases, conventional survey design
In this study, the efficiency of seismic survey design has methods lead to an inaccurate picture of the subsurface illu-
been assessed by illumination techniques in imaging the mination (Hoffmann 2001; Campbell et al. 2002). Instead of
acquisition object (Moldoveanu et al. 2003). These illumi- the conventional CMP fold method, planning and designing
nation techniques can also be used in seismic data process- the seismic acquisition parameters based on the illumination
ing to understand acquisition-related amplitudes changes on target surfaces is the most appropriate method. Figure 4
or shadow zones (Laurain and Vinje 2001; VerWest et al. explains information collecting from the target surface to
2001). A general definition of illumination in optics and create illumination maps.
light theory is "surface intensity of light." However, the
geophysical definition is the seismic wave energy falling
and reflected on a reflector (Sheriff 2002). The illumination Application
studies are primarily used to generate illumination maps (hit
maps) to understand the feasibility of the seismic acquisi- The wavefront construction is based on the ray-tracing
tion design (Sassolas et al. 1999). These illumination studies modeling method used for assessing the seismic acquisition
provide quantitative analysis to reducing the risk of seismic parameters to verify if accurate delineation of the subsur-
exploration. With the help of the illumination on the target face is possible or not. The ultimate aim of the seismic data
horizon, the acquisition parameters can be assessed, modi- exploration is to image the subsurface targets by providing
fied, or simply rejected. If we design and implement in the high-quality data concerning all limitations in surface &
field without prior analysis that has a high chance of missing subsurface and financial limitations. Here, the first illumi-
the objective and also increasing the high cost (Cain et al. nation maps (hit maps) and the post-stack migrated section
1998). assess the seismic acquisition parameters. The illumination
The binning methods are the most common illumination maps of two acquisition geometries have been compared,
studies in the industry. Ray-based binning methods are fast and post-stack migrated sections of synthetic seismic data

Fig. 4  The Illumination strategy

of ray-trace method

13

3026 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2022) 12:3021–3031

and previous seismic data with a brute stack of present seis- illuminate the exploratory objective. The seismic acquisition
mic data to verify the seismic acquisition design. parameters of these two surveys have shown in Table 1. The
In this study, the methodology consists of a workflow to CMP fold of the two geometries is shown in Fig. 5a and b.
assess the seismic survey parameters. It follows as design The first stage of this methodology is creating a subsur-
the seismic survey, prepares a subsurface elastic model, face elastic model with provided horizons and properties
generates ray attributes in the model by seismic acquisition of blocks/layers such as interval velocity and density. The
parameters, creation & compared the illumination maps of subsurface model is divided into blocks, and each block has
different surveys, generation of the synthetic seismogram, its isotropic properties. The parameters used for prepar-
applied seismic processing to synthetic seismic shot gathers, ing the model showed in the following Table 2. Figure 6
and compared the synthetic results with post-stack migrated shows the block view and interface view of the model. This
sections. model has been finalized based on significant undulations
We have used two geometries for this study. Geometry observed on Horizon-4 and Horizon-5. Structurally, it is an
1 was acquired a few years back in this area, which did not essential portion to illuminate in this acquisition area. Most
provide sufficient resolution on the target depth (Horizon-5) of the wavefield energy dispersed on Horizon-5, and many
for interpretation. Geometry 2 is the present proposed one to shadow zones (low illumination areas) have been identified.
To improve illumination on Horizon-5 is the primary goal
for new acquisition parameters.
Table 1  Seismic acquisition Parameters of Geometry 1 and Geometry The next step is in the methodology that is to define a
2 set of instructions at interfaces termed ray codes. These ray
Parameters Geometry 1 Geometry 2 codes guide the wavefield to generate a specific type of ray

Bin size 20 × 20 20 × 20

Receivers per line 224 224
Table 2  Subsurface elastic model properties
Group interval 40 40
Shot interval 40 40 Interfaces (blocks) P-Velocity (k/s) Density
Receiver line interval 280 280 (Kg/
m3)
Shot line interval 320 320
No. of receivers lines 16 22 Surface-Horizon-1 1.6 1.5
Active channels per template 3584 4928 Horizon-1-Horizon-2 2.3 2.2
Shots per template 56 77 Horizon-2-Horizon-3 2.5 2
Total fold 112 154 Horizon-3-Horizon-4 2.9 2.1
Roll over Half Swath Roll Half Swath Roll Horizon-4-Horizon-5 4.1 2.2
Total no. of shots 25,872 25,872 Horizon-5-Below 5.2 2.5

