Surface-consistent deconvolution using reciprocity and waveform inversion

Abstract

Source and receiver responses must be equalized when their behavior or coupling changes with location within a given survey. Existing surface-consistent deconvolution techniques that account for these effects assume that common-midpoint (CMP) gathering is valid-the seismic trace is decomposed into a source function, a receiver response, a normal-incidence reflectivity term, and an offsetrelated component that is laterally shift invariant. As a result, the performance of existing surface-consistent deconvolution techniques is best when applied to primary reflection data only, since the offset dependency of ground roll and multiples varies laterally in media with lateral variations. We have developed an alternative method for surfaceconsistent deconvolution that is applicable to the entire seismic trace and is therefore essentially a raw-data preprocessing step. The method is based on reciprocity of the medium response. Assuming that conditions for applicability of reciprocity are met, we can attribute differences between normal and reciprocal recordings to the source and receiver perturbations. Contrary to existing surface-consistent deconvolution methods, this approach uses the full description of the wavefield and is therefore ideally suited for prestack processing. We have applied this technique to single-sensor data acquired in Manistee County, Michigan. At this site, nearsurface conditions vary, and this significantly affects data quality. The application of the new deconvolution procedure substantially improves S/N ratio on both prestack and poststack data, and these results compare favorably to those obtained using existing surface-consistent deconvolution techniques, since they require subjective data scaling to obtain acceptable results. The obtained source corrections are correlated to changes in near-surface conditions-in this case, to changes in water-saturation levels. We do not observe such a correlation for the receiver corrections, which vary rapidly along the spread. Finally, the receiver response does not agree with the generally accepted damped harmonic oscillator model. For frequencies below 100 Hz, the retrieved receiver variations are larger than predicted by this model, and we cannot explain the receiver response using a single resonant frequency for the geophone-ground coupling. V19 V20 van Vossen et al.

Application of waveform tomography to a crooked-line 2D land seismic data set

“…As an alternative to Maurer et al (2012), we develop a linear inverse problem based on the static deconvolution of Vossen et al (2006), and we jointly estimate the source and receiver amplitude responses. We assume that the current velocity model and the estimated source wavelet are correct, and we further assume that source and receiver responses only vary in terms of amplitudes.…”

“…Although careful data preprocessing may be performed to eliminate the amplitude variations (Ravaut et al, 2004;Brenders and Pratt, 2007), we discard amplitude information as in Bleibinhaus et al (2007) and Malinowski and Operto (2008) and we estimate velocity information by fitting the phase component because velocity structures primarily affect kinematics (Kamei et al, 2014). Nonetheless, the estimation of a source wavelet (Pratt, 1999) requires amplitude information, and thus, we develop a method for compensating the amplitude variations by a surface consistent approach similar to the static deconvolution of Vossen et al (2006).…”

A Data-Driven Correction of Ultrasonic Source and Receiver Spectral Amplitude Variations

“…By transforming to the log/Fourier domain, the problem can now be converted to a system of linear equations [2]:…”

“…The routine, originally developed for the calibration of seismic data, exploits medium reciprocity and uses waveform inversion [1,2]. The routine, originally developed for the calibration of seismic data, exploits medium reciprocity and uses waveform inversion [1,2].…”

“…For a complete description, we refer to extensive discussions by Van Vossen et al [1,2]. For a complete description, we refer to extensive discussions by Van Vossen et al [1,2].…”