applied
sciences
Article
Removal of Intra-Array Statics in Seismic Arrays Due to
Variable Topography and Positioning Errors
Sherif Mohamed Hanafy 1, *,† , Abdullah Al-Mashhor 2,†
Citation: Hanafy, S.M.; Al-Mashhor,
A.; Al-Shuhail, A.A. Removal of
Intra-Array Statics in Seismic Arrays
Due to Variable Topography and
Positioning Errors. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12,
12810. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app122412810
Received: 8 November 2022
Accepted: 11 December 2022
Published: 13 December 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412810
and Abdullatif Abdulrahman Al-Shuhail 1,†
1 Department of Geosciences, College of Petroleum Engineering & Geosciences, King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
2 Technical Development Solutions for Water and Environment Company, Riyadh 11342, Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: sherif.geo@gmail.com
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Featured Application: The proposed corrections can be used in two different seismic applications.
The first is to calculate accurate static corrections, which are applied to seismic reflection data. The
second is high-resolution engineering applications.
Abstract: A receiver array is an arrangement of geophones used to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio
(S/N) of seismic data. However, deviations from ideal array conditions can lead to the non-optimal
performance of the array. This study investigates, quantitatively, the array performance in the
presence of topographic variations and positioning errors using 2D seismic data acquired in eastern
Saudi Arabia. A receiver array was laid over a sand dune with variable topography underlain by a
flat sabkha that has a very shallow water table. The topographic variations and position errors were
calculated from Differential Global Positioning System (D-GPS) measurements of source and receiver
positions and elevations. The errors in receiver positions, measured relative to the ideal receiver
spacing, gave a mean and standard deviation of about 0.35% and 1%, respectively. On the other
hand, elevation errors (topographic variations) from a horizontal datum gave a mean and standard
deviation of about 25% and 13%, respectively. The ideal array response was found by removing both
elevation and position errors. The first-arrival energy of the array was calculated after removal of
elevation and position errors separately and compared to the ideal-array energy. Comparison showed
a 64% enhancement in the first-arrival energy after correcting for elevation errors alone and almost
no enhancement after correcting for position errors alone. The proposed approach can be used to
calculate accurate static corrections for seismic reflection processing and to generate high-resolution
subsurface images for engineering applications.
Keywords: seismic; reflection; static corrections; near-surface
1. Introduction
A seismic array is a group of seismic receivers and/or sources planted in a systematic
arrangement. In general, seismic arrays are used to suppress noise in the field. Many of
the existing studies on seismic arrays assume ideal array conditions with perfect element
(geophone) weights, perfect implementation conditions, and simple near-surface layers.
However, these assumptions are rarely satisfied in the field, hence limiting the applicability
of the results of these studies to field data. In particular, it is difficult to have similar ground
coupling of all array elements, leading to variable element weights. Furthermore, element
spacing is practically estimated by survey crew, leading to often slightly variable element
positions. Local variations in the near-surface layer, such as topography and heterogeneity,
can also lead to more non-ideal array conditions. All these conditions may decrease the
effectiveness of the array’s multi-channel processing and its waveform [1]. Originally,
seismic arrays were developed to monitor nuclear explosions [2]. The studies of nuclear
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 2 of 16

explosion identification have been employed to distinguish between a natural earthquake

and nuclear explosion [3,4]. Ref. [5] shows that seismic arrays improve the velocity models
of the Earth’s interior using large-number and dense spatial sampling of the seismic
wavefield at several locations on the Earth’s surface. More recently, seismic arrays have
been implemented in high-resolution imaging [6,7], shallow geology applications [8–10],
monitoring induced seismicity [11], seismic imaging using ambient seismic noise [12], and
seismic signal processing using distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) [13]. Ref. [14] proposed
an efficient algorithm for ambient seismic noise beamforming without the need for explicit
cross-correlations, while [15] presented a case study using a 10-month ambient DAS data
set acquired on a fiber array to investigate long-term seasonal velocity variations. Seismic
arrays are often integrated with other geophysical methods for a better understanding of
the subsurface conditions [10,16–18]
In terms of reflection seismology, the main purpose of an array of geophones is to
increase the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) by enhancing the desired signals (reflections) and
attenuating seismic noise during the acquisition of seismic data in the field. As the desired
seismic signals (reflections) travel across the array with a much higher horizontal velocity,
the signals produce a longer wavelength, as compared to that of the unwanted signals [19].
The desired signals are usually those that have been reflected from deep geologic horizons
approaching the array at almost normal incidence. The unwanted signals are incoherent
noise or horizontally traveling ground roll. Thus, a geophone array can also be considered
as a directional filter [20].
Seismic array response is the arithmetic sum of traces recorded by geophones (el-
ements) in the array. Ref. [21] presented general concepts of arrays, where they used
harmonic analysis to explain the array response disrupted by variations in velocity, dip,
and elevation within the array length. Ref. [22] described a method for computing the
expected waveform from a closely spaced array of shots or geophones when the indi-
vidual signal is a pulse and studied the effects of various array weighting functions on
the performance of seismic arrays. Ref. [23] presented a study on the effects of errors in
position and weighting on the array response, where they used plane harmonic waves
with different weights. Ref. [24] investigated effects of errors in gain and position on the
array response. Ref. [25] explained the wavelet response due to errors in weights and
positions of the elements of the geophone arrays with respect to several variables. These
variables included the error amount, number of array elements, and weighting function.
They found that the degradation of the wavelet response increased nonlinearly with the
error’s value, number of elements, and weighting function complexity. A similar case
was investigated by [26], wherein they evaluated the effects on the array response caused
by topographic variations (i.e., deviations from the datum) within receiver arrays. They
found that these variations had more negative effects on the array response than position
errors because of their relatively high error amount in most environments. In addition,
topographic variations directly affect the vertically traveling signals as opposed to position
errors, which mainly affect noise. Finally, topographic variations leave very little human
control to reduce their amount, whereas position errors can be reduced using more accurate
instruments and measurement procedures.
Ref. [27] studied the performance of an array in the presence of lateral near-surface
heterogeneities. They used a model with two adjacent layers to study the array performance
as a function of the number of affected elements and the velocity ratio between the two
adjacent layers. They found that the array performance decreased with the number of
affected elements and amount of deviation of the velocity ratio from unity. Ref. [28] studied
the change in the wavelet response of seismic receiver arrays in the presence of a dipping
near-surface layer. They used a model with different dip and incidence angles as well as
various types of signal and noise incident on the array. Their results show that incidence
and dip angles have opposite effects on the array response. Refs. [29,30] studied the array
response in the presence of laterally varying thickness of the weathering layer. They
generated several models and calculated their corresponding array responses in the ideal
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 3 of 16

