CGBOPHEYSICS, VOL. 46, NO. I GANUARY 1981) P. 17-22, 5 FIGs Surface consistent corrections M. Turhan Taner* and Fulton Koehler* Amplitudes of seismic reflections have been of interest since the first days of exploration seismology. Any change of amplitude or anoma- lous behavior may be significant, soit is important that the zones of interest be ee from outside disturbances, such as those caused by the near-surface layers. ‘Surface consistent factors may be divided into source, receiver, offset, and subsurface components, and these may be divided further into amplitude and phase (or time shift) factors. Correction of trace amplitudes using multiplication by a scale factor is similar to correction of phase distortions by a static shift, and both corrections enhance seismic data. Displays of surface consistent components for time and amp tude corrections provide an additional diagnostic for the geophysics. INTRODUCTION ‘The amplitudes of reflections on seismic records have been in- vestigated for many decades. In the first issue of GEOPHYSICS, Gutenberg (1936), referring to the earlier works of Knott (1899) and Zoeppritz et al (1912), discussed the expected amplitudes of seismic reflections. At that time the amplitudes of reflections ¢e- ceived as much attention as their arrival times. This changed somewhat after the introduction of automatic gain control; geo- physical interpretation was directed more toward the study of time anomalies and reflection character. Although not completely forgotten, the study of reflection amplitudes did not become feasible until the introduction of binary guin and floating point recording. This led to the introduction ofthe ‘bright spot” tech- nigue, which incorporated the study of amplitude anomalies into seismic interpretation. The interest in and the acceptance ofthis technique was industry-wide, as was demonstrated by the well- attended seminars held by local geophysical societies in 1973 and 1974. Te first application of the technique was to offshore seismic ata, principally in deltaic regions. Itquickly became evident that the brightness or dullness ofthe reflection was of significance when ‘making an interpretation. Hermont (1969), O'Doherty and Anstey (1971), Lamer et al (1973), and others demonstrated the signifi- cance and diagnostic value of reflection amplitudes, Extension of these techniques to land data required more in- tensive study of the factors which affect recorded amplitudes. Sherif (1973) and Taner and Koehler (1974) gave an extensive review of these factors. Houba etal (1973) and Disher and Randle (1973) presented processing methods for land data ‘The need for proper handling of reflection amplitudes led to the development of specialized processing techniques. Mateker and ‘Wa (1973) described a relative amplitude preservation technique Seismic interpretation involves the study of the behavior of arrival times, amplitudes, velocities, frequencies, and character Manuscript received by the Editor December 6, 1978; revised manus * Seiscom Delia. Ie received May 12, “TaX6 Harwin, P-O. Box’ 36928, Houcon, TX. 11036, of the reflections from target horizons. Any changing or anomalous behavior is of particular interest. Consequently, we require the zones of interest to be free from disturbances generated elsewhere, such as those caused by near-surface layers and by the energy source and field recording system, ‘THE SURFACE DIAGRAM {In order to organize the traces for analysis of surface effects, we must use a convenient coordinate system, The system used here, where each trace is defined by its source and receiver coordinates, is called the surface diagram. This type of coordinate system was used by Morgan (1970), Shah (1973), and Taner et al (1974), Ti a generalized frame of reference, we will define each trace by its source (X., Yau Zx) and receiver (X,, ¥-. Z,) coordinates with respect toa reference coordinate system, [Normally seismic data are recorded along lines, in which case itis simpler to use only the distances along the line from the origin to the source and tothe receiver as the two coordinates ofthe trace, Figure Ia shows the source and receiver positions along the seismic line which correspond to a point(s, r) on the surface dia- gram (Figure 1b). We can define four principal trace organizations (Figure 2) * a bo Fic, 1. Source and receiver locations. (a) Along the seismic line; () on the surface diagram. 