1887
Volume 38 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

A

Multichannel filters are used to eliminate coherent noise from surface seismic data, for wavefield separation from VSP stacks, and for signal enhancement. Their success generally depends on the choice of the filter parameters and the domain of application. Multichannel filters can be applied to shots (monitors), common‐receiver traces, CDP traces and stacked sections. Cascaded applications in these domains are currently performed in the seismic industry for better noise suppression and for signal enhancement. One‐step shot‐domain filtering is adequate for some applications. However, in practice, cascaded applications in shot‐and common‐receiver domains usually give better results when the S/N ratio is low. Multichannel filtering after stacking (especially after repeated applications in shot and/or receiver domains) may create undesirable results such as artificial continuations, or smearing and smoothing of small features such as small throw faults and fine stratigraphic details. Consequently, multichannel filtering after stacking must be undertaken with the utmost care and occasionally only as a last resort.

Multichannel filters with fan‐shaped responses (linear moveout filters) should be applied after NMO correction. These are the filters commonly used in the seismic industry where they have such names as velocity filters, moveout filters, filters and coherency filters. Filtering before NMO correction may result in break‐up and flattening especially of those shallow reflection events with relatively higher curvatures and diffractions. NMO correction is needed prior to wavefield separation from VSP stacks for the same practical reasons outlined above whenever source‐receiver offsets are involved.

Creation of artificial lineup and smearing at the outputs of multichannel filters is presently the common practical concern. Optimum multichannel filters with well‐defined pass, reject and transition bands overcome the latter problems when applied before stacking and after NMO correction. The trace dimension of these filters must be kept small to avoid such lineups and the smoothing of small structures. Good results can be obtained with only five traces, but seven traces seems to be a better compromise both in surface and well seismic applications. The so‐called filtering and domain filtering are no exceptions to the above practical considerations.

Residual static computations after multichannel filtering also need special consideration. Since multichannel filtering improves spatial continuity, residual static algorithms using local correlation, i.e. nonsurface‐consistent algorithms, may be impractical especially after multichannel filtering.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1990.tb01832.x
2006-04-27
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Howard, M.S. and Danbom, S.H.1983. Random Noise Example, Seismic Expression of Structural Styles, A. W.Bally , ed., Vol. 1, p. 25. AAPG Publ., Tulsa , Oklahoma .
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Hubral, P.1974. Stacking filters and their characterization in the f‐k domain. Geophysical Prospecting22, 722–735.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Galbraith, J.N. and Wiggins, R.A.1968. Characteristics of optimum multichannel stacking filters. Geophysics33, 36–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Jones, I.F. and Levy, S.1987. Signal‐to‐noise ratio enhancement in multichannel seismic data via Karhunen‐Loève transform. Geophysical Prospecting35, 12–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. March, D.W. and Bailey, A.D.1983. A review of the two‐dimensional transform and its use in the seismic processing. First Break1, 9–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. McClellan, J.H.1973. On the design of one‐dimensional and two‐dimensional digital filters. Ph.D. thesis. Rice University, Houston , Texas .
  7. Mersereau, R.M. and Dudgeon, D.E.1974. The representation of two‐dimensional sequences as one‐dimensional sequences. IEEE Trans. Acoustics, Speech, Signal ProcessingASSP‐22, 320–325.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Mersereau, R.M.1981. Two‐dimensional nonrecursive filter design. Two Dimensional Signal Processing I, Linear Filters, T. S.Huang , ed., pp. 11–40. Springer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Noponen, I. and Keeney, J.1986. Attenuation of waterborne coherent noise by application of hyperbolic velocity filtering during τ‐p transform. Geophysics51, 20–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ÖZdemir, H.1977. Design of multichannel nonrecursive digital filters with applications to seismic data. Ph.D. thesis, London University.
  11. ÖZdemir, H.1981. Optimum hyperbolic moveout filters with applications to seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting29, 702–714.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. ÖZdemir, H.1982. A frequency domain mapping approximation of moveout filters with applications. Geophysical Prospecting30, 292–317.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ÖZdemir, H.1986. Design and applications of optimum multichannel linear moveout filters. Geophysics51, 1221–1234.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Peacock, K.L.1982. On the practical design of discrete velocity filters for seismic data processing. IEEE Trans. Acoustics, Speech, Signal ProcessingASSP‐30, 52–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Sengbush, R.L. and Foster, M.R. 1968. Optimum multichannel velocity filters. Geophysics33, 11–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Simaan, M. and Love, P.L.1984. Optimum suppression of coherent signals with linear moveout in seismic data. Geophysics49, 215–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Wenzel, F.1988. Processing of wide‐angle Vibroseis data. Geophysics53, 1303–1310.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1990.tb01832.x
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error