Impact of Small Shear Wave Velocity Variations on Surface Wave Phase Velocity Inversion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Wang ◽  
M. Le Feuvre ◽  
D. Leparoux ◽  
O. Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Surface Wave ◽  
Phase Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Velocity Inversion ◽  
Wave Phase ◽  
Wave Phase Velocity ◽  
Velocity Variations ◽  
Small Shear

Estimations of formation velocity, permeability, and shear‐wave anisotropy using acoustic logs

Geophysics ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 437-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ningya Cheng ◽  
Chuen Hon Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Phase Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Stoneley Wave ◽  
S Wave ◽  
Acoustic Logging ◽  
Wave Phase ◽  
Wave Phase Velocity ◽  
Logging Tool

Field data sets collected by an array monopole acoustic logging tool and a shear wave logging tool are processed and interpreted. The P‐ and S‐wave velocities of the formation are determined by threshold detection with cross‐correlation correction from the full waveform and the shear‐wave log, respectively. The array monopole acoustic logging data are also processed using the extended Prony’s method to estimate the borehole Stoneley wave phase velocity and attenuation as a function of frequency. The well formation between depths of 2950 and 3150 ft (899 and 960 m) can be described as an isotropic elastic medium. The inverted [Formula: see text] from the Stoneley wave phase velocity is in excellent agreement with the shear‐wave log results in this section. The well formation between the depths of 3715 and 3780 ft (1132 and 1152 m) can be described as a porous medium with shear‐wave velocity anisotropy about 10% to 20% and with the symmetry axis perpendicular to the borehole axis. The disagreement between the shear‐wave velocity from the Stoneley wave inversion and the direct shear‐wave log velocity in this section is beyond the errors in the measurements. Estimated permeabilities from low‐frequency Stoneley wave velocity and attenuation data are in good agreement with the core measurements. Also it is proven that the formation permeability is not the cause of the discrepancy. From the estimated “shear/pseudo‐Rayleigh” phase velocities in the array monopole log and the 3-D finite‐difference synthetics in the anisotropic formation, the discrepancy can best be explained as shear‐wave anisotropy.

Seismic Surface Wave Tomography on dense 3D active data

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilaria Barone ◽  
Emanuel Kästle ◽  
Claudio Strobbia ◽  
Giorgio Cassiani
Keyword(s):  
Surface Wave ◽  
Phase Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Seismic Exploration ◽  
Surface Wave Tomography ◽  
Travel Times ◽  
Velocity Models ◽  
Wave Tomography

<p>Surface Wave Tomography (SWT) is a well-established technique in global seismology: signals from strong earthquakes or seismic ambient noise are used to retrieve 3D shear-wave velocity models, both at regional and global scale. This study aims at applying the same methodology to controlled source data, with specific focus on 3D acquisition geometries for seismic exploration. For a specific frequency, travel times between all source-receiver couples are derived from phase differences. However, higher modes and heterogeneous spatial sampling make phase extraction challenging. The processing workflow includes different steps as (1) filtering in f-k domain to isolate the fundamental mode from higher order modes, (2) phase unwrapping in two spatial dimensions, (3) zero-offset phase estimation and (4) travel times computation. Surface wave tomography is then applied to retrieve a 2D phase velocity map. This procedure is repeated for different frequencies. Finally, individual dispersion curves obtained by the superposition of phase velocity maps at different frequencies are depth inverted to retrieve a 3D shear wave velocity model.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document