1 Aufrufe

Hochgeladen von okokok

Optimal Design

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Composite-Order and Optimized Composite-Order Ica
- retlessonplan
- Math for ML
- 14 Max-Min
- On Simultaneous ion of Smart Structures - Part I_Theory
- Control Dispatch
- Course Module Book
- Column Optimization
- Tlbo Codes
- A Fuzzy Optimization-Based
- Finite element lower bound yield line analysis.pdf
- Qa -II Final - Cec Sumtemp
- Drill Bit Replacement
- Optimum Coordination of Overcurrent Relays Using SADE Algorithm
- Optiizacion de Circuitos de Molienda Clasificacion
- 15 NetworkPricingOptimization (TR2002)
- Analysis of Enterprise - Gurukpo
- Optimization in one dimension.pdf
- Port Optimisation
- No Free Lunch Theorem for Optimization

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

spacing, shot spacing, receiver line interval, shot line

The parameter choice in seismic survey design has to satisfy interval, maximum inline offset, and maximum crossline

geophysical, operational and cost constraints. In this paper offset. To generate a geometry with regular fold, the line

two published optimization methods are reviewed and spacings have to be multiples of the shot and receiver station

modified. The first method finds a solution based on spacings, and the maximum offsets have to be multiples of

geophysical constraints only, whereas the second method the line spacings (Vermeer, 2001).

also includes operational and cost constraints. An

acquisition design wizard finds suitable geophysical Following MKB, I take the station spacings as given values.

constraints for both methods. Given the uncertainties which This leaves only four integers to be determined for a

always exist in the design specifications, many different description of the geometry: number of shots between

designs may be close to optimal in any situation. adjacent receiver lines, number of receivers between

adjacent shot lines, inline fold, and crossline fold. The

Introduction objective is to establish these parameters while satisfying the

geophysical requirements and, explicitly in the MKB

In 3D seismic survey design the parameter choice has to method, while also minimizing the acquisition and

satisfy a wide variety of geophysical, operational and cost processing cost.

constraints. Vermeer (2001) provides detailed guidelines to

arrive at an optimal survey design but does not explain how The simplest choice of geophysical requirements consists of

to deal with conflicting requirements. Liner et al. (1999) required fold, maximum offset, and maximum minimum

describe an optimization method based on geophysical offset (the largest minimum offset occurring in any bin and

requirements. Morrice et al. (2001) describe an optimization equal to diagonal of unit cell, Figure 1). These three

method that is based on operational costs while also requirements do not yet uniquely define a geometry. In the

satisfying geophysical requirements. Their cost function is implementation of the optimization methods used in this

minimized using Microsoft Excel's Solver program. paper, I choose to add aspect ratio (of the geometry) and

aspect ratio of line spacings. For the least irregular fold

Morrice, Kenyon and Beckett (2001, MKB) present a distribution at shallow levels the latter aspect ratio should be

detailed description of their method. This makes their work close to one. To satisfy fold requirements at different target

quite amenable to modifications. Interestingly, the Excel levels, I also introduce desired fold for shallow and deep

Solver is also quite suitable to solve the optimization targets.

problem formulated by Liner, Underwood and Gobeli (1999,

LUG). The same spreadsheet with a different cost function The LUG and MKB methods

is used to compare the LUG method with the MKB method.

Figure 2 is a modification of the Excel spreadsheet given in

The MKB method as well as the LUG method require the the MKB paper. The main elements of the acquisition model

user to give his requirements for station spacings, maximum are described by the bold-faced text in column A of Figure

offset, and maximum minimum offset. An acquisition 2. The elements are

design wizard has been developed which provides

recommendations for these parameters based on resolution unit cell

requirements, the mute function, and on required fold for receiver line spacing

shallow and deep targets. An example based on the problem

discussed in Hornman et al. (2000) is used to illustrate the shots of template

combined use of wizard, MKB and LUG methods. maximum crossline

offset

Problem description receivers of template

The problem to be tackled is the optimal selection of the midpoint coverage

parameters of an orthogonal geometry assuming a one-line template

crossline roll of the template (see Figure 1). shot line spacing

maximum inline offset

A regular orthogonal geometry is fully determined by only

six variables (Liner et al. , 1999; Vermeer, 2001). A Fig. 1. Regular orthogonal geometry with template.