Fig. 5  Common Mid-Point fold: a Geometry 1 and b Geometry 2

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2022) 12:3021–3031 3027

Fig. 6  Subsurface model a Model block view b Model interface view

at source position, type of reflection/transmission, and spe- between the rays. Figure 7 shows the seismic ray transmit-
cific type of conversion at the model's interface. Generally, ting through interfaces in the model.
a ray path is defined as the source to target and target to the The ray-trace modeling produces ray striking points on
receiver. The P-wave to P-wave conversion ray code is used the target surface, amplitude, travel time as ray attributes.
in this study at all five interfaces of the model. These attributes are used for generating the illumination
Once defined all instructions for ray field propagation at maps and synthetic shot gathers. The number of hits per
all interfaces in the model, the seismic wavefield has been bin is the hit count represented as hit maps that are used for
transmitted using the application of the common-shot wave- the preliminary assessment of the seismic survey. Then the
front tracer of NORSAR Modeling software (Lecomte et al. reflection coefficient of the model used to generate the syn-
2015). The theoretical WF propagates by time step 100 ms thetic shot gathers and applied the basic seismic processing
for creating new WF and developing the new triangles in the steps to develop the post-stack migrated section.
WF network with maximum interpolated distance (­ DSmax)
of 300 m and maximum angular distance (DAmax) of 5°

Fig. 7  Ray-traces transmission at interfaces

13

3028 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2022) 12:3021–3031

Results and discussion Figure 8a shows illumination maps generated by Geom-

etry 1 which was leaves many areas with poor illumination
A seismic acquisition geophysicist desires to provide the especially in the undulation zone. An illumination map idea
quality data with respect to surface and subsurface limita- is based on the reflected points from target surface. The
tions and financial constraints (Saffarzadeh et al. 2018). undulation zone has shown improved coverage with the new
This study evaluated the seismic geometry parameters survey parameters. Figure 8b shows that the new seismic
through the illumination maps and comparison of process- acquisition parameters fill the illumination holes on Hori-
ing seismic migrated sections of synthetic data and real zon-5. The difference between these illumination maps is
seismic data. Figure 8 shows the illumination maps (hit observed mainly in the undulation area marked by an arrow
maps) of the target horizons produced by two types of seis- (Fig. 8).
mic parameters. The Horizon-5 was considered as target The basis processing steps applied to synthetic shot gath-
of interest in the model (Fig. 6). The illumination maps of ers to generate migrated seismic sections by this method-
horizon-5 by Geometry 1 & Geometry 2 shown in Fig. 8. ology. Figure 9 shows the processing section of synthetic
seismic data generated by the NORSAR modeling software.
It has proved that the processing stacked seismic section

Fig. 8  a Hitmap generated by the Geometry 1 and b Hitmap generated by the Geometry 2

Fig. 9  The post-stack migrated

seismic section of synthetic
seismic data generated by
Geometry 2

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2022) 12:3021–3031 3029

Fig. 10  a Processed stacked seismic section of real data from the Geometry_1 b Processing brute stacked seismic section of real data acquired
by Geometry 2

