Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging
-
Upload
adamoneill73 -
Category
Documents
-
view
1.064 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging
![Page 1: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Presently: DownUnder Geosolutionshttp://www.dugeo.com
Previously: Kyoto Universityhttp://earth.kumst.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~adam
Landstreamersand rapid Vs imagingwith surface waves
Adam O’Neill
![Page 2: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1. Surface wave overview
2. Landstreamer QC tests
3. Field data inversion
4. Synthetic modelling
Contents
![Page 3: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Petroleum seismicNoise !!!
‘Ground-roll’
or
‘Source generated
noise’
Yilmaz (2001)
![Page 4: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Signal !!!
1. Acquisition
2. Processing
3. Inversion
Dispersion curves
Flat-layeredVS model
Engineering geophysics
Plane-wavetransform
Iterativeoptimisation
Shot gather
![Page 5: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Civil / mining / environmental / transportation / petroleum
Civil engineering
![Page 6: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Surface wave types
Water
Solid
Water
Stiff layer
PPP-wavemultiples
‘‘Leaky’ or ‘Guided’Leaky’ or ‘Guided’
Solid
SV
P
ScholteScholte
**
Air
Solid
P
SVRayleighRayleigh
*
Air
Solid
Stiff layer
SH
SH-wavemultiples
LoveLove
![Page 7: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Rayleigh wave motion
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html
Counterclockwise ellipticalmotion at surface
De
cre
ase
s w
ith
dep
th
Pure vertical motionat about 1/5 wavelength Clockwise motion at depth
![Page 8: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Layering effects
http://www.oyo.co.jp/product/1-geo_survey/6-surface_wave/surface_wave1.html
![Page 9: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Pulse dispersion
…pulse changes shape
As
dis
tan
ce
inc
reas
es
…
*
![Page 10: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Dispersion method (f-k)
λ = c/f
z≈λ/2.5β≈1.1c
(a) Off-endgather
(b) Transform and pick ridge
(c) Phase velocity curve
(d) Velocity-depth
Aliaswrap !
c(f)=f/k
![Page 11: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Phase velocity relations
Normal
Inverse
Irregular
f (Hz)
f (Hz)
f (Hz)c
(m/s
)c
(m/s
)c
(m/s
)
β (m/s)
β (m/s)
β (m/s)
z (m
)z
(m)
z (m
)
![Page 12: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Frequencies and depths
Earthquake
seismology
Engineering
geophysics
Frequency Depth Scenario
mHz 100's km Mantle
sub Hz 10's km Crust
Hz 100's metres Basin
Hz 10’s metres Deep
10’s Hz metres Shallow
kHz centimetres Road
MHz millimetres Materials
![Page 13: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Surface wave benefitsProperty… Advantage…
Estimate shear-wave velocity For stiffness (Gmax) estimate
Detect stiffness reversals Caprock thickness and geo-hazards
High signal to noise Survey urban areas / long offsets
Low coupling dependency Use landstreamers / over roads
Survey rubble and waste landfill Where penetrometers not possible
Model velocity gradations More uniquely than refraction
In-field processing Rapid, cost-effective results
Non-destructive test Provide average, in-situ properties
![Page 14: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Conventional vs ‘New’ modelling
Plane-wave matrix methods Full-wavefield P-SV reflectivity
Idealised model:
-Plane wavefronts only
-No acquisition-processing effects
-Pure surface wave modes only
-Smooth elastic contrasts only
Problem:
Failed for many difficult field sites
e.g. stiff / compacted surface layers
Realistic field test simulation:
-Spreading wavefronts
-Source-receiver effects
-Body wave contributions
-Stable for all elastic contrasts
- And mode identification-free !
Outcome:
Accurate results at nearly all field sites !
![Page 15: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Low Velocity Layer
Miss soft layer!
Higher frequency modes not modelled…
Fundamental-mode, plane-wave modelling
![Page 16: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Low Velocity LayerFull-wavefield modelling
Soft layer detected
Higher modes all fitted…
![Page 17: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
High Velocity LayerFundamental-mode, plane-wave modelling
Stiff layer poorly estimated
Low frequency mode(s)not fitted…
![Page 18: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
High Velocity LayerFull-wavefield modelling
Stiff layer recovered
Higher mode(s) fitted well…
![Page 19: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Remaining problems
1D inversion only
- Wavefield scattering ‘corrupts’ dispersion curve
Wavefield discrimination
- Overlapping components (Love / Rayleigh / guided / reflected etc. )
Geological interpretation
- Relate stiffness model to lithology and significance
![Page 20: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
1. Surface wave overview
2. Landstreamer QC tests
3. Field data inversion
4. Synthetic modelling
Contents
![Page 21: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Landstreamer specsOYO Japan – Geometrics USA
24 channel
4.5 Hz vertical geophones
Flat baseplates
Twin rope fasteners
Mueller clip takeouts
![Page 22: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Landstreamer photosLong spread on road / short spread on sand
![Page 23: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Some notesFrom our experience with flat baseplates
At 5 stacks, up to 1 shot per minute = maximum 400 per day
But comfortably get 200 shotpoints per day when off-road
24 channels at 2 m spacing easily pull by one person - on road or sands
Flat baseplates – easier to pull through mud and around corners – but can rock on gravelly/pebbly base
Tripod baseplates – maybe more resistance through soft material – and hard to slide laterally – but better coupling and less rocking no doubt (?)
