You are on page 1of 10

GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 74, NO. 2 共MARCH-APRIL 2009兲; P. WA113–WA122, 20 FIGS.

10.1190/1.3068426

Measuring velocity dispersion and attenuation


in the exploration seismic frequency band

Langqiu F. Sun1, Bernd Milkereit1, and Douglas R. Schmitt2

alter perfect elasticity. For example, Zener 共1948兲 presented the


ABSTRACT standard linear solid model, in which the internal friction Qⳮ1 共where
Q is quality factor; Knopoff and MacDonald, 1958兲 shows a peak at
No perfectly elastic medium exists in the earth. In an ane- a certain frequency. This type of attenuation model is referred to as
lastic medium, seismic waves are distorted by attenuation the Debye peak model.
and velocity dispersion. Velocity dispersion depends on the By investigating some attenuation models, Knopoff and Mac-
petrophysical properties of reservoir rocks, such as porosity, Donald 共1958兲 concluded that Q and wave velocity are frequency
fractures, fluid mobility, and the scale of heterogeneities. dependent in a linear medium, i.e., one in which stress is related lin-
However, velocity dispersion usually is neglected in seismic early to strain. The strain induced by passing seismic waves is small,
data processing partly because of the insufficiency of obser- and the earth materials can be reasonably assumed to be linear. How-
vations in the exploration seismic frequency band 共⬃5 ever, attenuation observations 共e.g., Knopoff, 1964兲 support a
through 200 Hz兲. The feasibility of determining velocity dis- constant-Q model; that is, Q is constant in a broad frequency band
persion in this band is investigated. Four methods are used in 共f L through f H兲. Liu et al. 共1976兲 explained the contradiction between
measuring velocity dispersion from uncorrelated vibrator observation and theory by superposing a series of Debye peaks to
vertical seismic profile 共VSP兲 data: the moving window produce a nearly constant-Q model 共Figure 1兲.
crosscorrelation 共MWCC兲 method, instantaneous phase The causality of seismic waves requires seismic velocity to be fre-
method, time-frequency spectral decomposition method, and quency dependent 共i.e., velocity dispersion exists兲 in a medium with
cross-spectrum method. The MWCC method is a new meth- attenuation. Furthermore, the linkage between velocity dispersion
od that is satisfactorily robust, accurate, and efficient in mea- and attenuation is the Kramers-Krönig relation 共Futterman, 1962兲.
suring the frequency-dependent traveltime in uncorrelated Velocity dispersion and Q can be written explicitly as 共Bourbié et al.,
vibrator records. The MWCC method is applied to the uncor- 1987兲


related vibrator VSP data acquired in the Mallik gas hydrate
research well. For the first time, continuous velocity disper- 2兩M共␻ 兲兩2
sion is observed in the exploration seismic frequency band V共␻ 兲 ⳱ ,
␳ 共兩M共␻ 兲兩 Ⳮ M R共␻ 兲兲
using uncorrelated vibrator VSP data. The observed velocity
dispersion is fitted to a straight line with respect to log fre- and
quency to calculate Q. This provides an alternative method
for Q measurement. M R共 ␻ 兲
Q共␻ 兲 ⳱ ,
M I共 ␻ 兲
where ␳ is density, ␻ ⳱ 2␲ f is angular frequency, and M is the com-
INTRODUCTION plex elastic modulus defined by the ratio of stress to strain. The real
part of M, M R, and the imaginary part of M, M I, constitute a Kram-
The energy of seismic waves propagating in an anelastic medium
ers-Krönig pair:
is attenuated by various dissipation mechanisms. This phenomenon

冕 ⬁
has been observed in experiments on different solids, liquids, and
2␻ 2 M I共 ␣ 兲 d ␣
seismograms 共e.g., Gutenberg, 1958兲. Early attempts to account for M R共␻ 兲 ⳱ M R共0兲 Ⳮ
this phenomenon include various modifications of Hooke’s law to ␲ 0 ␣ ␻2 ⳮ ␣ 2

Manuscript received by the Editor 20 January 2008; revised manuscript received 15 September 2008; published online 11 March 2009.
1
University of Toronto, Department of Physics, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. E-mail: lq.sun@utoronto.ca; bm@physics.utoronto.ca.
2
University of Alberta, Department of Physics, Institute for Geophysical Research, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. E-mail: doug@phys.ualberta.ca.
© 2009 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

WA113

Downloaded 19 Apr 2009 to 117.98.183.40. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
WA114 Sun et al.

M I共 ␻ 兲 ⳱
2

冕0

共M R共␣ 兲 ⳮ M R共0兲兲
␻ d␣
␣ ⳮ ␻2
2
vations demonstrate that velocity dispersion could be a strong indi-
cator of petrophysical properties.
However, most velocity dispersion data are in the sonic and ultra-
Thus, in theory, Q can be calculated from velocity dispersion. sonic frequency band, and are sparse in the seismic frequency band
This alternative method of determining Q was deemed impractical 共⬃10 through 200 Hz兲. Therefore, the existing velocity dispersion
because velocity dispersion is very difficult to measure in reflection observations are insufficient because they do not provide enough in-
seismograms, especially with noise 共Jannsen et al., 1985兲. formation in the seismic frequency band, which is of greater interest
In a constant-Q model, seismic velocity increases with frequency in exploration seismology because the range of seismic wavelength
共Kjartansson, 1979兲: is a few meters through a few hundred meters, making it possible to

冉冊
assess the bulk rock properties in a rock volume.

