Skeletonized inversion of surface wave: Active source versus controlled noise comparison

Li, Jing; Al-Shuhail, Abdullatif A.

doi:10.1190/int-2015-0174.1

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The goals are to estimate the basin depth and the nearsurface geology. Figure 12 depicts a typical shot gather and the associated dispersion curve (Li and Hanafy, 2016). We can easily pick the dispersion curve along the peak amplitude in the phase-velocity image.…”

Section: East Africa Seismic Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers also focused on inverting the dispersion curve for the S-wave velocity profile (Park et al, 1998;Xia et al, 1999;Roy et al, 2013;Li and Hanafy, 2016), imaging lateral heterogeneities using backscattered waves (Hyslop and Stewart, 2015;AlTheyab et al, 2016), and ground-roll analysis (Almuhaidib and Toksöz, 2016;Sloan et al, 2016). The particle motion for a Rayleigh wave in a layered medium can be retrograde elliptical as denoted by the black ellipse in Figure 1b.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Opportunities and pitfalls in surface-wave interpretation

Schuster

Lü

et al. 2017

Interpretation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CitationSchuster GT, Li J, Lu K, Metwally A, AlTheyab A, et al. (2017) Opportunities and pitfalls in surface-wave interpretation. AbstractMany explorationists think of surface waves as the most damaging noise in land seismic data. Thus, much effort is spent in designing geophone arrays and filtering methods that attenuate these noisy events. It is now becoming apparent that surface waves can be a valuable ally in characterizing the near-surface geology. This review aims to find out how the interpreter can exploit some of the many opportunities available in surface waves recorded in land seismic data. For example, the dispersion curves associated with surface waves can be inverted to give the S-wave velocity tomogram, the common-offset gathers can reveal the presence of near-surface faults or velocity anomalies, and back-scattered surface waves can be migrated to detect the location of near-surface faults. However, the main limitation of surface waves is that they are typically sensitive to S-wave velocity variations no deeper than approximately half to one-third the dominant wavelength. For many exploration surveys, this limits the depth of investigation to be no deeper than approximately 0.5-1.0 km. IntroductionTucker and Yorston (1973) wrote a book titled Pitfalls in Seismic Interpretation that aimed to reveal how processed seismic reflection sections could lead to misinterpretation of the subsurface geology. They summarize the content of their book in their preface: "The geometry or shape of the reflecting surface is equally tricky. It can turn synclines into anticlines, reverse the throw of faults, superimpose one structure on another by sideswipe, and create a diffraction-anticline. Our latest and perhaps most serious pitfall is computer-derived. The recording and playback can distort both the structure and stratigraphy. Here real structures can be suppressed, false bedding created, faults smeared, and all of the geology lost. Only through constant rapport between the geologist, the interpreter, and the processing engineer will these recording and playback errors be avoided."In the spirit of Tucker and Yorston (1973), this paper presents a review on interpreting surface waves in recorded data, not as noise but as signal. It will demonstrate how surface waves can be used to estimate the locations of near-surface S-wave velocity anomalies and their extent in depth. Similar to reflection migration, we show how surface waves can be migrated to estimate the locations of near-surface velocity anomalies. The examples in this paper also reveal some pitfalls leading to misinterpretation of surface waves, and their avoidance by using an integrative interpretation of P-wave velocity tomograms, surface-wave migration images, and S-wave velocity tomograms.

show abstract

Section: East Africa Seismic Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunities and pitfalls in surface-wave interpretation

Schuster

Lü

et al. 2017

Interpretation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Figure 5a displays one virtual shot gather (red line), which almost matches the corresponding shot gather in the conventional survey data (black line), except their amplitudes have some differences. This amplitude differences will not significantly affect the result of S-wave inversion because the WD method inverts the residuals associated with the phase velocity C(ω) (Li and Hanafy, 2016;Li and Schuster, 2016;Li et al, 2017). Figure 7b shows the inaccurate S-velocity tomogram inverted from just two reciprocal shot gathers (without using the crosscoherence operation to generate the virtual traces).…”

Section: Stair-step Velocity Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parsimonious surface wave interferometry

Hanafy

Schuster³

2017

Geophysical Journal International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To decrease the recording time of a 2D seismic survey from a few days to one hour or less, we present a parsimonious surface-wave interferometry method. Interferometry allows for the creation of a large number of virtual shot gathers from just two reciprocal shot gathers by crosscoherence of trace pairs, where the virtual surface waves can be inverted for the Swave velocity model by wave-equation dispersion inversion (WD). Synthetic and field data tests suggest that parsimonious wave-equation dispersion inversion (PWD) gives S-velocity tomograms that are comparable to those obtained from a full survey with a shot at each receiver. The limitation of PWD is that the virtual data lose some information so that the resolution of the S-velocity tomogram can be modestly lower than that of the S-velocity tomogram inverted from a conventional survey.

show abstract

“…This is the expected location of the Qademah fault based on evidence from other geophysical methods (Hanafy et al, 2015;Li and Hanafy, 2016).…”

Section: Kaust Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Ray-map migration of transmitted surface waves

Schuster

2016

Interpretation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CitationLi J, Schuster GT (2016) Ray-map migration of transmitted surface waves. AbstractNear-surface normal faults can sometimes separate two distinct zones of velocity heterogeneity, where the medium on one side of the fault has a faster velocity than on the other side. Therefore, the slope of surface-wave arrivals in a common-shot gather should abruptly change near the surface projection of the fault. We present ray-map imaging method that migrates transmitted surface waves to the fault plane, and therefore it roughly estimates the orientation, depth, and location of the near-surface fault. The main benefits of this method are that it is computationally inexpensive and robust in the presence of noise.

show abstract

Skeletonized inversion of surface wave: Active source versus controlled noise comparison

Cited by 14 publications

References 28 publications

Opportunities and pitfalls in surface-wave interpretation

Opportunities and pitfalls in surface-wave interpretation

Parsimonious surface wave interferometry

Ray-map migration of transmitted surface waves

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About