Passive Seismic ImagingSEP/Crustal Research Group [email protected] 1 Return to Passive Imaging...

[email protected]

Passive Seismic ImagingSEP/Crustal Research Group

1

Return to Passive Imaging

Brad Artman

June, 6 2002

Ph.D. Proposal

[email protected]


2

State of Affairs

Claerbout’s Conjecture

Terra/Helio-seismology EngineeringExploration

Success

[email protected]


3

• The nutshell

• Why it works

• As it stands

• Toward the goal

• How to finish

• When will all this be ready?

[email protected]


4

• The nutshellThe nutshell– ProblemProblem– ImportanceImportance– ProposalProposal

• Why it works

• As it stands

• Toward the goal

• How to finish


[email protected]


5

Problem

• Who knows if passive seismic imaging works?– Why (not)?

[email protected]


6

Importance

• Lots of people care about the subsurface.

• No source required opens opportunities for:– Monitoring– Reconnaissance– Restricted access sites– Old long data sets– New long data sets

[email protected]


7

Proposal

I propose to answer whether or not the passive seismic experiment can be used as a practicable methodology for subsurface imaging and/or monitoring.

+ or - I’ll tell you why.

[email protected]


8

• The nutshell

• Why it worksWhy it works– Intuitive explanationIntuitive explanation– Rigorous explanationRigorous explanation

• As it stands

• Toward the goal

• How to finish


[email protected]


9

Intuitive explanation

a

r1 r2 r1*r1 r1*r2

b c

t lag

[email protected]


10

Rigorous explanation I

1

U

-RR

Conventional reflection seismic

1

-UU

P

Earthquake seismology

Y –R( ) R(Z) + [1+R( )] [ 1+ R(Z)] = Y U( ) U(Z)Z1

Z1

Z1

1 k

1+R( ) R(Z) = a U( ) U(Z)Z1

Z1

[email protected]


11

Rigorous explanation IY –R( ) R(Z) + [1+R( )] [ 1+ R(Z)] = Y U( ) U(Z)Z

1Z1

Z1

1 k

1+R( ) R(Z) = a U( ) U(Z)Z1

Z1

1

U

-RR

Conventional reflection seismic

1

-UU

P

Earthquake seismology

[email protected]


12

Intuitive explanation

a

r1 r2 r1*r1 r1*r2

b c

t lag

[email protected]


13

Rigorous explanation II

U( ) U(Z) = U(p,ω) U(p,ω) = Q(p,ω)Z1

Q(k,ω) = Q( , ω) = |ω|U(k,ω) U(k,ω)1|ω| ω

k

Q(p,ω) = Q( , ω)ω k

Q(p,ω) = |ω| Q(k,ω)

q(x,t) = (t) u(x’,t) u(x+x’,t+t’)t’x’

rx’,x+x’(t)x’

DFT

[email protected]


14

Synthetic Testsm

s

[email protected]


15

Cross-correlation Technique

Passive Seismic Imaging applied to synthetic data, Rickett SEP-92

[email protected]


16

Virtual multiples

a

r1 r2 r1*r1 r1*r2

b c

t lag

[email protected]


17

• The nutshell

• Why it works

• As it standsAs it stands– It works!It works!– On the shoulders of giantsOn the shoulders of giants– The raceThe race

• Toward the goal

• How to finish


[email protected]


18

It works!

Acoustic Daylight Imaging via spectral factorization, Rickett SEP-100

[email protected]


19

On the shoulders of giants• SEP reports 60 – 86, 100

– SEP’s Franciscan effort and analysis

• Schuster– Correlation migration– Drill bit source

• Bostock– Earthquake array seismograms

• Louie– Engineering characterization

[email protected]


20

The Race

• Undisclosed submission

• Company interest

• Livermore???

• The earth from satellite?

[email protected]


21

• The nutshell• Why it works• As it stands• Toward the goalToward the goal

– Is 2D possible?Is 2D possible?– Reformulation as migrationReformulation as migration– Motivation to invertMotivation to invert– Sampling the noise-fieldSampling the noise-field– Shape of the noise-fieldShape of the noise-field– Artman GeoServicesArtman GeoServices

• How to finish• When will all this be ready?

[email protected]


22

Is 2D possible?

• Yes

• PGS OBC 3C Co-parallel PSD !