![Page 24: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Landstreamer vs spikesData and dispersion images
4.5 Hzlandstreamer
28 Hzspikes(plantedgeophones)
Higher mode transition – less clear with landstreamer
![Page 25: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Landstreamer vs spikesDispersion and power curves
However, fundamental mode dispersion is equivalentOnly slight low-freq power loss with 28 Hz geophones
Moral – Don’t need to buy low frequency phones for surface wave surveys if you already have reflection ones!
![Page 26: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Landstreamer resultsTie to downhole Vs log
Model:Soft clays detected
Field and synthetic dispersion curves
![Page 27: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Landstreamer vs spikesNormalised waveforms
Surface wave pulse differs later in train – lower frequency portionNonetheless, phase velocity dispersion is equivalent
![Page 28: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Landstreamer vs spikesAGC shot gathers
Air wave
28 Hz spikes
4 Hz landstreamer
Landstreamer more affected by early time noise and air-waveRefracted arrivals harder to pick
![Page 29: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Maximum offsetsData and dispersion image
96 channels - 1 m near offset - on asphalt - 4-spread walkawayUpper frequency limited to about 70 Hz
![Page 30: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Maximum offsetsAGC shot gather
Strong ground-roll – and air wave - to 100 m offsetWeaker first arrivals - possible reflections 40-60 m offset
Note: Low cut filter was turned off here (usually set at 3 Hz / 6 dB/octave) thus some DC shifts remain in raw data
![Page 31: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Asphalt vs grassData and dispersion images
On asphalt
On grass
220 m/stop-mute
Poor coupling – ‘floating’ up to 2.5 cm on grass/sticks
![Page 32: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Asphalt vs grassDispersion curves
Higher mode above 25 Hz not seen in grass data – no stiff surface
Lower frequency portion is similar shape – but offset parallel by 5 m – so difference within acceptable lateral variation limits
![Page 33: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Positional repeatabilityData and dispersion images
Seemingly minor variations
Day 1
Day 3
![Page 34: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Positional repeatabilityDispersion curves
Most likely reason for difference: Geophone re-positioning errorShotpoint relocated to within 10 cm
But streamer was dis- and then re-assembledPossible spacing differences and/or rope stretch
![Page 35: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
1. Surface wave overview
2. Landstreamer QC tests
3. Field data inversion
4. Synthetic modelling
Contents
![Page 36: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Field tests
Test site 1
Niigata, JapanObjective: Locate extent of rising ‘mud volcano’ plumesSealed asphalt surface
Test site 2
Osaka, JapanObjective: Sediment mapping around faultDry, sandy surface
Rayleigh and Love landstreamer applications
![Page 37: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Mud volcanoLocation map
Overpressured mud formations at depth
Surface via diapirs / conduits
No magmatism
Methane gas expelled (+CO2+N)
Can range from 0.5 m to 800 m high
Thousands worldwide, mostly offshore
Associated with petroleum systems
Also an engineering hazard e.g. offshore platforms, onshore infrastructure
![Page 38: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Mud volcanoSite map and photo
A
B
![Page 39: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Mud volcanoExisting data
Low resistivity= Mud plume
Higher resistivity= Weathered bedrock
![Page 40: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Mud volcanoSeismic line location and parameters from walkaway test
Zone of most mud emanation
Best surface-wave / reflection surveyparameter selection
24 channels2 m geophone spacing10 m near-offset2 m shot spacing2048 samples at 0.5 ms5 stacks wooden mallet on road
Reasoning
Resolve surface wavelengths up to 20 m
Achieve maximum frequency up to 70 Hz
Possible reflections at 40-60 m offset
![Page 41: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Mud volcanoShear wave velocity and resistivity images
Coarse models12 layers
0.5 – 2.5 m thickLow damping
Fine models24 layers
0.25 – 1.25 m thickHigh dampingLateral 5-pointmedian filtered
Two mud plumes
connecting at surface?
Higher resist.= gas or sands?
![Page 42: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Mud volcanoMidpoints with Vs over 200 m/s
Scatteringeffects?
Indicates no mud
Possibly fresh or weathered basement
![Page 43: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Mud volcanoMidpoints with Vs under 200 m/s
Possible mud plume ?
Or zone of scattering…
Scatteringeffects?
