Click
to article in PDF format.
GCSeismic Velocities*
By
D.S. MacPherson1
Search and Discovery Article #40150 (2005)
Posted April 4, 2005
*Adapted from the Geophysical Corner column by the author in AAPG Explorer, April, 2005, entitled “Seismic Velocities Prove themselves Crucial Variables.” Appreciation is expressed to the author, to Alistair R. Brown, editor of Geophysical Corner, and to Larry Nation, AAPG Communications Director, for their support of this online version.
1Geophysical Training International, Dallas, Texas ([email protected])
The realm of our
seismic data typically has been horizontal distance and vertical time -- but now
we are flooded with seismic data that is displayed in distance and depth.
Seismic velocities originally came to us as a by-product of the process of
stacking the data. By the geometry of the acquisition program we reference for
this column, there was a large redundancy in the
reflection
information designed
to produce many reflections off of the same subsurface point.
Figure 1 illustrates the
very naïve assumption that source and receiver locations with the same mid-point
would be reflected of the same subsurface point. The stacking process consisted
of correcting each
reflection
for "normal moveout" that was the direct result of
two parameters. These are the source-to-receiver offset and the subsurface
velocity. When all of the reflectors were perfectly aligned, the traces with a
common midpoint could be summed to produce a stacked trace.
The source-to-receiver
offset was known from the acquisition geometry, but the unknown quantity was the
velocity. The method used here was to correct the
reflection
events with a large
suite of velocities to determine the velocity that optimally aligned the
reflection
events. Having picked the optimal "alignment" velocities, the traces
were appropriately corrected sample by sample and then stacked as shown in
Figure 1.
It
was, of course, recognized that in the presence of dipping reflectors, the
traces contributing to the stack did not have a
reflection
point directly under
their common midpoint. Having produced a stack of the corrected reflections, the
composite trace had to be migrated -- that is, the stacked reflections had to be
shifted in time and distance to their appropriate points of origin by poststack
migration.
|
uBackgrounduFigure captionsuMoveout equationuPrestack migration
uBackgrounduFigure captionsuMoveout equationuPrestack migration
uBackgrounduFigure captionsuMoveout equationuPrestack migration
uBackgrounduFigure captionsuMoveout equationuPrestack migration
|
Moveout Equation and Stacking Velocities The equation that
relates the acquisition geometry (source-to-receiver offset, or SRO) to
the subsurface velocities was given to us by C. Hewitt Dix and is called
the Dix Moveout Equation. The geometry and the subsurface model related
to the velocities are shown in Figure 2, along with the moveout
equation. The equation compares the The velocity in this equation is a "time-weighted root-mean-square average" of all the individual velocity layers. For this reason, the stacking velocity is referred to as both Vstack and Vrms. These have become synonymous, even though the moveout equation stated in Figure 2 is actually an approximation. The important work
of C. Hewett Dix gave us a second equation that is really the key to
using stacking velocities for depth conversion. For any given velocity
analysis location, optimal stacking velocities are picked for the major
reflectors. The data set, therefore, consists of the
If we can derive
Vint from the TO -- Vrms pairs, a depth corresponding to each time can
be easily calculated, thereby converting time In the presence of
a dipping reflector, simple geometry shows us that traces that have a
common midpoint do not actually have a common
When computer power
ultimately allowed us to fix the problem of getting the reflections into
the correct subsurface location prior to stack with prestack migration,
we had to re-look at the velocity analysis process. Every trace prior to
stacking has a unique source and receiver location. We do not know where
any given The strategy here is to sweep every sample of every trace in the data set into all of its possible points of origin. When all of these "swept" traces are added together, constructive interference builds the image of the actual reflector locations. This is illustrated in Figure 3. This process
bypasses moveout correction -- and since the shape of every ellipse is a
function of the velocities, where does this velocity information come
from? The answer is the same as it was for the old method of stacking.
We use the velocity that optimally aligns
Figure 3 shows the
common midpoint traces that previously would have been corrected for moveout then stacked. Now they are migrated before stack to be in the
correct location on the reflector. For this diagram, we have displayed
the traces that have been migrated into a single bin location in a 3-D
data cube. The moveout correction is implicit in the migration if the
velocities are correct. The migrated traces prior to stack are inspected
for their alignment -- that is, are they properly aligned to produce an
optimal stack?. This is an iterative process in that we adjust the
migration velocities to align the In the presence of a layered earth, the migration velocity is also a Vrms average of the layer velocities, so this amounts to the same choice as it did for moveout correction. Since the migration velocity is a Vrms average of the layer velocities, the Dix equation is still valid to convert the time image to depth. Recently, the product of prestack migration has been an image in depth. The driver for depth migration is a velocity model that once again is derived from the imaging process. In either case, if
we stack the data to produce stacking velocities, or migrate the data to
produce migration velocities, there is a component of interpretation in
that we choose the velocities that optimally align the The relationship between Vrms, Vint and Vave is shown in Figure 4.
|