and perturbed cases. They found that horizontally traveling waves were less affected than
vertically traveling waves in all studied models and errors. Ref. [31] studied the seismic
array response in the presence of variations in elements’ elevations, positions, and weights
using a zero-phase Ricker wavelet. They found that topography had the largest effects on
the array response and that different error types did not combine linearly.
Almost all previous studies have addressed the effects of non-ideal array conditions
using analytical (or numerical) modeling approaches without testing their approaches on
field data. The problem with field data studies is the difficulty in measuring the exact
position and elevation of all receivers. In this paper, we summarize, modify, and update
equations required for correcting non-ideal array conditions; then, we study the array
response in the presence of topographic variations (i.e., elevation errors) and positioning
errors within the array using field data from a shallow seismic survey acquired in eastern
Saudi Arabia. We quantify the elevation and position errors (relative to a datum and
nominal geophone spacing, respectively) at every geophone location using their Differential
Global Positioning System (D-GPS) coordinates. Furthermore, we quantify enhancements
in the array response using the stacked energy of first arrivals in each error case normalized
by its corresponding error-free case.
This paper starts with the calculation of the velocities of the direct and refraction
events in the presence of elevation and position errors. Next, the elevation and position
errors are calculated using the survey geometry information. This is followed by calculation
of the array response in terms of its trace energy after elevation error removal, position
error removal, and removal of both errors. We finally compare them with the trace response
of the ideal case (i.e., after removing both elevation and position errors).

2. Methodology
2.1. Direct Event
The direct P-wave can be defined as the P-wave that travels through the ground
surface directly from the source to the receiver. To calculate the velocity (V1 ) of the incidence
(uppermost) medium, Equation (1) is used [32]:

X
Td = , (1)
V1

where Td is the arrival travel time of the direct wave to a receiver at offset X. The arrival
travel times of the direct wave are picked (estimated) from the traces (records), while offsets
X are given by the survey geometry information.

2.2. Refraction Event

The head wave is generated when the velocity of the refraction medium (V2 ) is larger
than that of the incidence medium and the incidence angle is equal to the critical angle
θc . Here, the transmitted wave travels just below and parallel to the interface. To find the
velocity of the refraction medium, the following time–distance equation is used:

X 2H cos θc
Th = + , (2)
V2 V1

where Th is the arrival traveltime of the head wave at offset X and H is the thickness of the
uppermost layer. Equation (2) describes a straight line relating Th and X with an intercept
of 2H cos θc /V1 and a slope of 1/V2 . The refraction velocity in this case can be calculated
by finding the inverse of the slope of the best-fit line to the Th − X plot of the head wave.
In general, when a wave encounters an interface between two media, Snell’s law is used to
relate incident and transmitted angles [32]:

sin θ1 sin θ2
= , (3)
V1 V2
 where and are the ray incident and transmitted angles in the upper ( ) and lowe
( ) media, respectively. The critical angle takes place when = 90 , which can be
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 4 of 16
calculated as:

= sin , (4
where θ1 and θ2 are the ray incident and transmitted angles in the upper (V1 ) and lower
(V2 ) media, when θ2 = o , which can be
In therespectively. The critical
case of a dipping angle θthe
refractor, c takes placeangle
critical can90be calculated from the
calculated as:
apparent refractor velocities in the up-dip ( V1)and down-dip ( ) directions using Equa
tion (5) [32]: θc = sin−1 , (4)
V2
In the case of a dipping refractor,1 the critical angle θc can be calculated from the
= sin (V ) and
apparent refractor velocities in the up-dip
+ sin ,
down-dip (V2d ) directions using
(5
2 2u
Equation (5) [32]:
The apparent refractor1velocities
 
−1 V1
can

be determined

−1 V1

by picking arrival travel time
θc = sin + sin , (5)
from shots in the up-dip and2down-dip V2dsides. Once V2u is calculated, the refractor medium
velocity can be
The apparent determined
refractor as [32]:
velocities can be determined by picking arrival travel times
from shots in the up-dip and down-dip sides. Once θc is calculated, the refractor medium
velocity V2 can be determined as [32]: = , (6
sin
V1
V2 = , (6)
2.3. Position and Elevation Error sin θc

2.3.1.
2.3. Position
Position Error Error
and Elevation
2.3.1. Ideally,
Position Error
there is a desirably fixed nominal spacing between successive receivers
Ideally, there
which we call the is a ideal
desirably fixed nominal
position (spacing) ∆ . between
spacing However, successive receivers,
in practice, which spacing
receiver
we
mightcall the ideal
differ position
from (spacing)
the ideal ∆X. However,
spacing in practice,
due to field receiver
conditions andspacing
human might differ
errors (Figure 1)
from the ideal spacing due to field conditions and human errors (Figure 1).
The actual receiver spacing at the nth receiver (∆ ) can be calculated from D-GPS meas The actual
receiver spacing at the nth receiver (∆Xcn ) can be calculated from D-GPS measurements
urements acquired in the field as follows:
acquired in the field as follows:
Δ q= ( − ) +( − ) , (7
∆Xcn = ( x n − x n −1 )2 + ( y n − y n −1 )2 , (7)
where and are the D-GPS Easting and and are the Northing values o
the nth
where xnreceiver
and xn−1and its D-GPS
are the neighbor closer
Easting toythe
and source.
n and Tothe
yn−1 are calculate
Northing the position’s
values of the error a
nth
thereceiver
nth receiver,
and itsEquation (8) is to
neighbor closer the source. To calculate the position’s error at the nth
used:
receiver, Equation (8) is used:
= ∆X
exn = ∆X − Δ cn
− ,Δ , (8) (8
whichisisthe
which thedifference
difference between
between the ideal
the ideal and calculated
and calculated positions
positions of receiver.
of the nth the nth receiver.

Figure1.1.Illustration
Figure Illustrationof of error
error in receiver
in receiver positions.
positions. BlackBlack andtriangles
and gray gray triangles
indicateindicate
ideal andideal
actualand actua
positionsofofthe
positions the nth
nth receiver,
receiver, respectively.
respectively.