Is 2D possible?, Artman, SEP-111

[email protected]


23

Reformulation as migrationI(z, x)=Σ P (ω,x,s) P (ω,x,s)

ω

szg

z

P is the wave field at each depth level,where source and receiver fields are propagated independently via SSR.

z

Realization: If P = P , correlation requirement of the passive seismic conjecture

is fulfilled in the migration.

Let the wave equation handle the unknown source.

s g

[email protected]


24

Areal Source Wave-fieldShot-profile migration of multiple reflections,Guitton, SEP-111

[email protected]


25

Synthetic Testsm

s

[email protected]


26

Two horizontal planesm m

m

[email protected]


27

Point Diffractor

[email protected]


28

Cost Comparison

• Correlations– Spatial increase: N to N (+5 O.M.) – Temporal decrease: N to N (- 4 O.M.)– Migrate (S.P.): N N N N

• Skipping Correlations– No spatial or frequency change: N , N– Migrate (S.P.): N N N N

xy

lag

xy

xy2

xy

t

lag zxy2

t

hxy

t zhxy

[email protected]


29

Motivation to invert

[email protected]


30

Sampling the noise-field

Minimize storage and processing costsBow to acquisition computer limitations

[email protected]


31

No

[email protected]


32

Shape of the noise-field

[email protected]


33

Artman GeoServices

[email protected]


34

• The nutshell

• Why it works

• As it stands

• Toward the goal

• How to finishHow to finish– Brad, the sun, and your coffee tableBrad, the sun, and your coffee table– Santa Clara Valley Seismic ExperimentSanta Clara Valley Seismic Experiment– Recast as deconvolutionRecast as deconvolution– Wave-field separationWave-field separation


[email protected]


35

Solar imaging

• Flare structure, density layering

• Tools: – Absorbing boundary layer modeling– Up-down extrapolator

• James Rickett

[email protected]


36

Crustal Seismic

[email protected]


37

Deconvolution• Who needs physics?

U = T SS = H W

A U = WA = W W H T -1 -1 -1

= H T-1-1

Assume T is white(ish) and events are well spaced-1

Second PEF estimation & application returns T-1

Levinson recursion calculates the reflection coefficients

[email protected]


38

Wave-field separation

u = E L R

I

Up-going wave-field

Physics

Surface displacements

E has azimuthal dependency- this may not work.

[email protected]


39

Data commitments• Linear acquisition:

– S. California, USGS. Sept. 2002

– S.C. Valley, USGS. Sept. 2002

– 3C OBC, GoM, PGS, June 2002

– Unspecified test, PGS, Sept. 2002

– Publicly available seismologic deployments

• Areal acquisition:– South Texas, CGG, Sept. 2002

– Sun, SOI, in-house

– S.C. Valley, USGS, in-house

– Moss Landing +, Artman GeoServices, in-house

– Publicly available seismologic deployments

[email protected]


40

Time-line

• Summer 2002– 3D up-down extrapolator, absorbing BC’s– Image solar flare, submit for publishing– Image Moss Landing beach

• Urban applications?

– Continue collection of outside data– SEG passive seismic workshop

[email protected]


41

Time-line

• Fall 2002– Image Santa Clara Valley, submit for publishing– Gather/acquire data– Image data as it arrives– Physics 210: Particle mechanics

[email protected]


42

Time-line

• Winter 2002-Spring 2003– Continue data collection and processing– Comp. Sci. 238: Parallel methods in num. analysis– Begin comparative study of successes and failures– Prepare work for publishing

• Summer 2003 – outside internship

[email protected]


43

Time-line

• Fall 2003 – Spring 2004– Finalize comparative analysis– Define success parameters– Prepare for publishing

• Summer 2004– Stat. 110: Stat. Methods in eng. and phys. science– Wrap up outstanding projects

[email protected]


44

Time-line

• Fall – Winter 2004– PE 284 : Optimization– Write thesis, journal articles

• Spring 2004– Finalize deliverables for graduation

[email protected]


45

Thank You

Passive Seismic ImagingSEP/Crustal Research Group [email protected] 1 Return to Passive Imaging...

Documents

Transcript of Passive Seismic ImagingSEP/Crustal Research Group [email protected] 1 Return to Passive Imaging...