Journal of Earth Science, Vol. 20, No. 3, p.

640–648, June 2009 ISSN 1674-487X

Printed in China
DOI: 10.1007/s12583-009-0053-9

Land 3D-Seismic Data: Preprocessing Quality

Control Utilizing Survey Design Specifications,
Noise Properties, Normal Moveout,
First Breaks, and Offset

Abdelmoneam Raef*
Geology Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA; Formerly, Kansas Geological Survey,
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

ABSTRACT: The recent proliferation of the 3D reflection seismic method into the near-surface area of
geophysical applications, especially in response to the emergence of the need to comprehensively char-
acterize and monitor near-surface carbon dioxide sequestration in shallow saline aquifers around the
world, justifies the emphasis on cost-effective and robust quality control and assurance (QC/QA) work-
flow of 3D seismic data preprocessing that is suitable for near-surface applications. The main purpose
of our seismic data preprocessing QC is to enable the use of appropriate header information, data that
are free of noise-dominated traces, and/or flawed vertical stacking in subsequent processing steps. In
this article, I provide an account of utilizing survey design specifications, noise properties, first breaks,
and normal moveout for rapid and thorough graphical QC/QA diagnostics, which are easy to apply
and efficient in the diagnosis of inconsistencies. A correlated vibroseis time-lapse 3D-seismic data set
from a CO2-flood monitoring survey is used for demonstrating QC diagnostics. An important
by-product of the QC workflow is establishing the number of layers for a refraction statics model in a
data-driven graphical manner that capitalizes on the spatial coverage of the 3D seismic data.
KEY WORDS: preprocessing, quality control, 3D seismic, 4D seismic, trace header, geometry, vertical
stacking.

INTRODUCTION storage capacity (Damen et al., 2006; Li et al., 2006;