2.3.2. Elevation Error

2.3.2. Elevation Error
Recording seismic data at sites with rough terrain or big elevation differences (Figure 2)
Recording seismic data at sites with rough terrain or big elevation differences (Figure
is challenging. The big difference in elevation affects the data results, particularly regarding
2) is challenging.
accurate travel timeThe big difference
picking. To overcome in this
elevation affects
problem, thecalculate
we first data results, particularly re
the elevation
garding
error, thenaccurate
remove ittravel time
from the picking.
recorded ToEquation
data. overcome (9) this problem,
is used we first
to calculate calculate the el
the elevation
evation error, then remove
error of the nth receiver: it from the recorded data. Equation (9) is used to calculate the
elevation error of the nth receiver:ezn = Zn − ZD , (9)

= − , (9
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 5 of 1
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 5 of 16

whereZn and
where and
ZD are are
the the elevations
elevations of theofnth
thereceiver
nth receiver and
and the the datum
datum (reference
(reference plane), plane)
respectively,
respectively, from
from mean
mean sea sea level,
level, andavailable
and are are available from
from the the measurements.
D-GPS D-GPS measurements.

Figure2.2.Illustration
Figure Illustration of errors
of errors in receiver
in receiver elevations.
elevations. Gray triangles
Gray triangles indicateindicate actual elevations
actual elevations of o
receivers,while
receivers, while black
black triangles
triangles indicate
indicate idealideal elevations
elevations of receivers
of receivers (aftercorrection).
(after datum datum correction).

2.4.
2.4.Traveltimes
Traveltimesforfor
Ideal andand
Ideal Error CasesCases
Error
2.4.1. Perturbed Case
2.4.1. Perturbed Case
The perturbed case is defined in this study as the raw data acquired in the field without
applyingTheany
perturbed case is defined
time corrections. in this
The travel timestudy
of theas the
nth raw data
receiver for acquired in the
the perturbed field with
case
out
(T applying any time corrections. The travel time of the nth receiver for the perturbed
n ) is the picked first arrival traveltime with no elevation and/or position corrections.
case ( ) is the picked first arrival traveltime with no elevation and/or position corrections
2.4.2. Position’s Error Removal
2.4.2.
ThePosition’s Error
travel time Removal
difference due to position error (∆Texn ) is the travel time of the nth
receiver calculated using Equation (10):
The travel time difference due to position error (∆ ) is the travel time of the nth
receiver calculated using Equation (10): exn sin θc
∆Texn = , (10)
V1 sin
Δ = , (10
To calculate the first arrival travel time of the nth receiver for the position removal
error case (Txn ), ∆Texn
To calculate must
the firstbearrival
removed from time
travel the perturbed case
of the nth traveltime
receiver for(Tthe
n ) as follows: remova
position
error case ( ), ∆ must be removed from the perturbed case traveltime ( ) as fol
Txn = Tn − ∆Texn (11)
lows:
2.4.3. Elevation Error Removal
= −Δ (11
The travel time difference due to the elevation error (∆Tezn ) of the nth receiver is
calculated using Equation (12):
2.4.3. Elevation Error Removal
ezn cos θc
The travel time difference ∆Te
due = the elevation
zn to
V1
, error (∆ ) of the nth(12)
receiver i
calculated using Equation (12):
Similar to the travel time calculation of the position error removal case, the first arrival
cos
travel time of the elevation’s error removal (Tzn ) can be, calculated by removing ∆Tezn
Δ case = (12
from the perturbed case traveltime Tn using Equation (13):
Similar to the travel time calculation of the position error removal case, the first arri
T = Tn − ∆Tezn (13)
val travel time of the elevation’s zn
error removal case ( ) can be calculated by removing
∆ Ideal
2.4.4. from the perturbed case traveltime
Case using Equation (13):
The ideal case can be defined as the case=after−applying
Δ both position and elevation (13
corrections on the raw data acquired in the field. The first arrival travel time of the ideal
case for the nth receiver (Tcn ) can be calculated from the perturbed case travel time using
2.4.4. Ideal
Equation (14):Case
Tcn = Tn − (∆Texn + ∆Tezn ), (14)
The ideal case can be defined as the case after applying both position and elevation
corrections on the raw data acquired in the field. The first arrival travel time of the idea
case for the nth receiver ( ) can be calculated from the perturbed case travel time using
Equation (14):
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 6 of 16

2.5. Wavelet Response and Trace Energy

To calculate the trace energy in the first arrival event, the following steps are followed:
1. Window the first wavelet of the first arrival head-wave event while maintaining the
timing information (Tn ) of the first arrival on each trace.
2. Shift each nth windowed trace such that its first sample is at t = 0. This produces the
ideal trace wavelet response (Gcn (t)). Sum Gcn (t) across n to produce the ideal array
response (Gc (t)) and calculate its corresponding array trace energy (Ec ) as follows:

M
Ec = ∑ 2
Gcm ( t ), (15)
m =1

where M is the number of samples in Gc (t).

3. Shift each Gcn (t) by its corresponding ∆Texn to produce the trace wavelet response
with position errors only (Gxn (t)). Sum Gxn (t) across n to produce the array response
with position errors only (Gx (t)) and calculate its corresponding array trace energy
(Ex ) as follows:
M
Ex = ∑ 2
Gxm ( t ), (16)
m =1

The decibel (dB)-scaled normalized array energy with position errors only E0Nx (dB) is
calculated as follows:
E0Nx (dB) = 20 log10 ENx , (17)
where ENx is the normalized array trace energy with position errors only defined as:

Ex
ENx = , (18)
Ec

4. Starting with Gcn (t) again, shift each Gcn (t) by its corresponding ∆Tezn to produce
the trace wavelet response with elevation errors only (Gzn (t)). Sum Gzn (t) across
n to produce the array response with elevation errors only (Gz(t)) and calculate its
corresponding array trace energy (Ez ) as follows:

M
EZ = ∑ 2
GZm ( t ), (19)
m =1

The dB-scaled normalized array energy with elevation errors only E0NZ (dB) is calcu-
lated as follows:
E0NZ (dB) = 20 log10 ENZ , (20)
where ENz is the normalized array trace energy with elevation errors only defined as:

EZ
ENZ = , (21)
Ec

5. Starting with Gcn (t) again, shift each Gcn (t) by its corresponding (∆Texn + ∆Tezn ) to
produce the perturbed wavelet response of the trace with combined position and
elevation errors (Gxzn (t)). Sum Gxzn (t) across n to produce the array response with
both position and elevation errors (Gxz (t)) and calculate its corresponding array trace
energy (Exz ) as follows:
M
ExZ = ∑ 2
GxZm ( t ), (22)
m =1

