The shape of things to come — Development and testing of a new marine vibrator source

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 680-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benoît Teyssandier ◽  
John J. Sallas
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Source ◽  
Test Facility ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Far Field ◽  
Ocean Bottom ◽  
Air Gun ◽  
Seismic Image ◽  
Field Radiation ◽  
Technical Issues ◽  
To Come

Ten years ago, CGG launched a project to develop a new concept of marine vibrator (MV) technology. We present our work, concluding with the successful acquisition of a seismic image using an ocean-bottom-node 2D survey. The expectation for MV technology is that it could reduce ocean exposure to seismic source sound, enable new acquisition solutions, and improve seismic data quality. After consideration of our objectives in terms of imaging, productivity, acoustic efficiency, and operational risk, we developed two spectrally complementary prototypes to cover the seismic bandwidth. In practice, an array composed of several MV units is needed for images of comparable quality to those produced from air-gun data sets. Because coupling to the water is invariant, MV signals tend to be repeatable. Since far-field pressure is directly proportional to piston volumetric acceleration, the far-field radiation can be well controlled through accurate piston motion control. These features allow us to shape signals to match precisely a desired spectrum while observing equipment constraints. Over the last few years, an intensive validation process was conducted at our dedicated test facility. The MV units were exposed to 2000 hours of in-sea testing with only minor technical issues.

Seismic source decomposition

Geophysics ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul L. Stoffa ◽  
Anton Ziolkowski
Keyword(s):  
Point Source ◽  
Spectral Characteristics ◽  
Patent Application ◽  
Power Spectra ◽  
Seismic Source ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Far Field ◽  
Air Gun ◽  
Power Spectral ◽  
Directional Characteristics

We exploit the differences that exist between the radiation fields of a point source and an array to design a time‐separated marine seismic source array with desired power spectral and directional characteristics, whose far‐field time signature is known precisely from measurements. The desired power spectral characteristics are created by firing a predetermined series of point source units sequentially, such that their time signatures do not overlap. The effective power spectrum of the whole series of time‐distributed signatures can be made to approximate the sum of the power spectra of the individual signatures and can, therefore, be designed to suit the desired application by the appropriate choice of source units. The desired directional characteristics of the array can be created by arranging the source unit separations such that each source unit reaches the desired spatial position at the prescribed firing instant. The key to the subsequent processing of the recorded data is to measure the pressure wave generated by each point source unit with a hydrophone placed close by, but in the linear radiation field. The position of this hydrophone relative to the source unit must be known accurately in all three dimensions. The depths of the source units and their relative spatial positions at the instants of firing must also all be known. From these measurements the far‐field signature of the sequence in any azimuth can be deduced, and the impulse response of the earth can be recovered by dividing the Fourier frequency spectrum of the recorded reflection data by that of the measured source unit sequence. This process is completely deterministic in nature and depends primarily upon our ability to monitor accurately the far‐field signature of each source unit. Field results from an initial evaluation of this method indicate that this measurement can be readily accomplished. The success of this technique is then ultimately dependent on the signal to noise ratio. [This method is the subject of a patent application.] We stress that, since the signature is known, we are not obliged to make any assumptions about the phase. In particular, we do not need to make the minimum‐phase assumption. We are therefore free to choose our parameters to optimize our desired power spectral and directional characteristics with complete disregard for the conventional requirement that the signature of an air gun source have a high primary‐to‐bubble ratio.

Compact sleeve‐gun source arrays

Geophysics ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 402-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. M. Fontana ◽  
T.‐A. Haugland
Keyword(s):  
Small Volume ◽  
Spectral Characteristics ◽  
Seismic Source ◽  
Pulse Amplitude ◽  
Operational Efficiency ◽  
Far Field ◽  
Air Compressor ◽  
Air Gun ◽  
Marine Seismic

Data derived from far‐field signature measurements have inspired several guidelines for using clustered sleeve guns effectively in tuned marine seismic source arrays. Primarily, these data show that for a given volume the signature produced by a cluster of sleeve guns has a comparable bubble period, increased primary amplitude, and reduced bubble‐pulse amplitude compared to the signature of a single gun. These results agree with those reported for clusters of conventional air guns. However, when the data are analyzed in terms of acoustic and operational efficiency, we find that for array elements with volumes greater than [Formula: see text] two‐gun clusters are more desirable than equivalent volume clusters of several small volume guns. For array elements with volumes up to [Formula: see text], the data show no significant advantages for using clusters instead of single guns. These guidelines have led to the design of sleeve‐gun arrays that produce signatures with temporal and spectral characteristics equal to or exceeding those produced by conventional air‐gun arrays incorporating almost twice the total gun volume. Moreover, these new arrays operate with a total number of individual guns comparable to conventional arrays, thus improving the performance of source arrays on small survey vessels without having to increase air compressor capacity or ancillary source equipment.