The application of 3D seismic reflection to near-
surface site characterization and monitoring injectates
has gained momentum in the light of increased interest
in the established viability of geological sequestration
of carbon dioxide and subsurface hydrocarbon gas
This study was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy
(No. DE-FC26-03NT15414).
*Corresponding author: abraef@ksu.edu
Manuscript received December 15, 2008.
Manuscript accepted February 19, 2009.
Arts and Winthaegen, 2005). The requirements and
means of seismic quality control and quality assurance
(QC/QA) have been addressed by several authors (Li
et al., 2008; Bachrach and Mukerji, 2004; Jin et al.,
2004; Thomas et al., 2004; Widmaier et al., 2002),
mostly for either the acquisition stage or for main
processing and post-processing volumes. Many types
of processing problems arise from defected preproc-
essing steps such as incorrectly setting up field ge-
ometry (Yilmaz, 1987). A complete preprocessing QC
should include geometry check, equipment test, seis-
mic data quality, and seismic signal quantification
Land 3D-Seismic Data
(Burger et al., 1998). Seismic data quality in preproc-
essing has been focused upon by Burger et al. (1998).
In this article, graphical QC techniques for the 3D
seismic data preprocessing stage are presented; special
emphasis is directed to detecting errors in field ge-
ometry assignment. Since preprocessed seismic data
visualization in one data attribute domain (e.g., field
file Id-Channel No.) may not manifest any inconsis-
tency or errors. In the approach of this article the de-
sign of multi-domain field data visualization has been
a key element in detecting preprocessing data prob-
lems. Technical and operational considerations such
as cost-effectiveness, abundance of good quality gath-
ers, and pressure for shorter turnaround time may en-
courage a tendency towards underestimating preproc-
essing errors assuming that subsequent advanced
processing will overcome those problems. Seismic
data-processing geophysicists most often receive land
seismic data in the form of preprocessed (coordinates
loaded and data vertically stacked) 3D-seismic data
from acquisition contractors.
The sheer volume of field data involved in 3D
seismic surveys, coupled with the multi-domain visu-
alization capabilities of modern workstations, call for
favoring graphical QC plots in the preprocessing stage.
In this article, I present QC/QA techniques for the
preprocessing of land seismic data. These QC/QA di-
agnostic techniques are designed to graphically iden-
tify problems caused by erroneous vertical stacking,
geometry assignment, and positioning errors and de-
viations of design locations. Evaluating QC data-
integrity and 3D-geometry header information after
preprocessing is a very important step before embark-
ing upon subsequent data-processing operations. Er-
rors that may occur in the preprocessing stage mostly
arise from misallocating or mislabeling of stations,
incorrect vertical stacking of shot records at each sta-
tion, swapped receiver cable connection (flipped
channels), and 3D-geometry assignment inconsisten-
cies or mismatching.
In time-lapse projects, where subtle reservoir
seismic signatures are sought, the great significance of
conservative QC is essential for the entire data proc-
essing effort, particularly at the early stage of pre-
processing and geometry assignments. This is where
errors are made, that adversely affect both subsequent
641
processing and overall cost when identified later in the
processing flow. In this work the aim is to highlight
preprocessing QC techniques that were used in the
course of time-lapse seismic monitoring of an en-
hanced oil recovery CO2 injection site in Central Kan-
sas, USA. The highly scrutinized preprocessing data
have been gathered with the aim of imaging subtle
reservoir seismic anomalies, hence the significance of
tight standards in the QC approach. The following QC
techniques should be used with the understanding that
they are interdependent and/or complementary, thus
corroborating each other’s QC capacity. This interde-
pendency of many of the QC diagnostics, in this arti-
cle, strengthens the effectiveness of identifying prob-
lem stations or errors in geometry assignment or
loading to trace headers. In the following sections of
this article, as an example, several preprocessing QC
techniques are explained utilizing various field data
specifications of only one swath 3D dataset.
TECHNIQUES
Survey Specifications and 3D-Geometry Verifica-
tion
Survey design specifications and actual field data
gathering may not be in agreement as a result of field
surface conditions and morphology, as well as human
errors during the survey acquisition and preprocessing
practices. Utilizing survey design, actual spatial sur-
vey locations, and seismic bin fold, we both validate/
correct the 3D-geometry assignment and identify
problem stations that are to be isolated for accounting
for survey and/or preprocessing errors. The survey de-
sign for the 3D survey used here to illustrate the use of
various QC plots, consists of modified brick source-
station lines, 100 m apart, and five receiver lines
spaced at 200 m (group interval 20 m) single-patch
deployment (Fig. 1) covering a survey area of 3.6 km2
and yielding a maximum of 24-fold common midpoint
(CMP) coverage.
Positioning errors, missing stations, and/or ge-
ometry error diagnostics can be indicated by anoma-
lous bin-fold distributions (Figs. 1a and 1c) that are
not consistent with survey design. The application of
binning grid rotation could conceal error-diagnosing
CMP-fold anomalies (Figs. 1b and 1c). Thus, it is
recommended that the QC binning grid have no rota-
642 Abdelmoneam Raef

tion (inlines orthogonal to land survey azimuth/source decreasing and orientation that help confirm the com-
lines). Spatial map displays (Fig. 2) of in-line and pliance of grid-layout to the land seismic convention
X-line of the binning grid ensure/verify the correct- of in-lines parallel to or at acute angle (after rotation)
ness of grid orientation: the direction of increasing/ to the receiver lines direction.

Figure 1. Pilot 3D-seismic survey layout with north-south source lines spaced by 100 m and west-east re-
ceiver lines (group interval of 20 m) at spacing of 200 m; anomalous lower fold of coverage (a) indicated
sources that have been either dropped or mispositioned during geometry assignments; corrected geometry
(b) results in fold of coverage that is consistent with survey design; rotating binning (c) grid can make it
difficult to see fold inconsistencies.

Figure 2. Cross-lines (left) and in-lines (right) spatial map displays resulting from rotated binning.
A matrix plot of “offset map” (Fig. 3) in the plane of source-channel in case of regular survey de-
Land 3D-Seismic Data 643

sign is an effective tool for pinpointing mislocation
when analyzed in the survey-design source-receiver
relational framework. Moderate to high regularity of
survey design increases the potential of offset and
azimuth matrix plots for QC purposes. The color scale
(blue=low, red=high) in each pin summarizes the
offset/azimuth distribution resulting from one shot line
and one receiver line; observing patterns of change
can be a strong diagnostic tool for identifying missing,
mispositioning, and/or geometry assignment.

Figure 3. Change of offset pattern within a single patch (a) as a function of source-receiver layout (five re-
ceiver lines and nineteen source lines) with no irregularities; (b) irregularity/abrupt change in pattern is
indicative of geometry assignment errors (Channels 80–90, 110–120 and 16–170); (c) color scale manipula-
tions may enhance errors detection.