1980, (16-8035/81/0101-0017803 01 © 1981 Society of Exploration Geophysiciss All ighs reserved 718 Taner and Koehler (1) Common source traces where sis constant and r varies: these traces are on a line parallel 10 the r-axis (2) common receiver traces where ri constant and s varies: these traces are on a line parallel to the s-axis; @) common offset traces where [= (s ~ r) is constants these traces are on lines which make an angle of 45 degrees with the axis; and (4) common midpoint traces where k = (s + r)/2 is eon- these traces will be along lines perpendicular to the common offset lines. The zero-offset line (s = r or { = 0) where the positions of the source and receiver coincide represents the moveout-corrected. ‘races input to the stacking process BASIC ASSUMPTIONS. Sheriff (1973) reviewed the factors which affect the amplitudes of seismic data. We will consider these effets in tis paper from a mote generalized point of view, that is, the general spectral con- tent, It is known that near-surface features ercate not only a time shift or amplitude decay, but also a more complicated frequency’ dependent, time-varying filtering effect, This effect is not confined to the near-surface part of the section; itis present throughout the ata, as energy reflected from deeper layers passes through the near-surface twice while traveling from source to reflector to geo: Phone If we assume reciprocity of source and receiver positions, then we are assuming thatthe near-surface effect isthe same for both upward and downward traveling waves at a particular surface position. The reciprocity assumption is exact in two cases: (1) direct propagation from source to receiver in a homogeneous ‘medium, and (2) propagation from source to plane reflector to te ceiver, where source and receiver are at the same distance from the reflector. Generally, iis also exact in any horizontally layered ‘medium when the source and receiver are at the same level. In other cases, we still use the reciprocity assumption as the only Practical approximation. For a detailed discussion of the effects of reciprocity or nonreciprocity, the reader should referto Knopott and Gangi (1959) SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTIONS mn order to compute the surface consistent corrections within & reasonable degree of approximation and computational ease, we need to make the following assumptions : ALCOMMON MIDPOINT COP 4 tS - Constant] Koen ute Ts Contton ERO OFFSET eb? Stock) “\ common oFfser Fen cntton Fic. 2. Surface diagram and principal trace organizations, (1) Factors due to effects at or near the surface ae constant throughout the recording time: these include source response, source coupling, attenuation in the near surface layers, geophone sensitivity, and geophone coupling. Factors which remain time constant are also surface con. sistent. This means that the effects associated with a particular surface position remain constant regardless of the wave path. For example, source strength will affect all of the traces recorded from that source. Si larly, the geophone coupling effect remains the same for all traces recorded at a particular receiver station from Various source postions ‘Common-depth-point (CDP) gathering is assumed to be valid. By this we mean that all traces at particulae CDP gather position contain essentially the same sub- surface information. ‘The corrections for spherical diverger ‘out, and field statics have been applied. We do this to eliminate most of the amplitude and arrival time cor- rections, so that within 4 time window all traces of a CDP gather satisfy the previous assumption, Q ° @ +, normal move Based on these assumptions, we can separate the sueface con= sistent factors into the following four basic categories: (1) Si(a) = Source response at surface position m. This refers also tothe effects the near-surface imposes on the downgoing source wavefront. 2) Rw) = Receiver response at surface postion m, This refers also to the influence of the near-surface on the upward traveling reflected wavefront. @) Cpa) = Subsurface response beneath surface posi- tion &. This represents the response forall traces with ‘common midpoint £ = stm + n) (4) Dilan) = Offset response at offset position f, where 1 = m~—n. This represents offset related responses such as cable response in the marine case, offset related spherical divergence effecis, or the residual moveout effects GENERAL EQUATIONS. Based on the above assumptions, we can show that @ seismic trace, recorded at receiver position m with source pasition n, can be described in the frequeney domain as the produet of the four factors Fan (0) = Sq(w)Rye(@)CK(@)Dilo), « where k= "40m +n) and f= m — n The objective here isto determine C, (), the desired subsurface data, However, we can determine S(a), Rw), and D(a) re sponses only