V共f 2兲 f2 Velocity dispersion usually is neglected in conventional seismic
⳱ , data processing because the effect is small and difficult to measure in
V共f 1兲 f1
a medium with Q ⱖ 30 共Futterman, 1962兲. However, in high-attenu-

冉冊
where ation media with Q ⬍ 30, velocity dispersion is not negligible
1 1 共Molyneux and Schmitt, 1999兲. A frequency-dependent phase shift
␥⳱ tanⳮ1 ,
␲ Q will be introduced into the seismic data because the traveltime varies
with frequency. Figure 2 shows how attenuation and velocity disper-
where f 1 and f 2 are in the f L through f H frequency band. For example, sion distort the conventional crosscorrelation process for vibrator
if Q ⳱ 20, and the seismic velocity is 2.6 km/s at 20 Hz, then from data. In the absence of velocity dispersion, the correlation wavelet is
equation 1, the velocity is 2.7 km/s at 200 Hz, increased by 4%. zero phase. Assuming a constant Q and linear velocity dispersion in
When 兩␥ · ln共f 2 /f 1兲兩  1 and tanⳮ1共1/Q兲 ⬇ 1/Q, using Taylor’s ex- the frequency band of the pilot vibrator sweep, as the sweep propa-
pansion, the above equation becomes gates, the high-frequency component is attenuated quickly as a re-
sult of the constant-Q attenuation, and the correlation wavelet be-
V共f 2兲 1 f2
⬇1Ⳮ ln . 共1兲 comes mixed phased because of velocity dispersion.
V共f 1兲 ␲Q f1 In summary, attenuation and velocity dispersion can provide new
insight into physical rock properties. However, present observations
In the exploration frequency band, 兩log共f 2 /f 1兲兩  4, hence equation 1
in the exploration seismic frequency band are insufficient to make
is valid when Q ⬎ 10. This type of velocity dispersion is referred to
any valuable deductions. In addition, seismic data processing can be
as linear velocity dispersion 共see Figure 1兲. Equation 1 is identical to
the velocity dispersion in Liu et al. 共1976兲 for a nearly constant-Q a)
model.
The later research on attenuation and velocity dispersion includes
modeling studies on various petrophysical conditions, e.g., partial
gas saturation 共White, 1975兲, squirt flow 共Mavko et al., 1998兲,
patchy-saturated porous media 共Johnson, 2001兲, double-porosity
dual-permeability materials 共Pride and Berryman, 2003兲, and frac-
tured porous media with fluid flow 共Brajanovski et al., 2006兲. These
modeling studies indicate that attenuation and velocity dispersion in
saturated porous rocks depend on petrophysical properties, e.g., po- b)
rosity, fractures, and fluid fill.
Velocity dispersion in the sonic and ultrasonic frequency band is
observed in rock experiments 共e.g., Spencer, 1981; Winkler, 1986;
Jones, 1986; Adam et al., 2006; Batzle et al., 2006兲. Velocity disper-
sion in the seismic and sonic frequency band is observed in field sur-
veys 共e.g., Brown and Seifert, 1997; Sams et al., 1997兲. These obser-

Figure 2. Distortion of correlation wavelets of vibrator sweeps in a


medium with attenuation and velocity dispersion. The input vibrator
Figure 1. The constant-Q model resulted from superposed Debye sweep is linear, 12 s long, 8–180 Hz, with 0.15 s tapering. 共a兲 The Q
peaks and the corresponding velocity dispersion. Here f L and f H de- and corresponding velocity dispersion model in the 8–180-Hz band.
note the frequency range in which Q is constant. After Liu et al. 共b兲 Correlation wavelets of the vibrator sweeps changing with the
共1976兲. source-receiver distance.

Downloaded 19 Apr 2009 to 117.98.183.40. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Velocity dispersion in the seismic band WA115