using the PARADIGM Echo's processing software shows Conclusions

better illumination in the basement. We understand that the
present survey can illuminate the target depth (Horizon-5) The main goal of any seismic acquisition is to achieve
very clearly from this section. Figure 9 is compared with the target depth with excellent illumination. The seis-
Fig. 10b, which is the stacked section of real field data. It mic parameters play a crucial role in the achieve this
clearly understands that new acquisition parameters have goal, especially in complex subsurface. In this paper, we
achieved and reached seismic energy to horizon 5 in theoret- assessed the acquisition parameters for understanding
ical and real-time acquisition mode. Figure 10a and b show geometry effectiveness. Conventional geometry analy-
the original processing sections surveyed by the Geometry 1 sis methods are valid only in the ideal condition, such
(old-new parameters) and the brute stack of the present sur- as horizontal and isotropic medium. The inhomogene-
vey data (new survey parameters). This comparison shows ity of the subsurface has been considered while prepar-
that new seismic data acquisition has been illuminated quite ing the geometry and done the validation. In this present
better than old geometry, especially the seismic data events work, we have used the ray-based modeling tool to assess
after the 1.7 ms. parameters of geometries based on the WF construction
The above results (Figs. 8 and 9) have substantiated that method using NORSAR modeling software. A 3D subsur-
ray-tracing modeling can help choose and verify seismic face model has been constructed to generate illumination
survey designs concerning objectives. Some observations maps and synthetic seismic shot gathers. The illumina-
have been made from the present study on selected acquisi- tion maps (hit maps) have been compared and analyzed to
tion parameters. understand the coverage of each geometry. Then compare
the final migrated section of previous acquisition param-
• The target surface area has been covered by new acqui- eters (Geometry 1) with the brute stack of Geometry 2 to
sition parameters (shown in table_1). It provided rea- understand the imaging ability of Geometry 2. Finally, the
sonably uniform coverage within the full fold boundary ray-trace modeling studies having the ability to evaluate
(black color). the seismic acquisition parameters for better imaging and
• The post-stack migrated section of synthetic seismic data also for cost-driven decision.
has given more confidence in new survey parameters. Finally, comparing the illumination maps of geometries
• The preliminary processing section (Brute stack) of real can give us a quick understanding of geometry effective-
field data (Fig. 10b) has proven that the results of the ness. Furthermore, the comparison of processing sections
present methodology (illumination maps and synthetic of synthetic data provides confidence in the effectiveness
data processed section) are validated of geometries. Therefore, seismic acquisition modeling
methods helping in finalizing a geometry for illuminating
target depth. Moreover, these ray-trace methods can also

