Same Cable, Different Vector Fidelity - A Case Study of the Seneca Lake and Valhall LoFS OBC Datasets

Dellinger, J.H.; Clarke, Randolph T.

doi:10.3997/2214-4609-pdb.1.e043

Cited by 2 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, cable-based receiver systems show different receiver coupling response between the inline and cross-line receiver components (e.g. Woje et al 2002;Dellinger and Clarke 2004; due to the long contact area between the cable and the seafloor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several experiments and surveys were done to investigate the importance of burying the receiver cable into the seafloor to improve receiver coupling (e.g. Gaiser et al 2002;Dellinger and Clarke 2004;Gaiser 2004;Duennebier and Sutton 2007).…”

Section: Burying Versus Unburiedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, Duennebier and Sutton (2007) show an improvement by burying an OBS into the seafloor. Another test was performed by Dellinger and Clarke (2004) showing coupling improvement by trenching, but also good coupling responses on some untrenched receivers.…”

Section: Burying Versus Unburiedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many authors, such as Woje et al (2002), Norris et al (2006) and Gaiser (2007), have performed tests on cable-based receiver systems with different results. Besides the trenched/untrenched discussion, Woje et al (2002) and Dellinger and Clarke (2004) presented some evidence that the cable itself may cause problems with respect to azimuthdependent sensitivity. With increased focus on azimuthal anisotropy, S-wave birefringence and amplitude variation with azimuth the azimuthal-dependent sensitivity becomes important.…”

Section: Cable-based System Couplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Seismic receiver coupling to the seafloor

Landschulze¹

2019

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presence of geophysical receivers on the seafloor changes the local wave field due to the receiver seafloor interaction. The resulting PP‐ and PS‐wave distortion of the wave field is often referred to as receiver coupling to the seafloor and can make data processing challenging and sometimes impossible. This paper provides an overview of the mathematical approaches to describe receiver coupling, how to estimate receiver coupling and what the difficulties and possible solutions are. The first section shows how the mathematical approach developed from a simple model considering only the vertical receiver component to include all three receiver components and their interactions with the seafloor. In the second section, I show how receiver coupling can be measured and how it can be improved using mathematical and data‐driven approaches.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Burying Versus Unburiedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Burying Versus Unburiedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cable-based System Couplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Seismic receiver coupling to the seafloor

Landschulze¹

2019

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…OBC data in general tend to have lower levels of signal fidelity than land data. This observation has been a subject for research for a long time (Gaiser 1998; Tree 1999; Thomsen 2000; Dellinger, Clarke and Gutowski 2001; Bagaini and Muyzerr 2004; Dellinger and Clarke 2004; Kragh et al . 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

OBC signal fidelity

Norris

Johnson

Walsh

2006

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TA suite of three tests was performed to characterize the signal fidelity of OBC 4C acquisition systems. The test methodology was to evaluate individual sensor stations by acquiring source lines that were parallel to the in-line and cross-line horizontal sensors and source lines that were at 45 • to the in-line and cross-line sensors. This technique provides constant azimuth gathers with a uniform offset range and removes issues associated with source array directivity.Characterization of the test data identified the frequency content of the geophone signals and the correlation between the vertical and cross-line geophones as the most sensitive indicators of signal infidelity. In the former case, stations with questionable signal fidelity exhibited a very reverberatory signal. This signal was most evident on the cross-line sensor. In the latter case, when normalized cross-correlation coefficients are computed in a moving window, the cross-line sensor and the vertical sensor are highly correlated, beginning several hundred milliseconds after the first arrivals.These characteristics can be exploited to allow stations with questionable signal fidelity to be programmatically identified. One means of identifying questionable stations is to compute the histogram of the instantaneous frequency. The frequency distributions from questionable stations are unambiguously distinguishable from stations that exhibit better signal fidelity. It was noted that signal fidelity appeared as a range, between acceptable and poor. To characterize the signal fidelity of an acquisition system adequately, the number of test samples must be statistically significant.

show abstract

Same Cable, Different Vector Fidelity - A Case Study of the Seneca Lake and Valhall LoFS OBC Datasets

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Seismic receiver coupling to the seafloor

Seismic receiver coupling to the seafloor

OBC signal fidelity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About