The dB-scaled normalized array trace energy for the perturbed case E0NxZ (dB) is
calculated as follows:
E0 NxZ (dB) = 20 log10 ENxZ , (23)
 The dB-scaled normalized array trace energy for the perturbed case ( ) is cal-
culated as follows:

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 ( ) = 20 log , 7 of 16 (23)

where is the normalized array trace energy for the perturbed case defined as:

where ENxz is the normalized array trace energy=for the

, perturbed case defined as: (24)
ExZ
ENxZ = , (24)
Ec
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results
3.1. andSetting
Geological Discussion
3.1. Geological Setting
The field data were recorded over a barchan dune near Dammam city (26°20′57.2″ N
The field
49°49′51.4″ E),data were
Saudi recorded
Arabia over 3a,b).
(Figure a barchan
Thedune near Dammam
thickness of the dune (26◦ 200 57.2
city ranges 00
fromN0 to 7 m
◦ 0 00
49 49 51.4 E), Saudi Arabia (Figure 3a,b). The thickness of the dune ranges from 0 to
and it overlays a flat Sabkha layer. One borehole was drilled up to 10 m deep at the mid-
7 m and it overlays a flat Sabkha layer. One borehole was drilled up to 10 m deep at
slope of the dune,
the midslope of theand was
dune, used
and wasas ground
used truth truth
as ground and for
andresult confirmation.
for result confirmation. A complete
A
core was extracted
complete from the from
core was extracted top 3.5
them,
topthen a core
3.5 m, thensample of onlyof0.7
a core sample m 0.7
only wasmextracted
was at
each 1.5 m depth range. The well penetrated the entire dune, as well as the top
extracted at each 1.5 m depth range. The well penetrated the entire dune, as well as the top 3 m of the
underlying sabkha. sabkha.
3 m of the underlying

Figure
Figure 3. (a)
(a)Satellite
Satellite view
view showing
showing SaudiSaudi
ArabiaArabia
and theandstudythe study
area area
marked marked
with with
red stars; red stars; (b)
(b) image
image showing
showing thearea
the study study
witharea with the
the seismic lineseismic lineand
(red line); (red
(c) line); and (c)
the seismic linethe seismic12line
including including 12
receivers
receivers (blue triangles)
(blue triangles) and two(red
and two sources sources
stars)(red
withstars)
theirwith
actualtheir actual and
positions positions and elevations
elevations using D- using
D-GPS data.
GPS data.

Based on
Based on the
thesamples
samplesextracted
extractedfrom
fromthethe
borehole, the dominant
borehole, mineral
the dominant in the dune
mineral in the dune
is quartz. We also found small amounts of feldspar and traces of calcite. The sabkha layer
is quartz. We also found small amounts of feldspar and traces of calcite. The sabkha layer
contains quartz, feldspar, calcite, and significant amounts of halite and gypsum. The top
contains
2.5 m of quartz, feldspar,
the sabkha calcite, and
was composed significant to
of fine-grained amounts of halite and
medium-grained sand,gypsum.
while theThe top
2.5 m of0.5
bottom the
m sabkha
containedwas composed
muddy sand with of afine-grained to medium-grained
noticeable fraction sand, while
of fine grains. Sediments in the
bottom
the top 0.5 m of
7.6 m contained
the drilledmuddy
intervalsand
showedwith a noticeable
partial fraction
saturation, whereasof the
finebottom
grains.2.4Sediments
m
was fully water saturated.
 m was fully water saturated.

3.2. Data Acquisition

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810
We demonstrate our methodology using a shallow seismic survey acquired 8 of 16
in e
ern Saudi Arabia (Figure 3a) at the approximate GPS coordinates (26.351575 N, 49.829
E). Figure 3b shows the survey location where the geological setting was a sand dune o
Sabkha. The acquired data consisted of a 2D seismic line with 24 vertical receivers hav
3.2. Data Acquisition
a nominal spacing our
We demonstrate of 4methodology
m. Five shots were
using produced
a shallow bysurvey
seismic a 10 kg sledgehammer
acquired in eastern locate
offsets of −4,(Figure
Saudi Arabia 0, 46, 92,
3a)and 96approximate
at the m, where theGPSfirst receiver(26.351575
coordinates was placed at offset 0E).
N, 49.829184 m. Posit
Figure
and 3b shows of
elevations theall
survey location
receiver andwhere the geological
shot points setting wasusing
were measured a sandD-GPS.
dune over
Sabkha. The acquired data consisted of a 2D seismic line with 24 vertical receivers having a
nominal spacing of 4 m. Five shots were produced by a 10 kg sledgehammer located at
3.3. Data Analysis
offsets of −4, 0, 46, 92, and 96 m, where the first receiver was placed at offset 0 m. Positions
3.3.1. First Arrival
and elevations Pickingand shot points were measured using D-GPS.
of all receiver
For illustration purposes, we applied the proposed method to the 12 receivers
3.3. Data Analysis
tween shots
3.3.1. First 1 and
Arrival 3 (Figure 3b,c). Far-offset receivers were not used because the sig
Picking
became too weak to pick confidently. Figure 4 shows the first and third shot gathers of
For illustration purposes, we applied the proposed method to the 12 receivers between
real
shotsdata
1 andset. Arrival
3 (Figure travel
3b,c). timesreceivers
Far-offset were picked manually
were not for both
used because directbecame
the signal and head wa
For the direct wave, the first arrival travel time was picked only on the two
too weak to pick confidently. Figure 4 shows the first and third shot gathers of the real data receivers c
est
set. to the source
Arrival sincewere
travel times direct waves
picked were observed
manually onlyand
for both direct onhead
thesewaves.
traces.ForThe
thefirst pic
arrival travel times of the direct wave from all shots are shown in Table 1,thewhereas
direct wave, the first arrival travel time was picked only on the two receivers closest to
source since direct waves were observed only on these traces. The first picked arrival travel
picks of the head wave from the down-dip (shot 1) and up-dip (shot 3) are shown in T
times of the direct wave from all shots are shown in Table 1, whereas the picks of the head
2.
wave from the down-dip (shot 1) and up-dip (shot 3) are shown in Table 2.

