Tomostatic Waveform Tomography for Mapleton, Utah data
Tomostatic Waveform Tomography for Mapleton, Utah data. Jianming Sheng, and Maike Buddensiek. University of Utah. Feb. 5, 2004. Outline. Motivation. Data Preprocessings. Waveform Tomogram. Summary. First-break + First-peak. 0. 2500. Depth (m). 500. m/s. 45. 0. Distances (m). 80.
Tomostatic Waveform Tomography for Mapleton, Utah data
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Tomostatic Waveform Tomography for Mapleton, Utah data Jianming Sheng, and Maike Buddensiek University of Utah Feb. 5, 2004
Outline Motivation Data Preprocessings Waveform Tomogram Summary
First-break + First-peak 0 2500 Depth (m) 500 m/s 45 0 Distances (m) 80
Observed Predicted Motivations • Produce better seismic image by fitting waveforms
Recorded CSG # 49 0 168 shots 168 receiver Interval: 5m Time (sec.) dt: 0.5 ms length: 1s 0.15 Geophone # 20 160
Outline Motivation Data Preprocessings Waveform Tomogram Summary
Data Preprocessings • Instrument caused amplitude anomalies
Amplitude Vs. Traveltime 40 Dashed: Fitted Solid: Observed Log-Amplitude 20 0 0.09 Traveltime (sec.)
Data Preprocessings • Instrument caused amplitude anomalies • Earth attenuation
Frequency Spectrum Vs. Offset 0.0 Frequency (Hz) 100 0 60 Offset (m)
Spectrum variance Attenuation factor Centroid frequency Attenuation Compensation Liao and McMechan (1997)
Q=24.0013 Frequency vs. Traveltime 85 Frequency (Hz) 40 0 0.1 Traveltime (sec.)
multiply to spectrum multiply for the geometrical spreading Data Preprocessings • Instrument caused amplitude anomalies • Earth attenuation • Transform data to 2D format
Preprocessed CSG # 49 0 Time (sec.) 0.15 Geophone # 20 160
Frequency Spectrum Vs. Offset 0.0 Frequency (Hz) 100 0 60 Offset (m)
Frequency Spectrum Vs. Offset 0.0 Frequency (Hz) 100 0 60 Offset (m)
Outline Motivation Data Preprocessings Waveform Tomogram Summary
Selected receiver Convolution Misfit Function Frazer and Sun, 1998
Waveform Tomogram 0 2500 Depth (m) 500 m/s 45 0 Distances (m) 80
First-break + First-peak 0 2500 Depth (m) 500 m/s 45 0 Distances (m) 80
Outline Motivation Data Preprocessings Waveform Tomogram Summary
Summary • The waveform tomogram does not show • much improvement compared to the first- • break and first-peak tomogram. • Elastic modeling code is needed.
Acknowledgment I thank the sponsors of the 2003 UTAM Consortium for their financial support .