13

3030 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2022) 12:3021–3031

help in optimizing the seismic acquisition parameters and 173:1030–1038. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 111/j.​1 365-​2 46X.​2 008.​
cost-driven decisions. 03790.x
Coman R, Gajewski D (2001) Estimation of multivalued arrivals
in 3‐D models using wavefront ray tracing. In: SEG Technical
Acknowledgements  The authors would like to thank ONGC, India, for Program Expanded Abstracts 2001. Society of Exploration Geo-
allowing publishing this paper. Sincere gratitude to co-author Shri San- physicists, pp 1265–1268. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​18163​24
sar Singh (GM-Geophy) for motivation, encourage well-being support de Oliveira AMC, Meireles BR, Garcia DC, Chaves RD (2009) Seis-
in this study. Special thanks to NORSAR Group for providing software mic Modeling as a tool for designing 3D seismic surveys. In:
packages for piloting this study. 11th international congress of the brazilian geophysical soci-
ety & EXPOGEF 2009, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 24–28 August
Funding  This study was not funded. Open access funding provided by 2009. Brazilian Geophysical Society, pp 5–9
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology. Evans BJ (1997) A Handbook for Seismic Data Acquisition in Explo-
ration. Soc Explor Geophys. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​97815​
Data availability  All relevant data are available in the manuscript. No 60801​863
other data have been used. Galbraith M (1994) Land 3-D survey design by computer. Explor
Geophys 25:71–77. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1071/​EG994​071
Gjøystdal H, Iversen E, Laurain R, Lecomte I, Vinje V, Åstebøl
Declarations  K (2002) Review of ray theory applications in modelling and
imaging of seismic data. Stud Geophys Geod 46:113–164.
Conflict of interest  On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10198​93701​439
states that there is no conflict of interest. The author declares that they Gjøystdal H, Iversen E, Lecomte I, Kaschwich, T, Drottning, Å,
have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships Mispel J (2007) Improved applicability of ray tracing in seis-
that could have influenced the work reported in this paper. mic acquisition, imaging, and interpretation. GEOPHYSICS
72:SM261–SM271. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​27365​15
Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- Hart BS (1999) Definition of subsurface stratigraphy, structure
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- and rock properties from 3-D seismic data. Earth-Science Rev
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long 47:189–218. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0012-​8252(99)​00029-X
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, Hoffmann J (2001) Illumination, resolution, and image quality of PP
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes - and PS -waves for survey planning. Lead Edge 20:1008–1014.
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​14873​05
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Lecomte I, Kaschwich T, Gjoystdal H, Iversen E (2009) Use ray-
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in based modeling methods to plan, analyze, and control subsalt
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not imaging Subsalt Imaging Workshop: Focus on Azimuth EAGE
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Cairo, Egypt
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Laurain R, Vinje V (2001) PreStack depth migration and illumination
copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. maps. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2001.
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp 929–932. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1190/1.​18167​90
Le CVA, Harris BD, Pethick AM (2019) New perspectives on solid
earth geology from seismic texture to cooperative inversion. Sci
References Rep 9:14737. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41598-​019-​50109-z
Lecomte I, Lavadera PL, Anell I, et al (2015) Ray-based seismic mod-
Astebøl K (1994) Easy-to-use modelling - 3D ray field propagation in eling of geologic models: understanding and analyzing seismic
open ray models. In: EAEG/SEG summer workshop - construc- images efficiently. Interpretation 3:SAC71–SAC89. doi: https://​
tion of 3-D macro velocity-depth models. European Association doi.​org/​10.​1190/​INT-​2015-​0061.1
of Geoscientists & Engineers Lines LR, Newrick RT (2004) Fundamentals of Geophysical Inter-
Babich VM, Kiselev AP (1989) Non-geometrical waves-are there pretation. Soc Explor Geophys. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​97815​
any? An asymptotic description of some ‘non-geometrical’ phe- 60801​726
nomena in seismic wave propagation. Geophys J Int 99:415– Liu S, Geng J, Feng W (2005) Controlled illumination and seismic
420. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1365-​246X.​1989.​tb016​98.x acquisition geometry for target-oriented imaging. Appl Geophys
Bear G, Lu C-P, Lu R et al (2000) The construction of subsurface 2:230–234. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11770-​005-​0029-1
illumination and amplitude maps via ray tracing. Lead Edge M. Li P, G. Dong L (2006) Optimal seismic survey design based on
19:726–728. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​14387​00 seismic wave illumination. In: 68th EAGE conference and exhibi-
Cain G, Cambois G, Géhin M, Hall R (1998) Reducing risk in seis- tion incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2006. European Association
mic acquisition and interpretation of complex targets using a of Geoscientists & Engineers
gocad? Based on 3D modelling tool. In: EAGE/SEG workshop Mahgoub M, Al Mesaabi S, Hagiwara H, et al (2012) Some Thoughts
- depth imaging of reservoir attributes. European Association of Acquisition Footprints Removal on 3D Seismic Data. In: All
of Geoscientists & Engineers Days. SPE. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​161372-​MS
Campbell S, Pramik B, Cafarelli B (2002) Comparative ray‐based Moldoveanu N, Lee KS, Jorgensen P (2003) Onboard 3D & 4D sub-
illumination analysis. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded surface target illumination: A tool to optimize streamer marine
Abstracts 2002. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp acquisition. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts
41–44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​18172​70 2003. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp 4–7. https://​doi.​
Cerveny V (2001) Seismic ray theory. Cambridge University Press org/​10.​1190/1.​18179​62
Chambers K, Kendall J-M (2008) A practical implementation of Mondol NH, Bjorlykke K (2010) Petroleum Geoscience: From Sedi-
wave front construction for 3-D isotropic media. Geophys J Int mentary Environment to Rock Physics. Springer-Verlag, pp 375–
402. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​642-​02332-3_​17

