Interactive velocity analysis

Seismic Data Analysis

Series	Investigations in Geophysics
Author	Öz Yilmaz
DOI	http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801580
ISBN	ISBN 978-1-56080-094-1
Store	SEG Online Store

With the availability of powerful workstations, efficiency in seismic data analysis at large has increased enormously. Applications that involve numerically intensive computations and large input-output operations are performed using multiprocessor servers, and results are viewed and evaluated using high-performance graphics workstations. Interactive data analysis enables efficient parameter testing that is needed for many of the steps in a processing sequence, such as filtering, deconvolution, and gain. Additionally, interactive analysis provides efficiency in picking events — first breaks on shot records for refraction statics, reflection times on migrated sections, and velocity functions from velocity spectra.

Figure 3.2-26 shows a CMP gather and its velocity spectrum displayed in color. Note the distinct velocity trend with changes in vertical gradient at 600, 1400, and 2000 ms. Color display of velocity spectra is used for interactive picking of semblance peaks, whereas the contour and gated row plots are used for the traditional paper display of velocity spectra. Figure 3.2-27 shows the same velocity spectrum as in Figure 3.2-26 with the velocity picks associated with primary reflections. The hyperbolic traveltime trajectories that correspond to the velocity picks are superimposed on the CMP gather to observe any discrepancy between the modeled and the actual traveltimes, and thus verify the accuracy of the velocity picks. Further verification of the picks can be made by applying moveout correction and examining the flatness of events on the CMP gather as shown in Figure 3.2-27. The undercorrected event at about 800 ms is the water-bottom multiple; this event is represented in the velocity spectrum by the isolated peak to the left of the velocity trend.

Figure 3.2-28 shows the same gather and velocity spectrum as in Figure 3.2-27 but with a velocity function erroneously picked along a high-velocity trend to cause undercorrection of the reflections. Note the discrepancy between the modeled and actual travel-times on the CMP gather before moveout correction, and the misalignment of the reflections after moveout correction. The case of overcorrection caused by erroneously low velocities is demonstrated in Figure 3.2-29.

A localized mispick along a velocity trend yields a physically implausable interval velocity value as ill-strated in Figures 3.2-30 and 3.2-31. The strategy for picking velocities from velocity spectra is based on tracking the velocity trend that coincides with semblance peaks associated with the primary reflections. Whether these reflections are associated with key geological markers or not is irrelevant — as many picks as necessary should be picked so as to honor changes in vertical velocity gradients and thus obtain the best stack. However, picks at too close time intervals can yield anomalous interval velocities from Dix conversion (Section J.4); therefore, they should not be used for deriving interval velocities. (Earth modeling in depth, in addition to Dix conversion, is devoted to several techniques for estimating interval velocities.)

• 

  Figure 3.2-26  A CMP gather and its velocity spectrum.

• 

  Figure 3.2-27  The same CMP gather and its velocity spectrum (left and center panels) as in Figure 3.2-26 with the picked velocities denoted by + marks coincident with the semblance peaks. The curve to the right of the semblance peaks is the interval velocity function derived from the picked rms velocity function. The far right panel shows the CMP gather after moveout correction using the picked rms velocity function.

• 

  Figure 3.2-28  The same CMP gather and its velocity spectrum (left and center panels) as in Figure 3.2-26 with the erroneously picked velocities denoted by + marks. The curve to the right of the semblance peaks is the interval velocity function derived from the picked rms velocity function. The right-hand panel shows the CMP gather after moveout correction using the picked rms velocity function. Note the undercorrection of events caused by the erroneously too high moveout velocities.

• 

  Figure 3.2-29  The same CMP gather and its velocity spectrum (left and center panels) as in Figure 3.2-26 with the erroneously picked velocities denoted by + marks. The curve to the right of the semblance peaks is the interval velocity function derived from the picked rms velocity function. The right-hand panel shows the CMP gather after moveout correction using the picked rms velocity function. Note the overcorrection of events caused by the erroneously too low moveout velocities.

• 

  Figure 3.2-30  The same CMP gather and its velocity spectrum as in Figure 3.2-26 with an erroneously picked velocity at 1875 ms. The curve to the right of the semblance peaks is the interval velocity function derived from the picked rms velocity function. Note the anomalous interval velocity derived from the erroneously picked interval velocity.

• 

  Figure 3.2-31  The same CMP gather and its velocity spectrum as in Figure 3.2-26 with an erroneously picked velocity at 1875 ms. The curve to the right of the semblance peaks is the interval velocity function derived from the picked rms velocity function. Note the anomalous interval velocity derived from the erroneously picked interval velocity.

To derive plausable interval velocities from the picked rms velocity functions, first intersect the time horizons picked from the time-migrated volume of data with the velocity functions at analysis locations and extract horizon-consistent rms velocity functions. Then, perform spatial interpolation to derive horizon-consistent rms velocity profiles along line traverses or maps over the survey area. Next, perform Dix conversion of the horizon-consistent rms velocities to interval velocities v_int :

$v_{int}={\sqrt {\frac {v_{n}^{2}t_{n}-v_{n-1}^{2}t_{n-1}}{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}}},$

(24)

where v_n and v_n−1 are the rms velocities at the layer boundaries n and n − 1, respectively; and t_n and t_n−1 are the horizon times at these layer boundaries. An alternative method for deriving horizon-consistent rms velocities is presented next.

See also

• The velocity spectrum
• Measure of coherency
• Factors affecting velocity estimates
• Horizon velocity analysis
• Coherency attribute stacks
• Exercises
• Topics in moveout and statics corrections

External links

find literature about Interactive velocity analysis