affected severely if attenuation and velocity dispersion are intense. rate because velocity dispersion is small in the exploration frequen-
Hence, it is necessary to develop a robust method to measure veloci- cy band, 共2兲 robust in the presence of noise, and 共3兲 capable of sepa-
ty dispersion in field seismic data. rating different events because a field vibrator record usually is con-
taminated by noise and contains multiple events 共e.g., reflections,
tube waves, and harmonics兲.
Methodology The cross-spectrum 共CS兲 method 共Donald and Butt, 2004兲, in-
stantaneous phase 共IPH兲 method 共Taner and Sheriff, 1977兲, t-f spec-
Suitable data type: Uncorrelated vibrator data tral decomposition 共TFSD兲 method 共Castagna and Sun, 2006兲, and
Attenuation alters the shape of a signal’s amplitude spectrum, moving window crosscorrelation 共MWCC兲 method have been tested
whereas phase velocity dispersion changes the phase spectrum. using synthetic data. The MWCC method is presented below. The
Therefore, uncorrelated vibrator data are appropriate to measure the other methods and synthetic tests are discussed in the appendix.
small velocity dispersion in the seismic frequency band. The advan- The MWCC method measures the t-f relation of an uncorrelated
tages of using uncorrelated vibrator sweeps include 共1兲 the ability to vibrator sweep in the time domain. The difference between the pilot
control or to measure both the amplitude and phase spectra of the pi- and received t-f relations provides the frequency-dependent travel-
lot sweep, and 共2兲 the retention of both the amplitude and phase spec- time, T共f兲. Dispersion of this raypath-average velocity can be calcu-
tra of the received sweep, which is no longer possible once the signal lated by dividing the source-receiver distance by T共f兲. The proce-
has been correlated. dure consists of six steps:
In a vibrator survey, seismic energy of varying frequencies is
Step 1兲 Take a part of the pilot sweep with a tapering window. De-
launched from the source and arrives at the receiver at different
note f i as the central frequency of this part of the pilot sweep.
times, forming a time-frequency 共t-f兲 relation. This t-f relation of a
The window must be longer than a few wavelengths so that
pilot sweep 共pilot t-f relation兲 is predetermined in a vibrator survey.
the correlation in the next step is valid.
Figure 3 shows the predetermined t-f relation of a pilot sweep, the pi-
lot sweep, received sweep, and their t-f spectra. Different events, a) b) c)
such as the direct wave, reflections, harmonics, and noise, are sepa-
rated satisfactorily in the t-f spectra, making it possible to analyze
the t-f relation of a particular event. The most visible event in a re-
ceived t-f spectrum usually is the direct wave. Only the direct wave
is discussed in this paper; “received t-f relation” refers to the t-f rela-
tion of the direct wave in a received sweep.
When velocity dispersion is negligible, the received t-f relation
will be parallel to the pilot t-f relation. Otherwise, the received t-f re-
lation will deviate. In a constant-Q attenuation model, seismic ve-
locity is larger at higher frequencies; hence the higher-frequency
component always arrives earlier than expected. Although the phys-
ics of the problems differs, in many ways this frequency dispersion
could be compared with the Doppler effect in marine vibrator sur-
veys using a moving boat 共Dragoset, 1988兲. Thus, if a vibrator sweep
is distorted by velocity dispersion, the distortion can be corrected d) e) f)
with the similar method presented by Dragoset.
The difference between the traveltimes at a high frequency and at
a low frequency ⌬t can be used to determine velocity dispersion. The
⌬t usually is very small in the seismic band. For example, if f 1
⳱ 20 Hz, f 2 ⳱ 200 Hz, V共f 1兲 ⳱ 2.6 km/s, V共f 2兲 ⳱ 2.7 km/s, and
the source-to-receiver distance is 1 km, then ⌬t is only 14 ms in the
f 1 through f 2 band.
From equation 1, ⌬t increases as f 1 /f 2 increases. In addition, ⌬t
increases if the source-receiver distance increases. Therefore, to op-
timize observability of the small velocity dispersion in uncorrelated
vibrator sweeps, broadband, long-baseline data are desirable. As for
data acquisition geometry, vertical seismic profile 共VSP兲 data are
preferred because transmission seismograms are easier to analyze
than reflection seismograms. Moreover, the method to measure ve-
Figure 3. An example of uncorrelated vibrator sweeps. 共a兲 The de-
locity dispersion in the seismic frequency band needs to be accurate signed t-f relation of a pilot sweep; 共b兲 the pilot sweep; 共c兲 t-f spec-
and robust for field data. trum of the pilot sweep; 共d兲 a received sweep; 共e兲 t-f spectrum of the
received sweep; 共f兲 a schematic illustration of the events in 共e兲. The
grayscale in 共c兲 and 共e兲 is amplitude. The spectral decomposition
Methods of measuring velocity dispersion method for 共c兲 and 共e兲 is discrete Fourier transform using a 1-s-long
in uncorrelated vibrator data cosine window. The data are from the 3L-38 Mallik gas hydrate re-
search well, MacKenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada. The
There are various methods of measuring velocity dispersion in receiver is in the borehole at a depth of 1085 m. The vibrator-bore-
uncorrelated vibrator sweeps. A desirable method must be 共1兲 accu- hole offset is 22 m. The sampling interval is 2 ms.

Downloaded 19 Apr 2009 to 117.98.183.40. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
WA116 Sun et al.

Step 2兲 Crosscorrelate this part of the pilot sweep with the entire re- provides satisfactory results in the presence of different types of
ceived sweep to produce a wavelet of correlation coeffi- noise and multiple events, but it requires the pilot t-f relation to be
cient. obtained from another method.
Step 3兲 Calculate the envelope of the correlation wavelet so that a Combining the IPH and MWCC methods provides the best reso-
peak is produced at the arrival time of an event. This is the lution because the IPH method can measure the pilot t-f relation, and
arrival time of the frequency component centered at f i. The the MWCC can be used to measure the received t-f relation. The CS
most significant peak usually is the direct wave. and TFSD methods can be applied for comparison and quality con-
Step 4兲 Move the tapering window along the pilot sweep for another trol.
f i, and repeat steps 1 through 4 so that a pseudo t-f spectrum
is produced for an uncorrelated vibrator sweep. Similarly to
Field data examples
a t-f spectrum from spectral decomposition, different events The Mallik gas hydrate field, located in the MacKenzie Delta,
can be separated satisfactorily in a pseudo t-f spectrum, and Northwest Territories, Canada, is of historic interest to gas hydrate
the most significant event usually is the direct wave. investigators and a site of ongoing research since 1971 共Dallimore et
Step 5兲 Pick the arrival time of the direct wave in the pseudo t-f al., 2005兲. There has been abundant research on the petrophysical
spectrum for different f i to obtain the received t-f relation. and geophysical properties of this area. For example, Lee 共2002兲
For high-quality data, the arrival time can be picked contin- models the P- and S-wave velocities in gas hydrate-bearing sedi-
uously at each frequency component using an automatic ar- ments using the Biot-Gassmann theory. Winters et al. 共2005兲 pre-
rival picking algorithm. Otherwise, the arrival time must be sents profiles of different petrophysical properties. In general, the
zone of interest within the upper kilometer of sediment consists of
picked manually at a few control frequencies.
permafrost, water-saturated sediments, and gas hydrate-saturated
Step 6兲 Calculate the difference between the pilot and received t-f
sediments.
relations to obtain the T共f兲.

Steps 1 through 3 are shown in Figure 4, and steps 4 through 6 are


shown in Figure 5. The uncorrelated vibrator data in Figures 3–5
were acquired in the Mallik gas hydrate research well 共Dallimore et
al., 2005兲 at a depth of 1085 m and offset 22 m.
It must be noted that the MWCC method by itself cannot deter-
mine the central frequency f i of any part of a pilot sweep. This meth-
od determines only the arrival time of a wave pattern from the pilot
sweep. The f i must be determined by other methods, for example, the
IPH method.
Although a pseudo t-f spectrum from the MWCC method resem-
bles a t-f spectrum from spectral decomposition, they are different.
The MWCC method is a time-domain method, and the values in a
pseudo t-f spectrum are envelopes of correlation coefficients. A peak
in a pseudo t-f spectrum implies the maximum likelihood of the ar-
rival of an event, whereas a peak in a t-f spectrum represents high
amplitude at a certain frequency.
According to the results of synthetic tests 共see Appendix A兲, the
CS method is fast, but it fails when noise or multiple events exist in
received vibrator sweeps. The IPH method is fast and suitable for
measuring the t-f relation of pilot sweeps, but it is not appropriate for
received sweeps. The TFSD method is the most expensive and can-
not separate multiple events as satisfactorily as the MWCC method.
The MWCC method is less expensive than the TFSD method and