approximately and partially suppress their influence ‘on the seismic data. We have one equation for each trace along & given line, and in most cases the number of unknowns (source, receiver, offset, and subsurface responses) is less than the num be of equations. We therefore solve the set of equations in a least-mean-error-square manner. Equation (1) is in produet form (convolutional form in the time domain), soit is inconvenient in its present form. If we take the natural logarithm of both sides, it becomes a linear equation: InSy(o) + In Ryo! + In Cele) + In Dew) @ In Fyn) This canbe simplified futher by forming two separate equations,‘Surtace Consistent Corrections 19 fone by equating real pars, the other by equating imaginary parts: In|F an ()| + f Onl) e where the teal part In|Fnm (| isthe logarithm of the amplitude spectrum of the trace, and the imaginary part 8 yy (w) isthe phase spectrum of the trace. So the equations obtained by equating real parts are linear equations in logs of amplitudes; those obtained by ‘equating imaginary parts are linear equations in phase shift, from which we derive time shifts. In practice, we solve these two sets of equations in two separate computations; the first is called true amplitude processing, and the second is automatic static compu- In Fan) SIMPLIFIED SURFACE CONSISTENT ‘CORRECTION COMPUTATION In most practical instances, we do not compute the complete surface responses as a function of frequency, as given by equa tion (2). Surface consistent phase distortions are handled by simple time shifts, which represent a linear phase correction in the fre ‘quency domain. As shown in Figure 3, the linear phase shift core sponds to the average of the computed phase distortion, Experience has shown us that properly computed static time shifts give final sections with much improved quality. In most in- stances, computing and correcting forthe average phase distortion is sufficient. It is possible to handle frequency-dependent ampli: tude distortions in the same manner, by computing the average amplitude spectrum. Correction with respect tothe average ampli tude spectrum corresponds in the time domain to multiplying the seismic trace by a scalar. This is equivalent to adding a constant value tothe log ofthe amplitude spectrum. The point which should be emphasized here is that correction of near-surface anomalies by time shifts and trace amplitude modifications represents two processing procedures based on the same assumptions and ap proximations. ‘We now simplify equation (2) and separate it into real (ampli tude) and imaginary (phase) components. (A) Amplitude Sam = nt tm teat dis @ where am = natural logarithm of rms amplitude of trace with its source and receiver at surface positions m and m, respectively source performance factor at nth surface position, rm = receiver performance factor at mth surface position, subsurface performance factor at kth surface position, with k= lm +n), and 4 = offset performance factor at offset 1 = m — Te performance factor is the natural logarithm of the average amplitude spectrum of the response function We have one equation [equation (4)] for each trace: hence, for most conventional CDP coverage there is a high order of redun: ancy. The desired solutions can be obtained by the least-mean error-squares technique. These equations are similar to the static equations (Taner et al, 1974) and contain indeterminacies of quad: ratic order. The homogeneous set of equations is obtained by placing fmm = 0 in equation (8) Sn tim tee dy = 0. 6) Expanding in terms of power series and equating coefficients, we see that these sets of equations have nontrivial solutions of the form: Sn = aq + ayn apn’, UPAVERAGE AMPLITUDE PHASE Fic. 3, Amplitude and phase spectra oy = by + bum + bam? cee cot ck + cok? o and dy = dy + dil + del, Where the coefficients are not independent. Hence the computed performance factors are indeterminate by quadratic polynomials This means that long-wavelength changes of the surface con: sistent factors will be difficult to isolate, and conversely, shorter wavelength variations of these factors may be more accurately resolved by the solution of equation (4), (B) Phase or time shifts fam ~ in + Fm + ext du. o where Jam = total time shift of the trace with its source and receiver at surface positions m and m, respectively. Sq = source time shift correction at surface position 1, n= receiver time shift correction at surface position m. &, = CDP gather time shift corection at surface position &, and d= offset related time shift correction at offset 1 Experience has shown that the offset related correction