3D seismic survey design optimization

A B C LUG MKB

1 Problem Data, all costs in $US (all distances are in m):

2 Permitting costs per square km 5000 LUG 5000 5000

MKB

3 Surveying cost per source point 45 45 45

4 Surveying cost per receiver point 45 45 45

5 Cutting and clearing cost per km for source line 55 55 55

6 Cutting and clearing cost per km for receiver line 55 55 55

7 Drilling cost per source location 100 100 100

8 Average daily cost of the crew 10000 10000 10000

9 Equipment cost per receiver channel per day 3 3 3

10 Inflation factor for total number of receiver channels 0.5 0.5 0.5

11 Processing costs per trace 0.01 0.01 0.01

12 Maximum number of shots per day 160 160 160

13 Maximum number of receiver channels moved per day 300

14 Maximum number of receiver channels available 2000 2000 2000

15 Receiver spacing 50 50 50

16 Shot spacing 50 50 50

17 Required maximum minimum offset 600 1 600 0 600 0

18 Largest acceptable aspect ratio 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 1

19 Maximum aspect ratio line spacings 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 1

20 Desired fold at shallow target 10 1 10 1.1 10 1.1

21 Mute offset at shallow target 1250 1250 1250

22 Desired fold at deep target 30 1 30 1 30 1

23 Mute offset at deep target 2800 2800 2800

24

25 Decision Variables:

26 Number of receiver locations between adjacent shot lines 2 7 10

27 Number of shot locations between adjacent receiver lines 2 8 6

28 Inline fold 2 6 4

29 Crossline fold 2 5 7

30 Number of shots per day 1 160 160

31

32 Dependent variables:

33 Shot line spacing =B26*B15 350 500

34 Receiver line spacing =B27*B16 400 300

35 Maximum inline offset =B28*B26*B15 2100 2000

36 Maximum crossline offset =B29*B27*B16 2000 2100

37 Maximum offset =SQRT(B35^2+B36^2) 2900 2900

=SQRT(B33^2*(B28-1)^2 +

38 Minimum maximum offset 2371 2343

B34^2*(B29-1)^2)

39 Maximum minimum offset =SQRT(B33^2+B34^2) 532 583

40 Fold at shallow target = Fold(B21,B35,B36,B28,B29) 8.8 8.2

41 Fold at deep target = Fold(B23,B35,B36,B28,B29) 29.9 27.9

42 Aspect ratio =MAX(B35/B36,B36/B35) 1.05 1.05

43 Aspect ratio line spacings =MAX(B33/B34,B34/B33) 1.14 1.67

44 Number of active receiver lines =2*B29 10 14

45 Number of active receiver channels per active receiver line =2*B26*B28 84 80

46 Number of active receiver channels =B44*B45 840 1120

47 Number of receiver channels moved per day =B30*B26/B27 140.00 266.67

48 Number of shots per square kilometer =10^6/(B15*B16*B26) 57.14 40.00

49 Square km completed per day: =B30/B48 2.8 4

50

51 LUG Objective Function see equation (2) 0.040 0.488

52 MKB Objective Function in $US Cost/km2 see equation (3) 21232 (20071) 18301

53

54 Constraints: LHS RHS LHS RHS LHS RHS

55 Maximum minimum offset =(B39-B17)/B17 0.15 -0.114 0.15 -0.028 0.15

56 Maximum offset =ABS((B37-B23)/B23) 0.15 0.036 0.15 0.036 0.15

57 Fold at shallow target =ABS((B40-B20)/B20) 0.2 0.123 0.2 0.182 0.2

58 Fold at deep target =ABS((B41-B22)/B22) 0.1 0.002 0.1 0.019 0.1

59 Aspect ratio =B42 =B18 1.05 2.0 1.39 2.0

60 Aspect ratio line spacings =B43 =B19 1.14 2.0 1.67 2.0

61 Maximum number of receiver channels =B46*(1+B10) =B14 1260 2000 1800 2000

62 Maximum number of shots per day =B30 =B12 160 160 160 160

63 Maximum number of receiver channels moved per day =B47 =B13 140.00 300 266.67 300

Fig. 2. Problem description on basis of Excel worksheet. See main text for detailed explanation.