A matrix color display of source-receiver azi-
muth (Fig. 4) can also be used for preprocessing QC
purposes, where cross-examining the variations in
offset and azimuth against survey specifications is in-
formative in its consistency from one patch to the next
or regularity from one receiver line to the next. Inter-
active workstation variations of offset/azimuth color
scale structure are very helpful for examining consis-
tency and regularity issues that are basically to be ref-
erenced to, and compared against 3D-survey specifi-
cations. A matrix color display of source-receiver
azimuth could also be helpful in the later stages of the
processing flow as it might help in recognizing arti-
facts that can be associated with azimuth variability.
In the case of a color-coded matrix plot of
source-receiver offset or azimuth displays, simultane-
ous examination is recommended; small channel-
mispositionings, particularly those parallel to receiver
lines extension, are likely to go undetected on offset
maps whereas they are detectable on azimuth plots.
Channel and source misallocation is distinguishable
on offset and azimuth displays from the trend of any
anomalous pattern that is perpendicular to the respec-
tive axis. Inconsistencies identified would have to be
resolved by either correcting mispositioning and/or
geometry assignment errors.
644 Abdelmoneam Raef

Figure 4. Positioning/geometry error-free pattern (a) of change of source-receiver azimuth within a single
patch (five receiver lines and nineteen source lines) as a function of source-receiver layout; irregular-
ity/abrupt variation (b) in pattern is indicative of geometry assignment errors; in this example pattern
change.

Noise
In general, source-generated as well as stationary
noise (Fig. 5), though harmful, the characteristic
properties of noise, such as moveout, location on re-
cord, frequency content and waveform, would allow
one to utilize those noise events in identifying cor-
rupted records and/or bad geometry assignments. This
is particularly true when examining data from the
same swath location in different time-lapse surveys,
where stationary noise shift (Figs. 5a and 5b) is in-
dicative of channel misnumbering. Misnumbering
would be undetectable from header plots or field file
ID (FFID) or trace numbering plots. This example
suggests that bad traces can be well utilized for posi-
tional and geometry QC purposes. A doubling of
source-generated airwaves and/or widening of sta-
tionary noise can indicate that two different records
have erroneously been vertically stacked and assigned
to the same station (Fig. 5c). Other multi-channel
source-generated noise can be utilized in a similar
manner to identify problematic stations. Utilizing
noise properties in a preprocessing QC technique
would help flag problem stations that would be sub-
Figure 5. Stationary noise (red arrow) at the right
jected to further corrective measures such as rectifying
position (a), shifted (b) due to mislabeling of chan-
channel numbering and geometry assignment, and re-
nels and changing in character (c) as a result of
applying vertical stacking of raw records.
erroneous vertical stacking which is also indicated
by duplication of source generated air wave noise.
Trace-Header Parameters and Normal Moveout
Trace header parameters and moveout (Fig. 6)
can be used effectively as preprocessing QC tools. In
Land 3D-Seismic Data
this study, we use surface receiver location number
(SRF SLOC-blue) and field file identification
(FFID-red) plots against channel numbers besides
moveout for identifying problem records. Receiver
line reversal (Fig. 6a; flipped cables) is indicated by
both anomalous moveout and SRF SLOC reversal.
Mislabeling of channels (Fig. 6b) is indicated by re-
versal of moveout. Corrupted data (duplicate re-
First-Breaks
Preprocessing QC application of first-break picks
can benefit from advances in the speed and precision
of the automatic picking capacity of modern process-
ing platforms. Matrix displays of channel-source-
first-break pick times (Fig. 7a), when compared with
survey specifications (spatial relations of source-line
receiver line), can also be utilized in a similar manner
and compared with channel-source-offset plots (Fig.
3). Anomalous first-break pick patterns (Fig. 7a) re-
flect either geometry assignment errors or bad picks
645
cording and source location number SRLN-misla-
beling) is indicated by anomalous FFID oscillation
(Fig. 6c). Traces with varying FFIDs (Fig. 6d) allo-
cated to the same station, and anomalous airwaves,
indicate errors in vertical stacking. Data corruption is
indicated by both anomalous moveout and a plot of
trace header parameters (Fig. 6e).
Figure 6. Receiver line reversal (a) is indicated by
both anomalous moveout and source location num-
ber (SRLN)-trend reversal; mislabeling of channels
(b) is indicated by reversal of moveout; anomalous
SRFLN oscillation resulting from duplicate re-
cording and SRLN-mislabeling (c). Traces, with
varying FFIDs (d), allocated to the same station and
anomalous air waves indicating errors in vertical
stacking; anomalous moveout and trace header pa-
rameters signal data corruption (e).
resulting from very low signal-to-noise ratio. Thus,
examining matrix displays of channel-source-first-
break pick times aids both fast editing of first-break
pick times and identification of erroneous geometry.
A display of channel, offset, and offset-to-
first-break pick time ratio (Fig. 7b) shows near con-
stant values of offset-to-first-break times over ranges
of offsets corresponding to refraction energy arriving
from two refractors. Such plots are informative in
terms of identifying errors in pick times and/or ge-
ometry assignments, and as a by-product establishing
646 Abdelmoneam Raef

