“…It was designed to produce signals at frequencies between 5 and 100 Hz and includes an adaptive, in-line, compensation filter that uses acceleration data at the piston assembly for gain control (along with other controller technology) to reduce sound levels at frequencies outside the desired frequency band [25]. In general, three signal types are possible from MV elements: linear frequency sweeps, logarithmic frequency sweeps [26], and pseudorandom noise (PRN) [27][28][29][30][31].…”
“…Harmonics were added to the synthetic MV signal based on the progression of a damped harmonic oscillator whose amplitude decreased linearly with time and exponentially with harmonic order. For this study, the amplitude of the source waveform of one MV element was set to 5 kPa (zero-to-peak source level (SLPK) [34] of 194 dB re 1 µ Pa m), resulting in an energy source spectral density level (ESSL) [35] In general, three signal types are possible from MV elements: linear frequency sweeps, logarithmic frequency sweeps [26], and pseudorandom noise (PRN) [27][28][29][30][31]. Here, we studied the most common signal type, a linear frequency upsweep, with specifications within the Marine Vibrator Joint Industry Project (MVJIP) guidelines [32,33].…”
Concerns about the potential environmental impacts of geophysical surveys using air gun sources, coupled with advances in geophysical surveying technology and data processing, are driving research and development of commercially viable alternative technologies such as marine vibroseis (MV). MV systems produce controllable acoustic signals through volume displacement of water using a vibrating plate or shell. MV sources generally produce lower acoustic pressure and reduced bandwidth (spectral content) compared to air gun sources, but to be effective sources for geophysical surveys they typically produce longer duration signals with short inter-signal periods. Few studies have evaluated the potential effects of MV system use on marine fauna. In this desktop study, potential acoustic exposure of marine mammals was estimated for MV and air gun arrays by modeling the source signal, sound propagation, and animal movement in representative survey scenarios. In the scenarios, few marine mammals could be expected to be exposed to potentially injurious sound levels for either source type, but fewer were predicted for MV arrays than air gun arrays. The estimated number of marine mammals exposed to sound levels associated with behavioral disturbance depended on the selection of evaluation criteria. More behavioral disturbance was predicted for MV arrays compared to air gun arrays using a single threshold sound pressure level (SPL), while the opposite result was found when using frequency-weighted sound fields and a multiple-step, probabilistic, threshold function.
“…It was designed to produce signals at frequencies between 5 and 100 Hz and includes an adaptive, in-line, compensation filter that uses acceleration data at the piston assembly for gain control (along with other controller technology) to reduce sound levels at frequencies outside the desired frequency band [25]. In general, three signal types are possible from MV elements: linear frequency sweeps, logarithmic frequency sweeps [26], and pseudorandom noise (PRN) [27][28][29][30][31].…”
“…Harmonics were added to the synthetic MV signal based on the progression of a damped harmonic oscillator whose amplitude decreased linearly with time and exponentially with harmonic order. For this study, the amplitude of the source waveform of one MV element was set to 5 kPa (zero-to-peak source level (SLPK) [34] of 194 dB re 1 µ Pa m), resulting in an energy source spectral density level (ESSL) [35] In general, three signal types are possible from MV elements: linear frequency sweeps, logarithmic frequency sweeps [26], and pseudorandom noise (PRN) [27][28][29][30][31]. Here, we studied the most common signal type, a linear frequency upsweep, with specifications within the Marine Vibrator Joint Industry Project (MVJIP) guidelines [32,33].…”
Concerns about the potential environmental impacts of geophysical surveys using air gun sources, coupled with advances in geophysical surveying technology and data processing, are driving research and development of commercially viable alternative technologies such as marine vibroseis (MV). MV systems produce controllable acoustic signals through volume displacement of water using a vibrating plate or shell. MV sources generally produce lower acoustic pressure and reduced bandwidth (spectral content) compared to air gun sources, but to be effective sources for geophysical surveys they typically produce longer duration signals with short inter-signal periods. Few studies have evaluated the potential effects of MV system use on marine fauna. In this desktop study, potential acoustic exposure of marine mammals was estimated for MV and air gun arrays by modeling the source signal, sound propagation, and animal movement in representative survey scenarios. In the scenarios, few marine mammals could be expected to be exposed to potentially injurious sound levels for either source type, but fewer were predicted for MV arrays than air gun arrays. The estimated number of marine mammals exposed to sound levels associated with behavioral disturbance depended on the selection of evaluation criteria. More behavioral disturbance was predicted for MV arrays compared to air gun arrays using a single threshold sound pressure level (SPL), while the opposite result was found when using frequency-weighted sound fields and a multiple-step, probabilistic, threshold function.
Low-frequency seismic data plays a crucial role in seismic data processing and seismic wave inversion. At present, there are two methods to realize the low-frequency excitation of vibrators: one is that the low-frequency vibrators are excited by linear sweep signals, and the other is that the conventional vibrators are excited by nonlinear low-frequency sweep signals. The cost of exploration using low-frequency vibroseis is high, and it is challenging to obtain sufficient low-frequency information using traditional vibrators. To this end, this paper comparatively studies the low-frequency sweep signal characteristics and data effects of low-frequency vibrator and traditional vibrator. Therefore, three kinds of linear and nonlinear low-frequency sweep signals are designed. Theoretical analysis shows that there are certain differences between linear and nonlinear in design methods, signal shapes, etc., but after correlation calculation, the signal spectrums reflecting the seismic response and the related wavelet shapes are basically consistent. Besides, the actual force signal data shows that the linear and nonlinear harmonic distortion are basically equivalent. Finally, based on the forward simulation of three sweep signals and the comparative analysis of field test data, it can be considered that the linear and nonlinear low-frequency sweep signals of vibrator have almost the same denoising ability under the basic conditions of spectrum and wavelet. Both can achieve low-frequency excitation and obtain rich low-frequency information, and the quality of seismic data is basically the same, so they can be applied in practical production.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.