Figure 4.4.Two
Figure Twodifferent recorded
different shot gathers
recorded shot (raw data):(raw
gathers (a) shot gather
data): (a)1 (down-dip);
shot gather(b)1shot gather
(down-dip); (b)
3 (up-dip), with 12 traces each.
gather 3 (up-dip), with 12 traces each.
3.3.2. Velocity Calculation
The average dune velocity is V1 = 313 m/s, calculated from the direct-wave ve-
locities in the five shot records (Table 1). Head-wave velocities V2 are calculated from
the slopes of the best-fit lines to the first arrival traveltimes of the up-dip and down-dip
directions (Figure 5). The critical angle and true head-wave velocity are calculated by
◦
Equations (5) and (6) to be θc = 9.2 and V2 = 1949 m/s, respectively (Table 2).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 9 of 16

Table 1. First arrival travel times of direct wave and corresponding offsets and velocities from all
shots of the survey. The two traces from shot gather 3 (marked by *) have been excluded from
averaging because they were considered outliers.

Offset First Arrival

Shot Gather No. Trace No Velocity V1 (m/s)
(m) Time (s)
Trace 1 4 0.013 311
Shot Gather 1
Trace 2 8 0.025 323
Trace 2 4 0.013 299
Shot Gather 2
Trace 3 8 0.026 320
Trace 1 * 2 0.004 500
Shot Gather 3 (left)
Trace 2 6 0.015 349
Trace 1 * 2 0.005 400
Shot Gather 3 (right)
Trace 2 6 0.016 344
Trace 2 4 0.013 314
Shot Gather 4
Trace 3 8 0.027 283
Trace 1 4 0.013 299
Shot Gather 5
Trace 2 8 0.027 286
Average velocity V 1 (m/s) 313

Table 2. First arrival travel times of the head wave from shot gather 1 and 3 with the values of
ground-surface dip angle (α), critical angle (θc ) and refraction medium velocity (V2 ).

Shot Gather 1 (Down-dip) Shot Gather 3 (Up-dip)

Trace Number First Arrival First Arrival
Offset (m) Offset (m)
Time (s) Time (s)
13 48 0.053 2 0.004
14 44 0.050 6 0.015
15 40 0.047 10 0.027
16 36 0.045 14 0.039
17 32 0.042 18 0.043
18 28 0.039 22 0.044
19 24 0.036 26 0.045
20 20 0.034 30 0.046
21 16 0.031 34 0.047
22 12 0.028 38 0.048
23 8 0.026 42 0.049
24 4 0.012 46 0.052
α (deg) 3.2
θc (deg) 9.2
Apparent velocities Vu and Vd (m/s) 1455 2967
True refraction medium velocity V2 (m/s) 1949

3.3.3. Error Calculation

To calculate position errors in the study area, Equation (8) is used, where the ideal
spacing ∆X = 4 m is assumed and the calculated spacing ∆Xcn is measured from D-GPS
Easting and Northing coordinates for each receiver (Table 3). Results of the position errors
show that the mean and standard deviation of the errors are 0.014 and 0.041 m (0.35%
and 1.025% of ideal spacing), respectively, which are negligible. Moreover, Equation (9) is
used to calculate the elevation errors where a horizontal datum is chosen at the first shot
elevation (i.e., datum = 9.4 m above mean sea level). Elevation errors are shown in Table 4.
In comparison to position errors, elevation errors have a mean and standard deviation
of 2.36 and 1.22 m (25.1% and 13% relative to the datum elevation), respectively, which
are relatively considerable. Therefore, it is expected that most effects on the seismic array
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 10 of 16

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810

response are attributed to elevation errors in this case. The first arrival travel times10ofofthe
16

perturbed and ideal cases are shown in Figure 6a.

Figure 5. Raw first arrival travel times of shot gathers 1 (circles)

(circles) and 3 (crosses) picked manually for
the 12 traces used in this study.
the 12 traces used in this study.

Table
3.3.3. 3. Measured
Error position coordinates using D-GPS and position errors of the 12 studied traces.
Calculation
Position errors are measured with respect
To calculate position errors in theto the ideal
study area,spacing of 4 (8)
Equation m giving a relative
is used, where mean and
the ideal
standard deviation of about 0.35% and 1%, respectively.
spacing ∆ = 4 m is assumed and the calculated spacing ∆ is measured from D-GPS
Easting and Northing coordinates for each receiver (Table 3). Results of the position errors
Calculated
Trace X (m) Y (m)
show that the mean and standard deviation of the errors are Distance0.014 and(m) exn (m) and
0.041 m (0.35%
1.025% of ideal spacing), respectively, which are negligible. Moreover, Equation (9) is
Reference position 2,915,129 383,141
used to calculate
13 the elevation errors where a383,189
2,915,126 horizontal datum3.995is chosen at the−first
0.005shot
elevation 14
(i.e., datum = 9.42,915,126
m above mean sea level).
383,185 Elevation errors
3.945 are shown in Table
−0.055
4. In comparison
15 to position errors, elevation383,181
2,915,127 errors have a mean and standard 0.035
4.035 deviation
of 2.36 and16 1.22 m (25.1%2,915,127
and 13% relative to 383,177
the datum elevation), −0.061
3.939 respectively, which
17 2,915,127 383,173 4.025
are relatively considerable. Therefore, it is expected that most effects on the seismic 0.025array
18 2,915,127 383,169 3.972 −0.028
response are
19
attributed to 2,915,127
elevation errors in383,165
this case. The first 3.985
arrival travel times
−0.015
of the
perturbed20and ideal cases 2,915,127
are shown in Figure 6a.
383,161 3.938 −0.062
21 2,915,128 383,157 4.022 0.022
Table 3. Measured
22 position coordinates
2,915,128 using D-GPS and position errors
383,153 3.940of the 12 studied traces.
−0.060
Position errors
23 are measured2,915,128
with respect to the 383,149
ideal spacing of 4 m3.986
giving a relative−mean
0.014 and
standard deviation
24 of about 0.35% and 1%, respectively.
2,915,128 383,145 4.056 0.056
Minimum position error (m) −0.062
Maximum position error (m) Calculated 0.056
Trace (m) (m) (m)
Mean position error (m) Distance (m) −0.014
Reference position Median position error
2,915,129 (m)
383,141 −0.015
Standard deviation of position errors (m) 0.041
13 2,915,126 383,189 3.995 −0.005
14 2,915,126 383,185 3.945 −0.055
3.3.4. Responses
15 Calculation
2,915,127 383,181 4.035 0.035
After16calculating the position and elevation
2,915,127 383,177errors, we calculate
3.939 the array responses
−0.061 in
various cases
17 using the procedure
2,915,127 described in Section
383,173 2.4 above.
4.025 The ideal trace wavelet
0.025
responses 18(Gcn (t)) are shown in Figure 7a and
2,915,127 their corresponding
383,169 3.972 array wavelet response
−0.028
(Gc (t)) is19
shown in Figure 7b. The
2,915,127 array trace energy
383,165 for the ideal case
3.985 (i.e., after removal
−0.015 of
both position and elevation errors) is Ec = 2237. The perturbed trace wavelet responses
20 2,915,127 383,161 3.938 −0.062
(Gxzn (t)) are shown in Figure 7c and their corresponding array wavelet response (Gxz (t))
21 2,915,128 383,157 4.022 0.022
is shown in Figure 7d. The array trace energy for the perturbed case is Exz = 797. The
22 2,915,128 383,153 3.940
normalized array trace energy of the perturbed case is calculated using Equation (23) to be
−0.060
0 23 2,915,128 383,149 3.986
ENxz = −9 dB. These results demonstrate the considerable amount of degradation −0.014in the
24 2,915,128 383,145 4.056
array trace energy due to position and elevation errors in this survey. 0.056
Minimum position error (m) −0.062
Maximum position error (m) 0.056
Mean position error (m) −0.014
Median position error (m) −0.015
Standard deviation of position errors (m) 0.041
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 11 of 16

