1887
Volume 22 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

A

Common‐depth‐point stacking velocities may differ from root‐mean‐square velocities because of large offset and because of dipping reflectors. This paper shows that the two effects may be treated separately, and proceeds to examine the effect of dip. If stacking velocities are assumed equal to rms velocities for the purpose of time to depth conversion, then errors are introduced comparable to the difference between migrated and unmigrated depths. Consequently, if the effect of dip on stacking velocity is ignored, there is no point in migrating the resulting depth data.

For a multi‐layered model having parallel dip, a formula is developed to compute interval velocities and depths from the stacking velocities, time picks, and time slope of the seismic section. It is shown that cross‐dip need not be considered, if all the reflectors have the same dip azimuth.

The problem becomes intractable if the dips are not parallel. But the inverse problem is soluble: to obtain, stacking velocities; time picks, and time slopes from a given depth and interval velocity model.

Finally, the inverse solution is combined with an approximate forward solution. This provides an iterative method to obtain depths and interval velocities from stacking velocities, time picks and time slopes. It is assumed that the dip azimuth is the same for all reflectors, but not necessarily in the plane of the section, and that the curvature of the reflecting horizons is negligible.

The effect of onset delay is examined. It is shown that onset corrections may be unnecessary when converting from time to depth.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1974.tb00069.x
2006-04-27
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Dix, C. H., 1955, Seismic velocities from surface measurements: Geophysics20, 68–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Levin, F. K., 1971, Apparent velocity from dipping interface reflections: Geophysics36, 510–516.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. O'Doherty, R. F. and Anstey, N. A., 1971, Reflections on amplitudes: Geophysical Prospecting19, 430–458.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Pflueger, J. C., 1954, Delta-T formula for obtaining average seismic velocity to a dipping reflecting bed: Geophysics19, 339–341.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Sattlegger, J., 1965, A method of computing interval velocities from expanding spread data in the case of arbitrary long spreads and arbitrarily dipping interfaces: Geophysical Prospecting13, 306–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Taner, M. T., Cook, E. E. and Neidell, N. S., 1970, Limitations of the reflection seismic method; lessons from computer simulations: Geophysics35, 551–573.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Taner, M. T. and Koehler, F., 1969, Velocity spectra—digital computer derivation and applications of velocity functions: Geophysics34, 859–881.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1974.tb00069.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