3D seismic survey design optimization

Problem data: input parameters describing cost elements The MKB method is aimed at minimizing the dollar cost of

and geophysical requirements, the survey while satisfying geophysical requirements and

Decision variables: variables to be chosen so as to operational constraints. The objective function consists of

minimize cost, cost elements only. The cost elements identified in MKB are

Dependent variables: variables determined by the not changed in this paper. For a complete description of

decision variables, these cost elements see the MKB paper. The function is

Objective function: cost function to be minimized,.

Constraints: variables that have to satisfy geophysical or MKB cost = B2 + 10^6*(B3+B7)/(B16*B33) +

operational constraints 10^6*B4/(B15*B34) + 10^3*B5/B33+10^3*B6/B34 +

(B8+B9*(4*B26*B28*B29*(1+B10)))*(B48/B30) +

All variables in the model formulation are described in 10^6*(B11*B28*B29*4/(B15*B16)) (3)

column A. The input values used in the cost computations of

the MKB method are given in B2:B14, whereas the values In addition to the four decision variables used in the LUG

of the geophysical constraints used in both methods are method, the MKB method includes "number of shots per

given in B15:B23. Initial values of the decision variables are day", B30, as an extra decision variable. It is limited by the

listed in B26:B30. B33:B49 give the formulas for the maximum number of shots per day B12, and by the

dependent variables. The fold functions B40 and B41 are maximum number of receivers moved per day B13. The

computed from number of receivers moved per day is computed in B47. In

my formulation the number of shots per day and the number

of receivers moved per day are not constrained to be integer,

area of cross - spread not muted (1)

Fold = total fold because these parameters represent some average value.

area of cross - spread

Some of the other differences between my formulation of

The objective function is minimized by the Excel Solver the MKB method and the original one are: 1) only

while some constraints have to be satisfied. The left hand independent variables have been included in the list of

side and the right hand side of the inequalities describing the decision variables, reducing the number from 13 to 5. The

constraints are listed in B55:B63 and C55:C63, respectively. number of constraints has been reduced from 16 to 9. The

The left hand sides should not be larger than the right hand new formulation gives a clearer indication of the scope one

sides as shown in the two insets in Figure 2. The same has in varying parameters and it makes life easier on the

constraints are used in both LUG and MKB methods so that Solver in Excel (fewer iterations needed), 2) Fold as the

differences in solutions are a result of the different cost product of two integers will now always be integer, 3) In

functions. equation (3) actual fold is used instead of required fold, 4)

As target values such as fold have some margin of

The objective function I have chosen for the LUG method is uncertainty, positive and negative deviations from the target

value are allowed where appropriate.

LUG cost = C17 * (1 B39/B17)^2 +

C18 * (1 B42)^2 + Example and comparison

C19 * (1 B43)^2 +

C20 * (1 B40/B20)^2 + Figure 2 shows the MKB and the LUG solution to a survey

C22 * (1 B41/B22)^2 (2) design optimization problem. The initial values of the

problem data are adapted from the MKB original and are

where C17:C22 represent weights. So, the five target shown in the range B2:B23, although the LUG method only

attributes are maximum minimum offset, aspect ratio, aspect uses B15:B23. The LUG solution is shown under the

ratio of line spacings, and fold at shallow and deep targets. heading LUG. The solution for the decision variables is

listed in rows 26 to 29: (7, 8, 6, 5). The corresponding cost

The original LUG method had six decision parameters, value is 0.040. With the maximum number of shots of 160

including inline and crossline binsize, and number of that can be handled in a day, the corresponding number of

receivers in each receiver line. This led to millions of moved receivers is 140. The corresponding MKB cost

possible geometries, making it difficult to find the geometry function gives $US 21232 per km2 to acquire the LUG

with smallest cost. The identification of the four integers solution with the MKB cost model.

(B26:B29) has made the problem quite a bit easier to solve.