Figure 5. The pseudo t-f spectrum of the uncorrelated received


sweep shown in Figure 3d from the MWCC method using a 2-s-long
cosine window. The pseudo t-f spectrum is obtained by repeating the
steps shown in Figure 4 for different f i. 共a兲 Displayed in grayscale,
Figure 4. Steps to calculate the arrival time of part of a pilot sweep which represents the envelope of the correlation coefficients. 共b兲
with central frequency f i using the MWCC method. The dot in step 1 Zoomed in on part of the pseudo t-f spectrum and displayed in wig-
stands for multiplication of the tapering window and pilot sweep. gles. The dashed line shows the t-f relation of the pilot sweep. The
The asterisk in step 2 stands for crosscorrelation of this part of the pi- crosses show the arrival time picks of the direct wave at different fre-
lot sweep and the entire received sweep. quencies.

Downloaded 19 Apr 2009 to 117.98.183.40. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Velocity dispersion in the seismic band WA117

A three-component multioffset vibrator VSP survey was conduct- The above procedure is applied to all uncorrelated sweeps from
ed in the 3L-38 Mallik gas hydrate research well in 2002. The uncor- the 3L-38 well at the 22-m source-borehole offset. Figure 9 shows
related vibrator data from this survey are analyzed to determine the the T共f兲 profile for all depth levels. For convenience, only the 8–
seismic attenuation and velocity dispersion in this area. For the vi- 120-Hz band is shown. The trend of the high-frequency component
brator data set discussed below, the source-borehole offset is 22 m. being faster is clear. Superposed on this trend are narrow bands with
The receivers are at 15-m intervals in a 560–1145-m depth range. earlier or later arrivals, a phenomenon that is systematic in this data
The sampling interval is 2 ms. The pilot sweep is linear, 14 s long, set and inexplicable with constant-Q attenuation. Figure 10 shows
8–120 Hz above 935 m, and 8–180 Hz at, and deeper than, 935 m. the linear velocity dispersion calculated from the T共f兲 profile, com-
Figure 6 shows the vertical component of the correlated VSP data,
and the raypath-average P-wave velocity derived from well logging.
The uncorrelated pilot and received sweeps are analyzed with the
IPH and MWCC methods, respectively. Arrival time of the direct
wave is picked continuously at each frequency in the pseudo t-f
spectrum and compared with the pilot t-f relation to obtain T共f兲. As
an example, T共f兲 measured in the vibrator sweep recorded at the
depth of 1085 m is shown in Figure 7. The seismograms and pseudo
t-f spectrum for Figure 7 are shown in Figures 3 and 5, respectively.
Figure 8 shows the dispersion of the raypath-average velocity, in- Figure 8. Solid line: dispersion of the raypath-average P-wave ve-
dicating that, in general, seismic velocity increases with frequency. locity in the vibrator sweep shown in Figure 3d, calculated from the
This trend can be explained with the linear velocity dispersion in a T共f兲 shown in Figure 7. Dashed line: linear fitting of the solid line.
constant-Q model. By obtaining a best-fit straight line with respect The linear velocity dispersion is 6% in the 8–180-Hz band, which
to log frequency, the linear velocity dispersion is determined to be gives a Q estimate of 15. Note that frequency is in log scale.
6% in the 8–180-Hz band. Using equation 1, a raypath average Q of
15 is obtained.

a) b)

Figure 9. The T共f兲 profile for the direct wave in the vibrator sweeps
received at different depth levels from the 3L-38 Mallik gas hydrate
Figure 6. 共a兲 The 0.1–0.5 s of the correlated vibrator VSP section research well. The source-borehole offset is 22 m.
from the 3L-38 Mallik gas hydrate research well, vertical compo-
nent. The source-borehole offset is 22 m. 共b兲 The raypath-average P-
wave velocity obtained from well logging, compared with the geo-
logic setting.

Figure 7. The T共f兲 of the direct wave in the vibrator sweep shown in
Figure 3d, obtained by comparing the pilot and received t-f relations.
The t-f relation of the pilot sweep, which is shown in Figure 3b, is Figure 10. The profile of linear velocity dispersion for the Mallik
calculated with the IPH method. The received t-f relation is mea- data, calculated from the T共f兲 profile in Figure 9, compared with the
sured with the MWCC method, with the pseudo t-f spectrum shown geologic setting. The contours are raypath-average P-wave velocity.
in Figure 5. Note that frequency is in log scale.

Downloaded 19 Apr 2009 to 117.98.183.40. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
WA118 Sun et al.

samples will be studied to determine the relationship between the


physical rock properties and observed attenuation and velocity dis-
persion. Various petrophysical models will be tested to interpret the
observed attenuation and velocity dispersion in terms of fracture dis-
tribution, fluid fill, porosity, and other rock properties.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Well Research Program
was supported by the International Continental Scientific Drilling
Program. Funding for the VSP data acquisition was provided by a
University of Toronto start-up grant to Bernd Milkereit. We ac-
knowledge the excellent field operations conducted by Schlum-
berger Ltd. for the offset VSP survey.

