Summary

From SEG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ADVERTISEMENT
Other languages:
Digital Imaging and Deconvolution: The ABCs of Seismic Exploration and Processing
DigitalImaging.png
Series Geophysical References Series
Title Digital Imaging and Deconvolution: The ABCs of Seismic Exploration and Processing
Author Enders A. Robinson and Sven Treitel
Chapter 9
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801610
ISBN 9781560801481
Store SEG Online Store

Let us summarize. A receiver consisting of dual geophone-hydrophone sensors measures two attributes of the wavefield: particle velocity and pressure. The dual-sensor receiver is buried below the level of the buried source. Einstein deconvolution, which requires dual-sensor data, removes all reverberations and ghosts that result from interfaces above the receiver. Einstein deconvolution also removes the unknown source signature in the same operation. The resulting deconvolved seismogram is the unit-impulse reflection response that would have been produced in the absence of any layers above the buried receiver. If desired, we can perform dynamic deconvolution on the unit-impulse reflection response that we previously have obtained with Einstein deconvolution. The output of the dynamic deconvolution process is the sequence of reflection coefficients for interfaces below the receiver. Einstein deconvolution operates under the same limitations as does predictive deconvolution. Thus, the limitations for Einstein deconvolution are similar to those for predictive deconvolution.

Both deconvolution methods have much in common; the difference is in the fundamental assumptions that determine how we obtain the deconvolution operator. The common goal of both predictive deconvolution and Einstein deconvolution is to obtain the reflection-coefficient series as the deconvolved signal. Both predictive (spiking) deconvolution and Einstein deconvolution conduct the deconvolution process on the upgoing signal. Both predictive deconvolution and Einstein deconvolution share the same deconvolution operator: the inverse of the downgoing signal. The difference between these two methods is in the fundamental assumptions that determine the way the deconvolution operator is obtained. The small white reflectivity hypothesis allows the predictive deconvolution operator to be computed by least squares from the upgoing signal. In addition, the small white reflectivity hypothesis often eliminates the need for a final dynamic deconvolution step. Predictive deconvolution has the advantage of many years of successful use. It is robust and stable in the presence of noise. Einstein deconvolution enjoys the advantage that it is not based on the small white reflectivity hypothesis. In this sense, Einstein deconvolution is more general. However, Einstein deconvolution also is more sensitive to noise. Ideally, then, the two methods should be used together to yield the best results.


Continue reading

Previous section Next section
Deconvolution: Einstein or predictive? Appendix I: Exercises
Previous chapter Next chapter
Synthetics Deconvolution

Table of Contents (book)


Also in this chapter


External links

find literature about
Summary/en
SEG button search.png Datapages button.png GeoScienceWorld button.png OnePetro button.png Schlumberger button.png Google button.png AGI button.png