Table 4. Elevation values and errors of the 12 studied traces. Errors are measured with respect
to the datum elevation at 9.41 m giving a relative mean and standard deviation of about 25% and
13%, respectively.

Trace X (m) Y (m) Elevation Z (m) ezn (m)

Reference position 2,915,129 383,141 9.41
13 2,915,126 383,189 13.44 4.03
14 2,915,126 383,185 13.19 3.78
15 2,915,127 383,181 12.97 3.56
16 2,915,127 383,177 12.70 3.29
17 2,915,127 383,173 12.41 3.00
18 2,915,127 383,169 12.08 2.67
19 2,915,127 383,165 11.68 2.27
20 2,915,127 383,161 11.32 1.91
21 2,915,128 383,157 10.90 1.50
22 2,915,128 383,153 10.52 1.11
23 2,915,128 383,149 10.19 0.78
24 2,915,128 383,145 9.81 0.40
Minimum elevation error (m) 0.40
Maximum elevation error (m) 4.03
Mean elevation error (m) 2.36
Median elevation error (m) 2.47
Standard deviation of elevation errors (m) 1.22

To understand the separate effects of position and elevation errors on the seismic array
response, the first arrival travel times after separately removing each of these errors is
calculated. Starting with elevation error removal, Equation (13) is used to calculate the
first arrival travel time for this case. Comparison between the travel times of the ideal case
and the elevation error removal case shows that elevation errors have large contributions
in all picked head-wave first arrival travel times (Figure 6b). Figure 7e shows the trace
wavelet responses after application of elevation errors to the ideal trace responses (Gzn (t))
and Figure 7f shows the corresponding array response (Gz (t)). Now, the array trace energy
is calculated to be Ez = 795, which is much smaller than the array trace energy of the
ideal case (i.e., Ec = 2237). The normalized array trace energy is E0Nz = −9 dB, which
is similar to that in the perturbed case, indicating that most degradation is attributed to
elevation errors.
The same steps are carried out for the removal of only the position errors using
Equation (11) and, hence, update the first arrival travel times. Figure 6c shows a comparison
of the head-wave travel times between the ideal and position error removal cases. This
comparison indicates that position errors have a very small effect on the first arrival travel
times. The trace wavelet responses after position error removal and their corresponding
array response are shown in Figure 7g,h, respectively. The array trace energy after the
removal of only position errors is calculated to be Ex = 2237, which is almost equal to that
of the ideal case, leading to a normalized array trace energy E0Nx = 0 dB. Similar results
were also reported by previous studies [30,31], as discussed in the next section.

3.3.5. Comparison with Previous Studies

We compare our results to those expected by [31] by applying their method to calculate
array trace responses involving position errors only, elevation errors only, and combined
position and elevation errors using the parameters of our data. The head-wave arrival in
◦
our data has a dominant frequency of 65 Hz and is incident at 9.2 on a 12-element array
that has an ideal spacing of 4 m laid on a dune with an average velocity of 313 m/s.
 Minimum elevation error (m) 0.40
Maximum elevation error (m) 4.03
Mean elevation error (m) 2.36
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810
Median elevation error (m) 2.47 12 of 16
Standard deviation of elevation errors (m) 1.22

12810 12 of 16

Figure 6. ComparisonFigure 6. Comparison

between head-wave between head-wave
first arrival firsttimes
travel arrival
of travel
the 10times of the
studied 10 studied
traces: traces:
(a) per-
(a) perturbed case; (b) elevation error removal case; and (c)
turbed case; (b) elevation error removal case; and (c) position error removal case. position error removal case.

3.3.4. Responses Calculation

After calculating the position and elevation errors, we calculate the array responses
in various cases using the procedure described in Section 2.4 above. The ideal trace wave-
let responses ( ( )) are shown in Figure 7a and their corresponding array wavelet re-
sponse ( ( )) is shown in Figure 7b. The array trace energy for the ideal case (i.e., after
removal of both position and elevation errors) is = 2237. The perturbed trace wavelet
responses ( ( )) are shown in Figure 7c and their corresponding array wavelet re-
 wavelet responses after application of elevation errors to the ideal trace responses (
and Figure 7f shows the corresponding array response ( ( )). Now, the array trace
ergy is calculated to be = 795, which is much smaller than the array trace energ
the ideal case (i.e., = 2237). The normalized array trace energy is = −9 , w
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 is similar to that in the perturbed case, indicating that most degradation is
13 attribute
of 16

elevation errors.