APPENDIX A
Figure 11. The Q profiles for the Mallik data compared with the geo-
logic setting. The QKK: calculated from the linear velocity dispersion METHODS TO MEASURE
shown in Figure 10. The QSR: calculated from the spectral ratio of VELOCITY DISPERSION IN
first arrivals in the correlated vibrator data, which are shown in Fig-
ure 6. UNCORRELATED VIBRATOR SWEEPS

pared with the geologic setting. Although the velocity values are the Cross-spectrum (CS) method
raypath-average velocities, the relationship between the velocity
dispersion and geologic setting can be observed. Donald and Butt 共2004兲 measured velocity dispersion in their
A raypath-average Q profile is calculated from linear velocity dis- rock experiments from the cross-spectrum of the pilot and received
persion using equation 1, and is shown in Figure 11. This Q profile is signals
compared with the Q profile obtained from the spectral ratio 共Tonn,
Ssr ⳱ Sr · Ss* ,
1991兲 of the first arrivals in the correlated vibrator traces. The two Q
profiles are comparable and consistent with the results of Guerin et where Sr is Fourier transform of the received signal, and Ss* is the
al. 共2005兲, Gauer et al. 共2005兲, and Pratt et al. 共2005兲. The Q values of conjugate of Fourier transform of the pilot signal. The frequency-de-
a P-wave can be as small as 15 in gas hydrate-bearing sediments and pendent traveltime T共f兲 then is
are higher in gas hydrate-free sediments.
Uncorrelated vibrator VSP data from other areas with different 1 d⌰ 共f兲
geologic settings have been analyzed 共Sun et al., 2007a, 2007b兲. Ve-
T共f兲 ⳱ , 共A-1兲
2␲ df
locity dispersion as large as 10% in the 30–150-Hz band and ex-
tremely low Q have been observed in the data from McArthur River where ⌰ 共f兲 is the unwrapped phase of Ssr.
Mines, Athabasca Basin, Canada, where the metamorphic sediment The CS method directly calculates the difference between the pi-
is highly fractured and saturated with fluids. Velocity dispersion less lot and received t-f relations, other than individually. This method is
than 1% in the 30–160-Hz band and moderate Q have been observed applicable to seismic data of any source type. For example, the
in the uncorrelated vibrator data acquired in fractured crystalline source signal in rock experiments by Donald and Butt 共2004兲 was an
rocks in Outokumpu, Finland. impulse-like wavelet, whereas in this case it consists of uncorrelated
vibrator sweeps.
This method relies on the assumption that the wave group propa-
CONCLUSIONS gates as a single mode and therefore is not applicable if multiple
events exist in a seismic record, as shown in Figure A-1.
A new method, the moving window crosscorrelation method, is
presented for determining velocity dispersion with satisfactory ac-
curacy and affordable cost in the exploration seismic frequency Instantaneous phase (IPH) method
band, using uncorrelated vibrator VSP data. This determination of The instantaneous phase was introduced by Taner and Sheriff
velocity dispersion provides an alternative method for measuring Q. 共1977兲. The instantaneous frequency at a time t is
Using the MWCC method, continuous velocity dispersion has
been observed in the uncorrelated vibrator VSP data acquired in the 1 d⌽ 共t兲
Mallik gas hydrate research well. By fitting a straight line of the ve- f共t兲 ⳱ , 共A-2兲
2␲ dt
locity dispersion data with respect to log frequency, a Q profile is ob-
tained for the Mallik data. This Q profile is consistent with the one where ⌽ 共t兲 is the unwrapped phase of the Hilbert transform of an un-
calculated using the spectral ratio method. correlated vibrator sweep. Similarly to the CS method, this method
Attenuation and velocity dispersion can provide better insight relies on the assumption that the wave group propagates as a single
into physical rock properties. Therefore, future research will focus mode.
on the analysis of uncorrelated vibrator data from other regions with This method measures the frequency at a certain time but not the
different geologic and petrophysical settings. Well logs and core arrival time as a function of frequency. To obtain a received t-f rela-

Downloaded 19 Apr 2009 to 117.98.183.40. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Velocity dispersion in the seismic band WA119

tion, f共t兲 must be converted to obtain the frequency-dependent arriv- Figure A-3 shows errors in the pilot t-f relation measured using
al time. Thus, this method is convenient for measuring the t-f rela- the TFSD method without noise. The t-f spectrum is calculated with
tion of a pilot sweep, but not for a received sweep. DFT using a 1-s cosine window. The errors in the central part are
The derivatives in equations A-1 and A-2 can be calculated with caused by the reduced frequency resolution caused by the short win-
difference quotient formulas. dow. The errors always are greater than 0.1 Hz and are large at both
ends in the time range marked by Tunst. The large errors at both ends
Time-frequency spectral decomposition (TFSD) method result because a partial sweep being extracted from an end of a pilot
sweep contains less effective data points.
The t-f relation of an uncorrelated vibrator sweep can be detected Magnitude of errors in the central part and the Tunst depend on the
by picking the arrival time of an event at different frequencies in the window length:
t-f spectrum. A t-f spectrum is calculated using a time-frequency
spectral decomposition algorithm. The clearest event in a received 兩Error in f共t兲兩 ⱕ 0.5/Window length,
t-f spectrum usually is the direct wave. The T共f兲 is the difference be- and
tween the pilot and received t-f relations.
The TFSD method can be used to calculate the t-f relation of both Tunst ⬇ 0.5 ⫻ Window length.
pilot sweeps and received sweeps. The key procedure of this method
In Figure A-3, the window length is 1 s, so that the error amplitude is
is an appropriate TFSD to generate a t-f spectrum in which different
0.5 Hz, and the Tunst is about 0.5 s. Therefore, increasing the window
events are separated satisfactorily. There are different approaches to
length reduces errors in the central part, but increases the Tunst.
conduct TFSD, as discussed by Castagna and Sun 共2006兲. The spec-
The TFSD method is remarkably more expensive but not neces-
tral decomposition algorithm used in this appendix is the discrete
sarily more accurate than the IPH method. Therefore, the IPH meth-
Fourier transform 共DFT兲.
od is preferable when determining pilot t-f relations.
On the pilot sweep in Figure A-1, white noise is added to test the
Computing cost of the four methods IPH method. The errors can be controlled by applying a mean filter
on ⌽ 共t兲. Increasing filter length reduces errors in the central part but
The CS, IPH, TFSD, and MWCC methods are implemented in
expands the unstable range at both ends.
MATLAB 7.0 on a PC with a dual-core CPU and 2 GB memory.
The computing time to obtain a t-f spectrum using the TFSD
a)
method, or a pseudo t-f spectrum using the MWCC method, increas-
es with window length and decreases with the time step at which the
window moves along a vibrator sweep:

共Window length兲␣
Computing time ⬀ , 共A-3兲 b)
共Time step兲␤
where ␣ ⬇ 1, ␤ ⬇ 2 for the TFSD method, and ␣ ⬇ 0.7, ␤ ⬇ 0.8 for
the MWCC method.
Comparing the computing time of the four methods, and setting
the CS method to be 1, the relative computing time of the other meth- c)
ods are as follows: the IPH method is 2; the TFSD method is 7 ⫻ 104
when the window length is 1000 sampling intervals and the time step
is 1 sampling interval; and the MWCC method is 102 when the win-
dow length and time step are 2000 and 50 sampling intervals, respec-
tively.
Figure A-1. The pilot sweep used in the synthetic tests, without
Measuring the t-f relation of a pilot sweep noise. This sweep is linear, 12 s long, 8–180 Hz, sampling interval
1 ms. 共a兲 The first 2 s of the pilot sweep; 共b兲 the designed t-f relation
In a vibrator survey, the pilot sweep often is not exactly the same of the pilot sweep; 共c兲 amplitude spectrum in the 0–200-Hz band of
as predetermined because of site response, harmonics, and so forth. the pilot sweep.
Hence the recorded pilot sweep should be used. The pilot t-f relation
is obtained by measuring the instantaneous frequency of the pilot
sweep using the IPH or TFSD method.
Synthetic vibrator data were used in the tests discussed in this ap-
pendix. The sampling interval is 1 ms. The pilot sweep is linear, 12 s
long, 8–180 Hz, and with 0.15 s taper, as shown in Figure A-1.
Figure A-2 shows the errors in the pilot t-f relation measured us-
ing the IPH method without noise. The errors, small in the central
part but large at both ends, are caused mainly by improper tapering
of the pilot sweep. This is because the Hilbert transform is imple- Figure A-2. Errors in the measured f共t兲 of the pilot sweep 共Figure
mented using Fourier transform, in which a short taper results in a A-1兲 using the IPH method. No noise is added. Black line: no
wavy spectrum. These errors can be reduced using a mean filter, as smoothing applied. Gray line: a 10-point mean filter has been ap-
shown in Figure A-2. plied on ⌽ 共t兲.

Downloaded 19 Apr 2009 to 117.98.183.40. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
WA120 Sun et al.

If stationary noise exists at a frequency, the result of the IPH meth- Figure A-6 compares results from the CS, TFSD, and MWCC
od is not stable in the time range in which the instantaneous frequen- methods when the received sweep is free of noise. No smoothing is
cy of the signal is close to the noise frequency. The large errors can applied for the CS method. Errors in the CS method are negligible. A
be reduced by applying a median filter on ⌽ 共t兲. 1-s cosine window is used for the TFSD and MWCC method. Re-
In theory, the IPH method cannot handle harmonics because of the sults of the TFSD and MWCC methods are not stable at both ends.
single mode assumption. Fortunately, synthetic tests show that when For the TFSD method 共Figure A-6b兲, when there is no noise, the
the harmonics are weak, the result of the IPH method still is accept- magnitude of the errors in the central part depends on the time step at
able, as long as ⌽ 共t兲 is smoothed properly. Figure A-4 is an example. which the window moves along the received sweep:
Amplitude of the harmonic is about 20% of the signal. Errors in the
0.74–11.92-s range are less than 0.1 Hz. However, if the harmonic is 兩Error in T共f兲兩DFT ⱕ 0.5 ⫻ Time step.
strong, e.g., 70% of the signal, the IPH method fails. A solution is to The errors are 0.5 ms in the central part because the window moves
apply a pure phase-shift filter 共Li et al., 1995兲 on the pilot sweep be- sample by sample, i.e., 1 ms. Therefore, to obtain T共f兲 measure-
fore measuring f共t兲 using the IPH method. ments of satisfactory accuracy, the time step must be small enough,
To conclude, the IPH method is efficient and applicable for pilot which makes the TFSD method extremely time-consuming 共equa-
sweeps of ordinary data quality. The TFSD method is expensive and tion A-3兲.
does not provide better results than the IPH method. Therefore, the For the MWCC method 共Figure A-6c兲, when there is no noise,
IPH method is preferable. magnitude error in the central part is determined by the sampling in-
terval:
Measuring the frequency-dependent traveltime
兩Error in T共f兲兩MWCC ⱕ 0.5 ⫻ Sampling interval.
The CS method measures T共f兲 directly, whereas the other meth-
ods compare the pilot and received t-f relations to calculate T共f兲. The errors are within 0.5 ms in the central part because the sampling
Measuring the pilot t-f relation was discussed in the previous sec- interval is 1 ms.Accuracy of the MWCC method does not depend on
tion. This section is a discussion of measuring the received t-f rela- the time step at which the window moves along the pilot sweep;
tion, i.e., frequency-dependent arrival time. hence, the time step can be increased to save computing time 共equa-
In the tests below, the noise-free pilot sweep 共Figure A-1兲 is used tion A-3兲. This results in fewer f i readings.
to better assess the influence of noise in the received sweep. The re- If white noise is added to the received sweep, none of the methods
ceived sweep, shown in Figure A-5, is calculated by assuming that are stable when the signal-to-noise ratio 共S/N兲 is smaller than 1.
the pilot sweep has propagated for 1 km in a medium with Q ⳱ 20 When S/N⬎ 1, mean filters need to be applied to ⌰ 共f兲 for the CS
and linear velocity dispersion 共Figure 2b兲. The four methods are test- method. For the MWCC method, a longer window length should be
ed in the presence of noise and multiple events. used to better tackle the noise. However, increasing the window
length in the MWCC method smears the T共f兲. After proper smooth-
a) ing, the results of the CS, TFSD, and MWCC methods are compara-
ble.
For stationary noise at a frequency f noise, results of the TFSD and
MWCC methods are not affected significantly because stationary
noise can be separated satisfactorily in a t-f spectrum or a pseudo t-f
b) c) a)