Figure 7. Anomalous first-break pick ((a) dotted outlines) pattern reflects either geometry assignment er-
rors or bad picks that result from very low signal to noise ratio; display of offset-to-first-break pick time
ratio (b) is nearly constant over ranges of offset corresponding to refraction energy arriving from “con-
stant” refractor velocity traces/channels and SINs corresponding to anomalous regions have to be checked
for preprocessing and/or first-break picking errors. In (b) one could establish that a three-layer model
should be the choice for near-surface refraction statics.

Figure 8. Poorly predicted Y- (a) and X-values (b) outlined by ellipses can be isolated for further analysis
for relating the low quality of prediction to either bad picks or erroneous spatial allocation.

the number of layers to be used in building subsequent
external model refraction statics. Near-surface veloc-
ity variability sampled by direct wave arrivals is mani-
fested directly on the offset-to-first-break picks at
small offsets (Fig. 7b). In simple terms, within a range
of refraction offsets, a stable ratio of offset-to-
first-break pick time is indicative of consistent ge-
ometry and good quality time picks. In Fig. 7b one
could establish that a three-layer model should be the
choice for near-surface refraction statics as manifested
Land 3D-Seismic Data
by three zones of near uniform x/t for first-breaks of
the entire dataset.
A more quantitative approach to using first-
break picks for quality control on source and receiver
locations is to utilize this system of equations
( XS − XRi ) 2 + (YS − YRi ) 2 = [(TFB − τ SRi )(V1i )]2
where XS and YS are source coordinates; XRi and YRi
are the i-th receiver coordinates; TFB is first-break pick
time; τSRi is the sum of the source and i-th receiver de-
lay times (possibly from uphole times or from regres-
sion of first breaks on offset); and V1i is the first re-
fractor velocity. A similar system of equations holds
for common receiver gathers.
Plotting predicted spatial coordinates against ac-
tual or survey design values (Fig. 8) would help iden-
tify badly predicted values, which can then be isolated
for further analysis to determine whether the low
quality of prediction results from bad first-break picks
or erroneous spatial allocation.
DISCUSSION
For many near-surface geophysicists, the han-
dling of large volumes of field seismic data could be
overwhelming when it comes to preprocessing the re-
ceived field data. In this account, several graphical
techniques of preprocessing QC/QA could be very
helpful and rapid means of addressing problems that
could otherwise jeopardize subsequent processing
steps. This stage (data preprocessing) of data prepara-
tion has been underemphasized, as is clear from the
lack of reported workflows in the literature, particu-
larly as one would survey near-surface publications.
To my knowledge, there has been no published mate-
rial documenting various options for applying graphi-
cal QC techniques to the preprocessing of 3D seismic
data, although errors due to, for example, geometry
assignments are hard to detect when tackling a larger
number of source stations as is the case in 3D and 4D
seismic applications. Geometry assignment, although
seemingly a simple and straightforward task in 2D
datasets, could be very challenging in case of the very
often-encountered large volume data sets in 3D and
4D seismic applications. Thus the significance of ap-
plying rapid graphical techniques utilizing plots in
various domains.
Despite the challenges of 3D seismic data pre-
647
processing due to multiplicity of potential sources of
errors, the potential for utilizing this arsenal of diag-
nostics lies in its redundancy and the diversity of
visualization domains. Very often 3D seismic data
acquisition is contracted to an external contractor, who
would also carry out the preprocessing phase. Such
situation favors implementing QC measures before
embarking on further data processing. In Fig. 7b, off-
set over arrival (color scale) in the plane of offset-
channel No. for the entire dataset enables judging of
the consistency of first-break picks and also estab-