ppl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 13

Figure
Figure7. 7.
Trace
Tracewavelet responses
wavelet responses (G)(a)for:
(G) for: (a)case;
ideal ideal case; (c)case;
(c) perturbed perturbed case;
(e) elevation (e)removal
error elevation erro
moval
case;case; and
and (g) (g) position
position errorcase.
error removal removal case. The corresponding
The corresponding arrayofwavelet
array wavelet response response
these cases are: of t
cases
(b)are:
ideal(b) ideal
case; case; (d)case;
(d) perturbed perturbed case;
(f) elevation (f)removal
error elevationcase; error
and (h)removal case;
position error and (h)
removal position
case.
removal case.
Similar to [31], we first generated the ideal array response due to a 65 Hz zero phase
◦
Ricker wavelet incident at 9.2 on a 12-element equally weighted array and calculated the
The same steps
corresponding are carried
trace energy out forThen,
Ec = 1060.57. the removal of only
we calculated arraythe position
responses witherrors
varioususing E
tionerror
(11)types
and,using
hence,
theupdate
followingthe first arrival travel times. Figure 6c shows a compariso
procedure:
the head-wave travel times between the ideal and position error removal cases. This c
parison indicates that position errors have a very small effect on the first arrival tr
times. The trace wavelet responses after position error removal and their correspon
array response are shown in Figure 7g,h, respectively. The array trace energy after
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 14 of 16

1. Normalize the standard deviation of position errors (Tables 3 and 4) by the ideal
geophone spacing.
2. Generate 12 random position errors from a normal distribution with zero mean and
normalized standard deviation of position errors calculated in step 1.
3. Generate the array response with position errors only.
4. Calculate the corresponding trace energy.
We repeat these steps for the cases of elevation errors only and combined position
and elevation errors. For the case of combined position and elevation errors, we assume
normally distributed independent position and elevation errors and calculate a combined
standard deviation of 0.3052 [33]. Table 5 presents calculations using this procedure and
compares them to their counterparts calculated using steps described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3
of this paper.

Table 5. Comparison of results of this study to those of [31].

Method Ref. [31] Current study

Ec (t = 0) 1060.57 2237
Error type Error standard deviation Trace energy Degradation Trace energy Degradation
Ex 1.025% 1060.47 0.009% 2237 0.000%
Ez 30.5% 126.919 88.033% 795 64.461%
Exz 30.52% 127.973 87.934% 797 64.372%

Similar to the observed data, the array response due to position errors shows only a
negligible degradation (0.009%) when calculated using the method of [31]. On the other
hand, observed degradations due to elevation errors only (64.5%) and combined position
and elevation errors (64.4%) are smaller than those expected by the method of [31] (88.0%
and 87.9%, respectively). Nevertheless, observed degradations due to elevation errors
only and combined position and elevation errors are comparable to each other and much
higher than the degradation due to position errors only, which is also observed by the
method of [31]. Differences in our results from those calculated using the method of [31]
may be attributed to the presence of environmental noise in our data. In addition, imperfect
geophone couplings within our array deviate it from the perfect equally weighted array
used in [31]. Finally, our hammer source generates a slightly variable minimum-phase
wavelet in contrast to the exactly repeatable zero-phase Ricker wavelet used by [31].

4. Conclusions
The objective of this paper is to investigate the effects of both elevation and positioning
errors on the seismic array response. One field data set was recorded using 24 receivers
and five different shot gathers. Processing and interpreting the recorded data show two
subsurface layers with velocities of 313 and 1949 m/s for the first and second layers,
◦
respectively, and a critical angle of θc = 9.2 . Knowing the exact source and receiver
positions and elevations, the elevation errors and position errors are calculated. Our
results show that elevation has higher errors relative to position, where the mean errors of
elevation and position are 2.4 and 0.014 m, respectively. The reason for the higher errors in
the elevation case is the big difference between the receiver elevations and the horizontal
datum elevation, which reached a maximum of 4 m.
The first arrival travel times and the array trace energy are calculated for all studied
cases. The first case is the perturbed case involving the first arrival travel times of the head
wave without applying any correction for position or elevation errors. The second case
is the ideal case involving the first arrival travel times of the head wave after applying
corrections for both position and elevation errors. Results show that there is a considerable
difference between the two cases, where the array trace energy of the ideal case is enhanced
by almost three times in comparison with the array trace energy of the perturbed case.
Afterwards, the first arrival travel times and the array trace energy of position and elevation
error removal cases are calculated separately and compared to the ideal case. Results show
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 15 of 16

a considerable decrease in the array trace energy after elevation error removal, and almost
no change after position error removal, compared to the array trace energy of the ideal case.
These results assure us that almost all signal energy loss is due to the presence of elevation
errors in this study area. Therefore, it is necessary to correct for this error to minimize
energy degradation of the seismic array, which is very important for many steps of seismic
data processing such as static corrections, velocity analysis, and imaging.
The two main applications of the proposed technique are; (1) processing deep seismic
reflection data and (2) high-resolution imaging for engineering applications. In both
applications, it is essential to obtain accurate source and receiver positioning. Although the
elevation errors have larger effects on the final data, both position and elevation need to be
accurately measured.
The main limitation of the proposed technique is the need for D-GPS to obtain accurate
position and elevation of receiver points. This could be an obstacle in some cases; however,
the more accurate the position/elevation readings, the more accurate the final results.