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2022) 12:3021–3031 3031

Nwaezeapu VC, Ezenwaka KC, Ede TA (2019) Evaluation of hydrocar- imaging. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2001.
bon reserves using integrated petrophysical analysis and seismic Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp 601–604. https://​doi.​
interpretation: a case study of TIM field at southwestern offshore org/​10.​1190/1.​18166​93
Niger Delta oil Province, Nigeria. Egypt J Pet 28:273–280. https://​ Vinje V, Åstebøl K, Iversen E, Gjøystdal H (1999) 3-D ray modeling
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ejpe.​2019.​06.​002 by wavefront construction in open models. Geophysics 64:1912–
Paraschivoiu (2016) Modeling of crooked-2D seismic illumination-a 1919. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​14446​97
case study from romania. Geo-Eco-Marina 22(8):145–150. https://​ Vinje V, Iversen E, Astebol K, Gjoystdal H (1996) Estimation of mul-
doi.​org/​10.​5281/​zenodo.​889917 tivalued arrivals in 3D models using wavefront construction-Part
Rahimi Dalkhani A, Javaherian A, Mahdavi Basir H (2018) Frequency I1. Geophys Prospect 44:819–842. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 111/j.1​ 365-​
domain finite-element and spectral-element acoustic wave mod- 2478.​1996.​tb001​75.x
eling using absorbing boundaries and perfectly matched layer. Vinje V, Iversen E, Gjøystdal H (1993a) Traveltime and amplitude esti-
Waves in Random and Complex Media 28:367–388. https://​doi.​ mation using wavefront construction. Geophysics 58:1157–1166.
org/​10.​1080/​17455​030.​2017.​13550​79 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​14434​99
Rueger A (2003) Dynamic ray tracing and its application in trian- Vinje V, Iversen E, Gjoystdal H, Astebol K (1993b) Estimation of
gulated media United States: Np 1993. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2172/​ multivalued arrivals in 3D models using wavefront construction.
10188​686 In: 55th EAEG Meeting. european association of geoscientists
Saffarzadeh S, Javaherian A, Hasani H, Talebi MA (2018) Improving & engineers
fault image by determination of optimum seismic survey param- Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB et al (2004) Utilization of high-frequency
eters using ray-based modeling. J Geophys Eng 15:668–680. Rayleigh waves in near-surface geophysics. Lead Edge 23:753–
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1742-​2140/​aaa044 759. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​17868​95
Sassolas C, Nicodeme P, Lescoffit G (1999) The benefits of 3D ray Xie X-B, Jin S, Wu R-S (2006) Wave-Equation-Based Seismic Illumi-
tracing in acquisition feasibility. In: SEG Technical Program nation Analysis. GEOPHYSICS 71:S169–S177. https://​doi.​org/​
Expanded Abstracts 1999. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 10.​1190/1.​22276​19
pp 629–632. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​18211​01 Yao G, Wu X, Sun Z et al (2018) Status and prospects of exploration
Sheriff RE (2002) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Geophysics. and exploitation key technologies of the deep petroleum resources
Soc Explor Geophys. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​97815​60802​969 in onshore China. J Nat Gas Geosci 3:25–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Shukla K, Jaiswal P, Singh CS (2014) Recovering uniform coverage 1016/j.​jnggs.​2018.​03.​002
in a 3D survey: case study from onshore Southern India. Int J Zühlsdorff L, Åstebøl K, Gjøystdal, H. Kaschwich T, Bolin H (2020)
Geophys 2014:1–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2014/​987605 Advanced ray-based survey evaluation: Practical Concepts and
Stone DG (1994) Designing Seismic Surveys in Two and Three Dimen- Benefits. In: Second EAGE marine acquisition workshop. Euro-
sions. Soc Explor Geophys. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 190/1.9​ 78156​ 0802​ pean Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp 1–4
730 Zühlsdorff L, Drottning Å (2013) Ray-Based Approaches to 3D VSP
Stork C (2011) Seismic acquisition is moving from a “ CMP Fold ” Modelling for Survey Planning and Interpretation: Conference
perspective to a “ Wavefield Recording ” perspective which has Proceedings, Second EAGE Workshop on Borehole Geophysics,
significant implications on acquisition design. In: SEG technical cp-343-00039. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3997/​2214-​4609.​20142​590
program expanded abstracts 2011. Society of Exploration Geo-
physicists, pp 157–162 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Suarez G (2004) Designing 3D seismic surveys in the Macal area using jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
seismic modeling. Lead Edge 23:1071–1076. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1190/1.​18133​61
Vermeer GJO (1998) 3-D symmetric sampling. Geophysics 63:1629–
1647. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1190/1.​14444​59
VerWest B, Liang JD, Hobbs R, Young J (2001) Understanding ampli-
tude variations in 3D acquisition and processing for sub‐salt

13