8
Arrays
8.1 THE QUESTION OF ARRAYS
Array design in 3-D surveys requires careful con-
sideration. A good treatment of arrays in 2-D surveys
can be found in Vermeer (1990). If a receiver array is
used, it should be as simple as possible. Circles, box
patterns, or in-line arrays are commonly used today
because of the ease and efficiency of their layout. A
designer may place a major emphasis on an intricate
receiver array, but this message may be hard to con-
vey to the field personnel who may not understand
the necessity of carrying out instructions accurately.
In such cases, the designer must work with the field
personnel directly to achieve meticulous placement of
the arrays.
In 3-D surveys, source energy arrives from many
directions. The array response varies dramatically de-
pending on the azimuth between point sources (e.g.,
dynamite) and receiver arrays. If geophone arrays are
laid in-line, the response from a point source fired
from an in-line position will be attenuated, while a
broadside source into such an array will not be af-
fected by the array. Because of this variation, many
companies prefer no arrays at all when recording 3-D
data with single-hole dynamite source points, and use
omnidirectional arrays such as circles or clustered ar-
rays.
Field tests for linear versus podded geophone ar-
rays have indicated that there may be situations
where arrays can attenuate reflections more than
groundroll does (Wittick, 1998). The tests included
in-line as well as cross-line recording, i.e., the wave-
fields hit the geophone groups linearly as well as
broadside.
Regone (1998) has shown that dense wavefield
sampling through the use of areal grids of receivers is
effective in reducing scattered noise. Direct-arrival
129
noise requires the use of adequate spatial sampling
(and usually field arrays), while ambient noise is best
overcome by an appropriate choice of source type,
source strength, and fold.
Arrays in the source line direction should comple-
ment arrays in the receiver line direction as much as
possible (Vermeer, 1998a). Figure 8.1 shows the differ-
ent array combinations that may be considered. Fig-
ure 8.1a is a single source point being recorded by a
linear receiver array, the series of midpoints indicates
possible smearing in the receiver line direction. Figure
8.1b shows the areal midpoint sampling that might
happen with a combination of linear source and re-
ceiver arrays. This areal midpoint coverage is
summed as one trace. Figure 8.1c indicates the mid-
point coverage that can be achieved with a single
source and an areal receiver array. The greater the
number of elements in a receiver array, the larger is
the areal midpoint coverage. Such areal arrays are ef-
fective in reducing back-scattered noise.
8.2 GEOPHONE ARRAYS
Figure 8.2 illustrates a five-element geophone array
response oriented east-west to energy arriving from
various directions. Figure 8.2a shows the array re-
sponse in a linear plot, while Figure 8.2b shows the
response in a radial presentation. Note the poor atten-
uation of broadside energy, at 90° (north) and 270°
(south), and good attenuation at 0° (east) and 180°
(west). Figure 8.2b shows the 2-D array response with
0° being in-line to the geophones, i.e., east-west. A
cross-sectional display of the array response is shown
at the bottom of each figure, e.g. at 209.8° in Figure
8.2a. The location of each profile view is indicated by
a thick black line through each 2-D response.
130 Arrays

Fig. 8.1. Midpoint coverage for: a. a single source into a linear geophone array (after Vermeer, 1998a), b. a linear
source array into a linear geophone array, and c. a single source into an areal geophone array.

Fig. 8.2a. Geophone array response (linear).


Fig. 8.2b. Geophone array response (radial).
8.3 SOURCE ARRAYS
Figure 8.3 shows an array response of a simulated
four-vibrator drag in the north-south direction. Note
the good attenuation at 90° (north) and 270° (south)
and poor attenuation, or full response, at 0° (east) and
180° (west). Typical patterns are four vibrators with 10
m between pads (40 m effective array length) moving
up 5 m (or less) at a time. In the example of Figure
8.3a, the distance between pads is 5 m and move-up is
5 m, for a total of four sweeps. The effective array
length is 35 m; the response of four vibrators is shown
as a radial pattern in Figure 8.3b.
8.4 COMBINED ARRAY RESPONSE
Figure 8.4 indicates the combined response of the
receiver and sources arrays. It is important to note
that these graphs are the theoretical response in an
ideal situation with the geophone arrays and source
arrays arranged orthogonally. This particular array
provides good noise attenuation in all directions. Each
layout method has its own particular recording geom-
8.5 Stack Arrays 131
etry. Accordingly, arrays will be laid out differently.
The theoretical response should be evaluated before
proceeding with a particular design.
8.5 STACK ARRAYS
Stack arrays have been discussed by Anstey (1986a,
1986b, 1986c, 1987, 1989). The 2-D stack array ap-
proach creates an even, continuous, uniform succes-
sion of geophones across the CMP gather. In land op-
erations, split spreads are used with the following
geometrical parameters imposed:
group length is equal to the group interval,
the source interval is equal to the group interval,
and
the source points are between the groups.
These stack arrays depend on the trace offsets from
their respective source points. If isotropic noise is as-
sumed, the 3-D stack array becomes a 2-D array
formed by different offset traces. Thus, the response at
each azimuth is the same. Because 3-D CMP bins al-
ways contain traces of differing offsets, the stack array
Fig. 8.3a. Source array response (linear).

Fig. 8.3b. Source array response (radial).

132
Fig. 8.4a. Combined 2-dimensional array response (linear).

Fig. 8.4b. Combined 2-dimensional array response (radial).

133
134 Arrays

effect is different in each CMP bin and is often negligi-
ble because of the irregular offset mix at each CMP.
8.6 HANDS-OFF ACQUISITION
TECHNIQUE
Ongkiehong and Askin (1988) have taken the stack
array approach one step further by imposing equal
array lengths for the source and receiver patterns.
For symmetric sampling, the number of elements
in each array, whether source or receiver, should be
the same. Their conclusion is that any deviation
from homogeneity in the fundamental sampling operator
is ultimately detrimental. In 3-D field acquisition,
such symmetric sampling may not be economi-
cally possible, and some compromises need to be
made.
8.7 SYMMETRIC SAMPLING
Vermeer (1998a) supports the idea of symmetric
sampling as well. Anything that is done on the re-
ceiver side should be done on the source side as well.
Hence the source and receiver station as well as line
intervals are equal. The maximum offset is measured
in the in-line direction and it is equal to the maximum
offset measured in the cross-line direction. This re-
sults in equal in-line and cross-line fold also. Any re-
ceiver arrays are mirrored as source arrays. As men-
tioned in the previous section this is an ideal scenario,
which requires compromises in practical situations.