![Page 44: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
SH-wave source and landstreamer
River sands
![Page 45: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Data and dispersion images
River sands
Love
(landstreamer)
Rayleigh
(planted
geophones)
![Page 46: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Inversion results and interpretation
River sands
0-5 m = Post-fault cover - positive anisotropy (Vsh > Vsv)
>5 m = Faulted sediments - reverse anisotropy (Vsh < Vsv)
Vsh <> Vsv
Transverse
isotropy
![Page 47: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
1. Surface wave overview
2. Landstreamer QC tests
3. Field data inversion
4. Synthetic modelling
Contents
![Page 48: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Synthetic modelling
Procedure
1. Use 2D numerical code to simulate full-wavefield2. Apply rollalong 1D inversion, as per field test
Test cases
(i) Soft pinchout(ii) Sinkhole
(iii) Fault
To verify 1D inversion reliability over 2D structures
![Page 49: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Modelling methodElastic 2D Finite-Difference (4th order)
Receivers48 and/or 96 channels1 m geophone spacing
SourceVertical impact at surface2 m shot spacing
GeometryOff-end shots2.5 m near offsetBoth pushing (from left) and pulling (to right)
Imaging1D models plotted at spread midpoint
![Page 50: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Soft pinchout2DFD model
![Page 51: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Soft pinchoutInverted Vs image
96-channel shot pushing from left
![Page 52: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Soft pinchoutInverted Vs image
96-channel shot pulling from right
![Page 53: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Synthetic vs field imagesInverted VS images with shot pushing from left
Syntheticdata
96 channels1 m spacing
Fielddata
24 channels2 m spacing
Common features:
- Zone of anomalous dispersion around pinchout
- Covers about 20% of spread length, mostly beyond pinc
hout
- Pinchout location possibly overestimated by up to 10% o
f spread length
- When pushing spread off end of an LVL, prefer to plot mo
dels nearer to shot
(Or take average model between reciprocal shots)
![Page 54: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
SinkholeLimestone dissolution
![Page 55: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
SandSand
LateriteLaterite
SinkholeModelling inspiration
Hyden fault scarp field data (actually laterite)… Soft zone?
![Page 56: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Sinkhole2DFD model
![Page 57: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
SinkholeInverted Vs image
96-channel shot pushing from left
![Page 58: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
SinkholeInverted Vs image
96-channel shot pulling from right
![Page 59: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
2DFD model
Fault
![Page 60: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Genetic Algorithm inverted Vs image48-channel shot pushing from left
Fault
![Page 61: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Raw CMPCC
CMP cross-correlation processing
Fault
Scatter !Smooth !
![Page 62: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Dispersion curves and 1D misfits
Important observations
Scatter when 1/5 to 2/5
of spread is over fault
Smooth when spread is
midway over fault
RMS misfit not indicate
1D inversion breakdown
![Page 63: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Conclusions•Landstreamer highly suitable for surface waves – shear wave velocity profiling
•Easily 200 shotpoints per day – more on smooth, straight road
•Coupling and/or geophone frequency not a concern for surface waves – 28 Hz are fine
•Only difference is with higher mode transitions – less clear with landstreamer
•Strong response at far offsets – to even 100 m or more
•Refractions slightly harder to pick at far offsets with landstreamer – and flat baseplates more susceptible to air wave
•2D profiling a shallow LVL pinchout shows scattering – but rollalong 1D inversion provides an accurate image
•Shorter spreads show clear forward/reverse shot differences – longer spreads show broader scattering but less shot geometry dependence
•Plotting model location at spread centre may not be best option – response appears dominated by material below the shot / nearer offsets
![Page 64: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
If time……show basement reflection synthetics
![Page 65: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Basement below sinkhole2DFD model to depth
Surface waveproblem
Reflection problem
![Page 66: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Basement below sinkholeP-SV shot gathers
1D reflectivity (viscoelastic) 2D Finite Difference (elastic)
-Strong surface and guided wave noise due to near-surface waveguide
-Basement P-P reflection only at far offset
-Viscoelastic has lower frequency content
Rayleigh modes-Fundamental-Higher
Guided wave (multiply reflected P-waves
P-P basement reflection
![Page 67: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Basement below sinkholeCDP versus zero-offset
Surface seismic96 channels1 m spacing2.5 m near offset2 m shot spacingConventional CDP flow
Exploding reflectorSources every 10 cmat basement interface96 receivers at 1 mat surfaceLow-velocity pull-down
CDP processing gives pull-downs either side of sinkhole
*
![Page 68: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Basement below sinkholeFar-offsets and static issues
…thus, apparent pull-down for CDP’s where source is over sinkhole due to static from soft material
* *RecSrcNo static here
With thin surficial waveguide, strong ground-roll only allows far-offset reflections to be identified and imaged…
![Page 69: Seismic landstreamers and rapid Vs imaging](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062704/5562559dd8b42a6c368b5362/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Basement below sinkholeP-SV and SH synthetic shot gathers
P-P reflection-Far offset (stretched)-Noise shrouded
SH reflection-All offsets-After noise-Better image?