lishes an objective data-driven approach for establish-
ing the number of layers for near-surface refraction
statics. This is an example of the double benefits of
applying preprocessing QC to field 3D seismic data-
sets and the usefulness of data redundancy aspects.
CONCLUSIONS
Geometry assignments, and positional and label-
ing errors, when they are carried through the initial
stage of processing (preprocessing), have seriously
detrimental effects on subsequent processing, particu-
larly normal moveout and velocity analysis. Therefore,
it is very important to pinpoint affected records and
account for those errors. The underlying thought of
this approach is to use various trace-to-trace as well as
shot-to-shot data and survey relational parameters in
the process so that no or a minimal number of bad re-
cords would go undetected.
We noticed that most of the preprocessing errors
that were not related to data quality could be identified
before proceeding in the processing flow. Proper
communication and/or good quality metadata would
help answer questions raised during the preprocessing
stage. Many articles have reported on quality control
of data processing with the assumption that correlated
preprocessing data and their spatial header attributes
are intact. In this article, we did not intend to cover an
exhaustive list of “QC tools” for the entire processing
flow but to focus on data submitted in the form of
correlated records with geometry assigned. No as-
sumption was made as to the correctness of either
geometry assignment or positioning parameters. Our
methodology advocates using both data-extracted and
spatial survey specifications to validate geometry as-
signment, positioning parameters, and labeling attrib-
648
utes. Most of the QC techniques presented in this arti-
cle are applicable to multi-patch/swath surveys.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support for this research was provided by the
U.S. Department of Energy, project #DE-FC26-
03NT15414. I thank Rick Miller for helping to im-
prove this article, Kansas Geological Survey geo-
physical field crewmembers for acquiring the data
presented, and George Clark and Mary Brohammer
for styling the text. I also thank the Kansas Geological
Survey for supporting this study. My thanks also go to
two anonymous reviewers, especially reviewer who
supplied constructive comments that helped in im-
proving the manuscript.
REFERENCES CITED
Arts, R., Winthaegen, P., 2005. Monitoring Options for CO2
Storage: Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep
Geologic Formations. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
1001–1013
Bachrach, R., Mukerji, T., 2004. Portable Dense Geophone
Array for Shallow and Very Shallow 3D Seismic Reflec-
tion Surveying: Part 1—Data Acquisition, Quality Control,
and Processing. Geophysics, 69(6): 1443–1455
Abdelmoneam Raef
Burger, P., Garott, A. R., Granger, P., 1998. Improving Resolu-
tion and Seismic Quality Assurance through Field Pre-
processing. The Leading Edge, 17(11): 1562–1569
Damen, K., Faaij, A., Turkenburg, W., 2006. Health, Safety
and Environmental Risks of Underground CO2 Storage—
Overview of Mechanisms and Current Knowledge. Cli-
mate Change, 74: 289–318
Jin, L., Chen, X., Li, J., 2004. New Quality Control Method for
Time-Lapse Seismic Processing. SEG, Expanded Ab-
stracts, 23(1): 2315–2318
Li, J., Chen, X., Zhao, W., et al., 2008. Purposeless Repeated
Acquisition Time-Lapse Seismic Data Processing. Petro-
leum Science, 5(1): 31–36
Li, R., Urosevic, M., Dodds, K., 2006. Prediction of 4D Seis-
mic Responses for the Otway Basin CO2 Sequestration
Site. SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 25(1): 2181–2185
Thomas, J. W., Hufford, J. M., Hoover, G. M., et al., 2004.
Acquisition/Processing-Teepee Technology Applied to the
Design of P-Wave Acquisition, Part 1—Introduction and
Tutorial. The Leading Edge, 23(1): 16–19
Widmaier, M., Moe, J., Brittan, J., et al., 2002. Case Studies in
Quality Control for 4D Seismic Processing. SEG, Ex-
panded Abstracts, 21(1): 2090–2093
Yilmaz, O., 1987. Seismic Data Processing. Society of Explo-
ration Geophysicists, Tulsa