Causes of high-frequency losses

Problems in Exploration Seismology and their Solutions

Series	Geophysical References Series
Title	Problems in Exploration Seismology and their Solutions
Author	Lloyd P. Geldart and Robert E. Sheriff
Chapter	6
Pages	181 - 220
DOI	http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801733
ISBN	ISBN 9781560801153
Store	SEG Online Store

Problem 6.20

Denham’s (1980) empirical high-frequency limit is related both to the loss of high frequencies and to the dynamic range of the recording system. Reconcile this limit with losses by absorption of $0.15\ {\rm {dB}}/\lambda$, spreading, and high-frequency loss because of peg-leg multiples (as illustrated in Figures 6.20a,b). Take 84 dB as the dynamic range of the recording-system.

Figure 6.20a.  Peg-leg mechanism.

Background

Denham’s high-frequency limit is discussed in problem 7.4 and absorption in problem 2.18. Absorption versus spreading (divergence) is the subject of problem 3.8. Spreading causes the amplitude to fall off inversely with distance. Peg-leg multiples (illustrated in Figure 6.20a,b) are described in problem 3.8.

The dynamic range of a recording system is the ratio (usually expressed in decibels) of the maximum signal that can be amplified without distortion to the background noise of the system.

Solution

Denham’s relation is $f_{\rm {\;max\;}}=150/t$, where $f_{\rm {\;max\;}}$is the maximum usable frequency and $t$ is the traveltime. We assume two depths 100 and 4100 m and find the average velocity ${\bar {V}}$ for this depth interval using the South Louisiana curve in Figure 5.5b; the result is ${\bar {V}}=2600\ {\rm {m/s}}$. Thus, $t\approx 3.1\ {\rm {s}}$ and Denham’s relation gives $f_{\rm {\;max\;}}=48$ Hz.

Figure 6.20b.  Attenuation because of peg-legs (from Schoenberger and Levin, 1978).

For a frequency of 48 Hz,$\lambda =2600/48=54\ {\rm {m}}$. The total distance traveled by the wave $=8000\ {\rm {m}}=148\lambda$. From Figure 6.20b, we take $0.08\ {\rm {dB}}/\lambda$ as a median value of $\eta \lambda$ for the loss due to peg-leg multiples, the total loss being $0.08\times 148=12\ {\rm {dB}}$. Taking absorption losses as $0.15\ {\rm {dB}}/\lambda$ gives 22 dB for absorption. Spreading causes the amplitude to decrease inversely as the distance and the distance ratio is 4100/100 = 41, giving a loss of $20{\rm {\;log\;}}41=32\ {\rm {dB}}$. Thus, of the total losses of 66 dB, about 20% is due to peg-leg multiples, 30% to absorption, and 50% to spreading. Before generalizing these conclusions, we must realize that spreading losses decrease rapidly with distance compared to peg-leg multiples and absorption losses.

The total loss of 66 dB over the 4000 m interval is well within the 84 dB dynamic range of the system.

Continue reading

Previous section	Next section
Vertical resolution	Ricker wavelet relations
Previous chapter	Next chapter
Geometry of seismic waves	Characteristics of seismic events
Table of Contents (book)

Also in this chapter

• Characteristics of different types of events and noise
• Horizontal resolution
• Reflection and refraction laws and Fermat’s principle
• Effect of reflector curvature on a plane wave
• Diffraction traveltime curves
• Amplitude variation with offset for seafloor multiples
• Ghost amplitude and energy
• Directivity of a source plus its ghost
• Directivity of a harmonic source plus ghost
• Differential moveout between primary and multiple
• Suppressing multiples by NMO differences
• Distinguishing horizontal/vertical discontinuities
• Identification of events
• Traveltime curves for various events
• Reflections/diffractions from refractor terminations
• Refractions and refraction multiples
• Destructive and constructive interference for a wedge
• Dependence of resolvable limit on frequency
• Vertical resolution
• Causes of high-frequency losses
• Ricker wavelet relations
• Improvement of signal/noise ratio by stacking

External links

find literature about Causes of high-frequency losses