Figure A-3. Errors in the measured f共t兲 of the pilot sweep, using the b)
DFT method with a 1-s cosine window. 共a兲 The full length; 共b兲 zoom-
ing in for the central 1 s; 共c兲 zooming for the last 1 s, with the arrow
and Tunst marking the time range in which the DFT method could not
provide stable results.
c)

Figure A-5. The received sweep used in the synthetic tests without
noise. This sweep was obtained by propagating the pilot sweep in
Figure A-1 for 1 km in a medium with the Q and velocity dispersion
shown in Figure 2a. 共a兲 The first 4 s of the received sweep. 共b兲 The
Figure A-4. Errors in the measured f共t兲 of the pilot sweep using the T共f兲 calculated from the velocity model. 共c兲 Amplitude spectrum of
IPH method in the presence of a harmonic with an amplitude of 20% the received sweep compared with that of the pilot sweep in the
of the signal. Two 100-point mean filters were applied on the ⌽ 共t兲. 8–180-Hz band.

Downloaded 19 Apr 2009 to 117.98.183.40. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
Velocity dispersion in the seismic band WA121

spectrum. The CS method failed around f noise, but the large errors can a)
be eliminated using a medium filter.
In field data, there always are multiple events in one received
sweep, whereas the T共f兲 of the direct event is desired. The CS meth-
od cannot separate different events. Notches appear in the measured
T共f兲, resembling the “ghosts” in marine seismic surveys as a result of b)
interference. The TFSD and MWCC methods can provide satisfac-
tory results if the events are well separated in time; otherwise, inter-
ference occurs.
As an example, a secondary event is added with a time delay ⌬T to
the received sweep in Figure A-2. As shown in Figure A-7, the CS
method cannot separate multiple events even if the ⌬T is large and
the amplitude of the second event is significantly smaller than the Figure A-7. Measuring T共f兲 of a main event using the CS method
when another event exists in the received sweep. 共a兲 The correlated
main event.
seismogram of the received sweep. 共b兲 The measured T共f兲 compared
Capability of the TFSD method in separating multiple events de-
with the model T共f兲.
pends on the window length; a shorter window better separates dif-
ferent events because the events cannot be distinguished in an ampli-
tude spectrum. Figure A-8 is an example. In Figure A-8, T共f兲 mea-
a)
surements of the main event are satisfactory when the window
length is 0.8 s but have large errors when the window length is 2 s.
For the MWCC method, the ability to separate multiple events in-
creases with window length. Figure A-9 shows that the errors when
the window length is 4 s are smaller than those when the window b)
length is 3 s. However, a long window will smear the result.
Conclusions of synthetic tests on determining T共f兲 of a received
sweep are as follows:

1兲 The CS method is efficient but not suitable for field data be-
cause it cannot provide accurate results when multiple events c)
exist.

a)

Figure A-8. Measuring the T共f兲 of a main event in the presence of a


second event using the TFSD method. 共a兲 The correlated seismo-
gram of the received sweep. 共b兲 Errors in the T共f兲 measurements
when a 0.8-s cosine window is used. 共c兲 Errors in the T共f兲 measure-
b) ments when a 2-s cosine window is used.

a)

c)
b)

Figure A-6. Errors in the measured T共f兲 from 共a兲 the CS method, 共b兲
the DFT method, and 共c兲 the MWCC method. The pilot sweep is Figure A-9. Measuring the T共f兲 of a main event in the presence of a
shown in Figure A-1, and the received sweep is shown in Figure A-5. second event using the MWCC method. 共a兲 The correlated wave-
No noise is added. No smoothing is applied for the CS method. A 1-s form of the received sweep. 共b兲 Errors in the measured T共f兲 using a 3
cosine window is used for the DFT and MWCC methods. -s 共black line兲 and a 4-s 共gray line兲 cosine window.

Downloaded 19 Apr 2009 to 117.98.183.40. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
WA122 Sun et al.