usually stems from errors in the velocity function. It is obvious that the accuracy of stacking velocities derived from semblance mea- surements on reflectors will usually be poorer for data with net surface anomaly problems. Hence the offset related corrections will be in the form of spatially varying (as «Function of &) residual normal moveout, which may be better approximated by a parabola as a function of offset. With this modification, equation (7) becomes.20 ‘Taner and Koehler Kl Fic. 4. Preliminary stack before surface consistent static and ampli tude corrections. rections, i. Fic. 5. Stack with surface consistent static and amplitude cor-Surface Consistent Corrections a FIRST PASS SECOND PASS. east omnny Anning ot Fic. 6, Static components, diagnostic plot Foam = in + hg + 64+ dpm ~ nh? 6) Which is identical, except for notation, to equation (2) of Taner etal (1974) for near-surface time anomalies. DATA EXAMPLES Figure 4 shows a preliminary stack ofa line shot in East Texas ‘The final stack of the same data (Figure 5) has had surface consistent static and amplitude corrections applied, and the im- provement in quality is obvious, | y or ’ A, ih | | ea i" Nw rool eure ep | Joratag vy yt fey Bone were Morea pera aay ~~) Fic. 7, Amplitude components, diagnostic plot In addition to applying the corrections, the programs produce useful diagnostics. Figure 6 shows the components of the static corrections plotted as a function of CDP number. Figure 7 shows 4 similar plot for the amplitude components, with the addition of ‘ms amplitude ofthe stack and the rms amplitude after the corre tions have been applied, These plots, both from the same East ‘Texas line, indicate whether a particular source was stronger than average, or a certain receiver location produced higher amplitudes than normal; they help the processing geophysicist to understand the variables which have influenced the data on that line concn IONS Many factors reduce our ability to interpret seismic data prop erly. Of these factors, those acting on oF near the surface can be approximately corrected by surface consistent computational procedures. Correction of trace amplitudes by a multiplication factor and correction of phase distortions by pure static (tiie) Shifts involve the same set of assumptions and approximations, and both give results which are acceptable in practice. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Seiscom Delta Inc, for allowing the publication of this paper, which contains the basic design logic for the TRAP™ (rue amplitude processing) and ANSAC™ (eutomatic near-surface anomaly correction) programs. They’ also wish to thank Dr. Robert Sheriff for his consiructive comments, Michael Reilly and Anita Howell for their help in editing. and Natalie MeDonnold for drafting the figures REFERENCI Disher, D.A., and Randle, S., 1973, Direct detection of gas for land and water work’ Presented atthe 43rd Annual International SEG Meeting October 24, in Mexico Ci Gutenberg, B., 1936, The amplitude of waves tobe expected in seismic ‘prospecting: Geophysics, Vil, p. 282-256, Hermont, A.J, 1980 Is seismic energy of diagnostic vale?: Geophysics ve 34, p. 196-212. Hous, W.. Jurezyk, D.. snd Koitha, H.. 1973, Real amplitade pro essing of land data —without problss Presened atthe Soth Meeting ofthe BAEG In Madnid,2 Taner and Koehler Knopoff, Land Gangi, A. F., 1959, Seismic reciprocity: Geophysis, 24, p 681-691 Kot, .'G., 1899, Reflexion and refraction of seismic waves: Phil Mag. a8, 9 68 Laer, CL, Mateker, E.J., Je. and Wu, C., 1973, Amplitude: Is information content: Coating ‘Education sein.. Geophys. Soc. of Howsten, Mateker, EJ I and Wu, C., 1973, Relative amplitude preservation land hydrocarbon detection: Presented atthe rd Anal Interatonal SEG Meeting, October 23, in Mexico City Morgan, NA: 1970, Wavelet maps: A ew analysis tool for reflection Setamograms’ Geophysis, v.38, . 447-460, ‘OvDoberty. RF. and Ansiey” N.'A., 1971, Reflections om amplitades Geophys. Prosp.. v.19, p 430-458, Stab, P., 1973, Use of wavefront curvature to relate seismic data with bairace parameters Gsophyucs, v.38: p. 812-835 seri RE 197, Far Acting spl ~A review of phys principles: Coming education sem" Geophys. Soc of Histon: Exons Psp. 3p. 138-138 ‘ance, MT and Kochi, 1974, Stace consistent election api ‘dee Prescned at the 4th Anal Inematonal SEC Ming NOW mer 14, Dal. Tener, Mi. Kocher, F., and Alba, KA. 1978, Estimation and oriecton of near srfacs tame anomalice: Geophysics, 3p. ses Zovpprt, K.. Giger, La. and Gutenberg, .. 1912, Usher Erdeben- ‘ellen Vs Nachn der R Gs der Wiss Gottingen: Math phys, Rly 131-206