A proposed polarity standard for multicomponent seismic data

Geophysics ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 1028-1037 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. James Brown ◽  
Robert R. Stewart ◽  
Don C. Lawton
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Pressure Change ◽  
Seismic Profile ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Ocean Bottom ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Field Recording ◽  
Sea Bottom ◽  
Cable Lines

This paper proposes a multicomponent acquisition and preprocessing polarity standard that will apply generally to the three Cartesian geophone components and the hydrophone or microphone components of a 2‐D or 3‐D multicomponent survey on land, at the sea bottom, acquired as a vertical seismic profile, vertical‐cable, or marine streamer survey. We use a four‐component ocean‐bottom data set for purposes of illustration and example. A primary objective is a consistent system of polarity specifications to facilitate consistent horizon correlation among multicomponent data sets and enable determination of correct reflectivity polarity. The basis of this standard is the current SEG polarity standard, first enunciated as a field‐recording standard for vertical geophone data and hydrophone streamer data. It is founded on a right‐handed coordinate system: z positive downward; x positive in the forward line direction in a 2‐D survey, or a specified direction in a 3‐D survey, usually that of the receiver‐cable lines; and y positive in the direction 90° clockwise from x. The polarities of these axes determine the polarity of ground motion in any component direction (e.g., downward ground motion recording as positive values on the vertical‐geophone trace). According also to this SEG standard, a pressure decrease is to be recorded as positive output on the hydrophone trace. We also recommend a cyclic indexing convention, [W, X, Y, Z] or [0, 1, 2, 3], to denote hydrophone or microphone (pressure), inline (radial) geophone, crossline (transverse) geophone, and vertical geophone, respectively. We distinguish among three kinds of polarity standard: acquisition, preprocessing, and final‐display standards. The acquisition standard (summarized in the preceding paragraph) relates instrument output solely to sense of ground motion (geophones) and of pressure change (hydrophones). Polarity considerations beyond this [involving, e.g., source type, wave type (P or S), direction of arrival, anisotropy, tap‐test adjustments, etc.] fall under preprocessing polarity standards. We largely defer any consideration of a display standard.

Radiation from supersonic faulting

1971 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 1009-1012 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. C. Savage
Keyword(s):  
Initial Point ◽  
Step Function ◽  
Fault Model ◽  
Dislocation Segment ◽  
Far Field ◽  
Fault Propagation ◽  
Unit Step ◽  
Propagation Factor ◽  
Double Couple ◽  
Field Radiation

abstract The far-field radiation from a simple fault model is given by the radiation pattern associated with the appropriate strain nucleus (e.g., double couple) multiplied by a fault propagation factor. For a unilateral fault model the propagation factor is F ( c ; t ) = ζ bd [ H ( τ ) − H ( τ − ( L / ζ ) ( 1 − ( ζ / c ) cos ψ )) ] / ( 1 − ( ζ / c ) cos ψ ) where ξ is the velocity of fault propagation, b is the fault slip, d is the fault width, τ = t − r0/c, r0 is the distance of the observer from the initial point of faulting, c is the velocity of the seismic wave, H(τ) is the unit-step function, L is the length of the fault, and ψ the angle between r0 and the direction of fault propagation. This representation is valid for both subsonic and supersonic fault propagation. The latter case is important because Weertman (1969) has recently shown that spontaneous faulting may propagate at supersonic velocities. Because the propagation factor is always positive, the nodal planes for the radiation are the same as for the appropriate strain nucleus. Finally, it is shown by the application of this equation that the radiation from a screw dislocation segment is represented by the double-couple nucleus, not the compensated linear-vector dipole nucleus as recently suggested by Knopoff and Randall (1970).

scholarly journals Light-Emitting Metasurfaces: Simultaneous Control of Spontaneous Emission and Far-Field Radiation

Nano Letters ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 6906-6914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng Liu ◽  
Aleksandr Vaskin ◽  
Sadhvikas Addamane ◽  
Benjamin Leung ◽  
Miao-Chan Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spontaneous Emission ◽  
Far Field ◽  
Light Emitting ◽  
Simultaneous Control ◽  
Field Radiation

Measuring stress-induced martensite microstructures using far-field high-energy diffraction microscopy

2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 425-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Nicole Bucsek ◽  
Darren Dale ◽  
Jun Young Peter Ko ◽  
Yuriy Chumlyakov ◽  
Aaron Paul Stebner
Keyword(s):  
Phase Transformation ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Infinite Plate ◽  
Direct Analysis ◽  
High Energy ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Far Field ◽  
X Ray Diffraction ◽  
Parent Austenite ◽  
Diffraction Microscopy

Modern X-ray diffraction techniques are now allowing researchers to collect long-desired experimental verification data sets that are in situ, three-dimensional, on the same length scales as critical microstructures, and using bulk samples. These techniques need to be adapted for advanced material systems that undergo combinations of phase transformation, twinning and plasticity. One particular challenge addressed in this article is direct analysis of martensite phases in far-field high-energy diffraction microscopy experiments. Specifically, an algorithmic forward model approach is presented to analyze phase transformation and twinning data sets of shape memory alloys. In the present implementation of the algorithm, the crystallographic theory of martensite (CTM) is used to predict possible martensite microstructures (i.e. martensite orientations, twin mode, habit plane, twin plane and twin phase fractions) that could form from the parent austenite structure. This approach is successfully demonstrated on three single- and near-single-crystal NiTi samples where the fundamental assumptions of the CTM are not upheld. That is, the samples have elastically strained lattices, inclusions, precipitates, subgrains, R-phase transformation and/or are not an infinite plate. The results indicate that the CTM still provides structural solutions that match the experiments. However, the widely accepted maximum work criterion for predicting which solution of the CTM should be preferred by the material does not work in these cases. Hence, a more accurate model that can simulate these additional structural complexities can be used within the algorithm in the future to improve its performance for non-ideal materials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document