Author Contributions: Methodology, S.M.H., A.A.-M. and A.A.A.-S.; Field work, S.M.H., A.A.-M.
and A.A.A.-S.; Processing and calculations, S.M.H., A.A.-M. and A.A.A.-S.; Conclusions, S.M.H.,
A.A.-M. and A.A.A.-S.; Writing—original draft, S.M.H., A.A.-M. and A.A.A.-S. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, College of
Petroleum Engineering and Geosciences (CPG), grant number: SF19013.
Institutional Review Board Statement: No applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: No applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to its large size.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Aldridge, D.F. Statistically perturbed geophone array responses. Geophysics 1989, 54, 1306–1318. [CrossRef]
2. Rost, S.; Thomas, C. Array seismology—Methods and applications. Rev. Geophys. 2002, 40, 1008. [CrossRef]
3. Douglas, A.; Bowers, D.; Marshall, P.D.; Young, J.B.; Porter, D.; Wallis, N.J. Putting nuclear-test monitoring to the test. Nature 1999,
398, 474–475. [CrossRef]
4. Douglas, A. Seismometer arrays—Their use in earthquake and test ban seismology. Int. Geophys. Ser. Part A 2002, 81, 357–367.
5. Kárason, H.; van der Hilst, R.D. Tomographic imaging of the lowermost mantle with differential times of refracted and diffracted
core phases (PKP, Pdiff). J. Geophys. Res. 2001, 106, 6569–6587. [CrossRef]
6. Cao, W.; Hanafy, S.M.; Schuster, G.T.; Zhan, G.; Boonyasiriwat, C. High-resolution and super stacking of time-reversal mirrors in
locating seismic sources. Geophys. Prospect. 2012, 60, 1–17. [CrossRef]
7. Cao, W.; Schuster, G.T.; Zhan, G.; Hanafy, S.M.; Boonyasiriwat, C. Demonstration of super-resolution and super-stacking
properties of time reversal mirrors in locating seismic sources. In Proceedings of the 2008 SEG Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV,
USA, 9–14 November 2008; pp. 3018–3022.
8. Khalil, M.H.; Hanafy, S.M. Geotechnical parameters from seismic measurements: Two field examples from Egypt and Saudi
Arabia. J. Environ. Eng. Geophys. 2016, 21, 13–28. [CrossRef]
9. Lu, K.; Hanafy, S.M.; Stanistreet, I.; Njau, J.; Schick, K.; Toth, N.; Stollhofen, H.; Schuster, G. Seismic imaging of the Olduvai Basin,
Tanzania. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2019, 533, 109246. [CrossRef]
10. Hanafy, S.M.; Soupios, P.; Stampolidis, A.; Koch, C.B.; Al-Ramadan, K.; Al-Shuhail, A.; Solling, T.; Argadestya, I. Comprehensive
Geophysical study at Wabar crater, Rub Al-Khali desert, Saudi Arabia. Earth Space Sci. 2021, 8, e2020EA001432. [CrossRef]
11. Oye, V.; Dando, B.; Wustefeld, A.; Jerkins, A.; Koehler, A. Cost-effective Baseline Studies for Induced Seismicity Monitoring
Related to CO2 Storage Site Preparation. In Proceedings of the 15th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, Abu
Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 15–18 March 2021. [CrossRef]
12. Mi, B.; Xia, J.; Tian, G.; Shi, Z.; Xing, H.; Chang, X.; Xi, C.; Liu, Y.; Ning, L.; Dai, T.; et al. Near-surface imaging from traffic-induced
surface waves with dense linear arrays: An application in the urban area of Hangzhou, China. Geophysics 2022, 87, 145–158.
[CrossRef]
13. Näsholm, S.P.; Iranpour, K.; Wuestefeld, A.; Dando, B.D.; Baird, A.F.; Oye, V. Array signal processing on distributed acoustic
sensing data: Directivity effects in slowness space. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2022, 127, e2021JB023587. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12810 16 of 16

14. Martin, E. A linear algorithm for ambient seismic noise double beamforming without explicit crosscorrelations. Geophysics 2021,
86, F1–F8. [CrossRef]
15. Yang, J.; Shragge, J. Measuring seasonal velocity variations on an urban DAS array. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts.
In Proceedings of the Second International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy, Houston, TX, USA, 28 August–1 September
2022; pp. 626–631. [CrossRef]
16. Hanafy, S.M. Land-Streamer vs. Conventional Seismic Data for High-Resolution Near-Surface Surveys. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 584.
[CrossRef]
17. Ramdani, A.; Khanna, P.; Gairola, G.; Hanafy, S.M.; Vahrenkamp, V. Assessing and Processing 3D Photogrammetry, Sedimentology
and Geophysical Data to Build High-fidelity Reservoir Models Based on Carbonate Outcrop Analogs. AAPG Bull. 2022, 106,
1975–2011.
18. Ramdani, A.; Khanna, P.; De Jong, S.; Gairola, G.S.; Hanafy, S.M.; Vahrenkamp, V. Three-dimensional morphometric analysis and
statistical distribution of the Early Kimmeridgian Hanifa Formation stromatoporoid/coral buildups, central Saudi Arabia. Mar.
Pet. Geol. 2022, 146, 105934. [CrossRef]
19. Hoffe, B.H.; Margrave, G.F.; Stewart, R.R.; Foltinek, D.S.; Bland, H.C.; Manning, P.M. Analyzing the effectiveness of receiver
arrays for multicomponent seismic exploration. Geophysics 2002, 67, 1853–1868. [CrossRef]
20. Li, G.; Zheng, H.; Wang, J.; Huang, W. Inversion-based directional deconvolution to remove the effect of a geophone array on
seismic signal. J. Appl. Geophys. 2016, 130, 91–100. [CrossRef]
21. Smith, M.K. Noise analysis and multiple seismometer theory. Geophysics 1956, 21, 337–360. [CrossRef]
22. Savit, C.H. Transient behavior of patterns. Geophysics 1958, 23, 360–362. [CrossRef]
23. Newman, P.; Mahoney, J.T. Patterns-with a pinch of salt. Geophys. Prospect. 1973, 21, 197–219. [CrossRef]
24. Dudgeon, D.E.; Johnson, D.H. Array Signal Processing—Concepts and Techniques; Prentice-Hall Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1993; 533p.
25. Gangi, A.F.; Benson, M.A. Wavelet response of seismic arrays. In SEG Expanded Abstracts; Society of Exploration Geophysicists:
Houston, TX, USA, 1989; pp. 663–666.
26. Al-Shuhail, A.A.; Gangi, A.F. The effect of topography on the wavelet response of the seismic arrays. In SEG Expanded Abstracts;
Society of Exploration Geophysicists: Houston, TX, USA, 1994; pp. 895–898.
27. Al-Shuhail, A.A.; Al-Ghanim, A. Performance of seismic arrays in heterogeneous medium. GeoFrontier 2003, 1, 27–30.
28. Al-Shuhail, A.A. Seismic array response in the presence of a dipping shallow layer. Signal Image Video Process. 2013, 7, 263–274.
[CrossRef]
29. Akram, J. Seismic Arrays Response in the Presence of Laterally Varying Thickness of the Weathering Layer. Master’s Thesis, King
Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 2007.
30. Akram, J.; Al-Shuhail, A.A. Performance of seismic arrays in the presence of weathering layer variations. Arab. J. Geosci. 2016, 9,
522–529. [CrossRef]
31. Putra, R.; Al-Shuhail, A.A. Seismic Array Response in the Presence of Intra-Array Variations in Element Weights, Elevations,
and Positions. In Proceedings of the 13th Middle East Geosciences Conference and Exhibition, Geo-2018, Manama, Bahrain,
5–8 March 2018.
32. Sheriff, R.E.; Geldart, L.P. Exploration Seismology, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995; 1582p, ISBN
978-0521468268.
33. Schiller, J. Schaum’s Outline of Probability and Statistics, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2013; 432p, ISBN
978-0071795579.