2兲 The IPH method is suitable for measuring the pilot t-f relation Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 48, 269–282.
because it is efficient and provides satisfactory results for the Jannsen, D., J. Voss, and F. Theilen, 1985, Comparison of methods to deter-
mine Q in shallow marine sediments from vertical reflection seismograms:
pilot sweeps of ordinary data quality, e.g., when S/N of white Geophysical Prospecting, 33, 479–497.
noise is larger than 1 and harmonics are weak. Johnson, D. L., 2001, Theory of frequency dependent acoustics in patchy-
3兲 The TFSD method is stable with white noise and stationary saturated porous media: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110,
682–694.
noise, but the capability of separating different events is not as Jones, T. D., 1986, Pore fluids and frequency-dependent wave propagation in
satisfactory as that of the MWCC method. This method is the rocks: Geophysics, 51, 1939–1953.
most expensive. Kjartansson, E., 1979, Constant Q — Wave propagation and attenuation:
Journal of Geophysical Research B, 84, 4737–4748.
4兲 The MWCC method is appropriate for measuring T共f兲 in a re- Knopoff, L., 1964, Q: Reviews of Geophysics, 2, 625–660.
ceived vibrator sweep because it is stable with noise and can Knopoff, L., and G. J. F. MacDonald, 1958, Attenuation of small amplitude
stress waves in solids: Review of Modern Physics, 30, 1178–1192.
satisfactorily separate different events in the pseudo t-f spec- Lee, M. W., 2002, Biot-Gassmann theory for velocities of gas hydrate-bear-
trum. However, the window length must be selected carefully, ing sediments: Geophysics, 67, 1711–1719.
as a longer window better tackles the noise and better separates Li, X.-P., W. Söllner, and P. Hubral, 1995, Elimination of harmonic distortion
in Vibroseis data: Geophysics, 60, 503–516.
different events, but more severely smears the variation in the Liu, H.-P., D. L. anderson, and H. Kanamori, 1976, Velocity dispersion due to
T共f兲. anelasticity; implications for seismology and mantle composition: Geo-
physical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 47, 41–58.
Mavko, G., T. Mukerji, and J. Dvorkin, 1998, The rock physics handbook:
Cambridge University Press.
REFERENCES Molyneux, J. B., and D. R. Schmitt, 1999, First break timing: Arrival onset
times by direct correlation: Geophysics, 64, 1492–1501.
Pratt, R. G., F. Hou, K. Gauer, and M. Weber, 2005, Waveform tomography
Adam, L., M. Batzle, and L. Brevik, 2006, Gassmann’s fluid substitution and images of velocity and inelastic attenuation from the Mallik 2002 cross-
shear modulus variability in carbonates at laboratory seismic and ultrason- hole seismic surveys, in S. R. Dallimore., and T. S. Collett, eds., Scientific
ic frequencies: Geophysics, 71, no 6, F173–F183. results from Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program,
Batzle, M. L., D. H. Han, and R. Hofmann, 2006, Fluid mobility and frequen- MacKenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada: Geological Survey of
cy-dependent seismic velocity — Direct measurements: Geophysics, 71, Canada Bulletin 585.
no 1, N1–N9. Pride, S. R., and J. G. Berryman, 2003, Linear dynamics of double-porosity
Bourbié, T., O. Coussy, and B. Zinszner, 1987, Acoustics of porous media, dual-permeability materials: 1 — Governing equations and acoustic atten-
translated by N. Marshall: Gulf Publication Co. uation: Physical Review, E68, 036603.
Brajanovski, M., T. Müller, and B. Gurevich, 2006, Characteristic frequen- Sams, M. S., J. P. Neep, M. H. Worthington, and M. S. King, 1997, The mea-
cies of seismic attenuation due to wave-induced fluid flow in fractured po- surement of velocity dispersion and frequency-dependent intrinsic attenu-
rous media: Geophysics Journal International, 166, 574–578. ation in sedimentary rocks: Geophysics, 62, 1456–1464.
Brown, R. L., and D. Seifert, 1997, Velocity dispersion: A tool for character- Spencer, J. W., 1981, Stress relaxations at low frequencies in fluid-saturated
izing reservoir rocks: Geophysics, 62, 477–486. rocks — Attenuation and modulus dispersion: Journal of Geophysical Re-
Castagna, J. P., and S. Sun, 2006, Comparison of spectral decomposition search, 86, 1803–1812.
methods: First Break, 24, April, 75–79. Sun, L. F., B. Milkereit, and D. Schmitt, 2007a, Detecting heterogeneity near
Dallimore, S. R., T. S. Collett, T. Uchida, and M. Weber, 2005, Overview of a borehole using Vibroseis VSP Data, in B. Milkereit, eds., Proceedings of
the science program for the Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Research Exploration 07: 5th Decennial International Conference on Mineral Ex-
Well Program, in S. R. Dallimore, and T. S. Collett, eds., Scientific results ploration, 1091–1094.
from Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program,
MacKenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada: Geological Survey of ——–, 2007b, Measuring attenuation and velocity dispersion using vibrator
Canada Bulletin 585. sweeps: 77th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
Donald, J. A., and S. D. Butt, 2004, Experimental technique for measuring 26, 3115–3119.
phase velocities during triaxial compression tests: Rock Mechanics and Taner, M. T., and R. E. Sheriff, 1977, Application of amplitude, frequency,
Mining Sciences, 42, 307–314. and other attributes to stratigraphic and hydrocarbon determination, in C.
Dragoset, W. H., 1988, Marine vibrators and the Doppler effect: Geophysics, E. Payton, ed., Applications to hydrocarbon exploration: AAPG Memoir
53, 1388–1398. 26, 301–327.
Futterman, W. I., 1962, Dispersive body waves: Journal of Geophysical Re- Tonn, R., 1991, The determination of the seismic quality factor Q from VSP
search, 67, 5279–5291. data: A comparison of different computational methods: Geophysical
Gauer, K., C. Haberland, R. G. Pratt, F. Hou, B. E. Mediole, and M. H. Weber, Prospecting, 39, 1–27.
2005, Ray-based cross-well tomography for P-wave velocity, anisotropy, White, J. E., 1975, Computed seismic speeds and attenuation in rocks with
and attenuation structure around the JAPEX/JNOC/GSC et al., Mallik 5L- partial gas saturation: Geophysics, 40, 224–232.
38 gas hydrate production research well, in S. R. Dallimore, and T. S. Col- Winkler, K. W., 1986, Estimates of velocity dispersion between seismic and
lett, eds., Scientific results from Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Re- ultrasonic frequencies: Geophysics, 51, 183.
search Well Program, MacKenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada: Winters, W. J., S. R. Dallimore, T. S. Collett, B. E. Medioli, R. Matsumoto, T.
Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 585. J. Katsube, and P. Brennan-Alpert, 2005, Relationships of sediment physi-
Guerin, G., D. Goldberg, and T. S. Collett, 2005, Sonic attenuation in the cal properties from the JAPEX/ JNOC/GSC et al., 5L-38 gashydrate pro-
JAPEX/JNOC/ GSC et al., Mallik 5L-38 gas hydrate production research duction research well, in S. R. Dallimore, and T. S. Collett, eds., Scientific
well, in S. R. Dallimore, and T. S. Collett, eds., Scientific results from Mal- results from Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program,
lik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program, MacKenzie MacKenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada: Geological Survey of
Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada: Geological Survey of Canada Bulle- Canada Bulletin 585.
tin 585. Zener, C. M., 1948, Elasticity and anelasticity of metals: University of Chica-
Gutenberg, B., 1958, Attenuation of seismic waves in the earth’s mantle: go Press.

Downloaded 19 Apr 2009 to 117.98.183.40. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/

You might also like