My solution also removes some glitches in the computation Interchanging shot and receiver positions [i.e., changing

of maximum offset and maximum minimum offset which decision variables into (8, 7, 5, 6)] leads to the same data

invalidated the solutions of the optimization example in the and the same LUG cost of 0.040. However, the operational

LUG paper. cost would now be $US 20071 per km2.

3D seismic survey design optimization

The MKB solution is given under the header MKB in Figure The mute offsets used in this example are based on a

2. The cost per day is reduced to $US 18301, but the LUG maximum NMO stretch factor of 1.15. Using tighter or

cost is increased to 0.488. This solution involves fewer shots looser stretch control would lead to yet other solutions.

per km2 reducing the drilling cost, whereas the aspect ratio

of the line spacings has deteriorated. This solution is Conclusions

different than the one found in the MKB paper, mainly

because a smaller fold is accepted. Selecting tighter Selecting acceptable parameters for 3D seismic surveys may

geophysical constraints in MKB could have led to the benefit from the combined use of the MKB method and the

"alternative" LUG solution with cost $US 20071. LUG method. Both methods have been improved in this

paper. A very nice aspect of the Excel spreadsheet is that it

Wizard, MKB and LUG allows playing around with input parameters and constraints

giving a good feel for the interrelationships of the various

The acquisition design problem tackled by five designers at parameters (get a free copy of the Excel file from

the 1999 EAGE Workshop (Hornman et al., 2000) involved gijs@3dsymsam.nl). Working with the spreadsheet also

targets at 2000, 2500 and 3000 m depth. A prototype version shows the sensitivity of survey design on the user's choice of

of an acquisition design wizard developed by TNO-NITG in constraints and target values. Given the uncertainties which

The Netherlands based on symmetric sampling ideas always exist in the design specifications, many different

(Vermeer, 2001) was used to tackle the same problem. designs may be close to optimal in any situation.

Honoring resolution requirements, it recommended to use 40

m station spacings. Based on a judgment of the quality of A disadvantage of the current MKB method is that it only

the available seismic data the required folds at the target allows costing of the nominal geometry, whereas the same

levels were set at 40, 50 and 60. A representative velocity geometry may be acquired in the field with widely different

function was used to derive the mute function which techniques, each having its own cost picture.

determines available offsets at the various target levels.

The acquisition design wizard is a practical tool to derive

The wizard comes up with a recommended design that can suitable geophysical parameters from an analysis of the

be modified by the user. Design 1 in Table 1 is the wizard's geophysical problem. These parameters can be used as input

solution. It selects maximum inline and crossline offsets to parameters of the MKB and LUG methods. Eventually all

approximate the mute offset at the deepest target. This is methods should be combined into one program.

recommended for analysis of azimuth-dependent effects, but

constitutes overdesign for less ambitious objectives. The References

other three designs try to fit maximum offset of the

geometry to the mute offset at deepest target, hence lead to Hornman, K., Vermeer, G., Lansley, M., Musser, J.A.,

smaller maximum offsets and lower fold. Galbraith, M., Meunier, J., Gillot, E., Monk, M., and Yates,

M., 2000, 3D seismic survey design: First Break, 18, 161-

Table 1. Four solutions EAGE design problem 185.

1 2 3 4

Station spacing 40 40 40 40 Liner, C.L., Underwood, W.D., and Gobeli, R., 1999, 3-D

Source line spacing 320 320 400 400 seismic survey design as an optimization problem: The

Receiver line spacing 320 320 280 280 Leading Edge, 18, 1054-1060.

Max inline offset 3200 2560 2400 2400

Max crossline offset 3200 2560 2520 2800 Morrice, D.J., Kenyon, A.S., and Beckett, C.J., 2001,

Fold shallow target 39.8 39.8 36.4 36.4 Optimizing operations in 3-D land seismic surveys:

Fold deep target 88.2 63.8 54.0 59.6 Geophysics, 66, 1818-1826.

Calculated fold 100 64 54 60

MKB cost 34602 31170 27467 28039 Vermeer, G.J.O., 2001, Fundamentals of 3-D seismic survey

LUG cost 0.281 0.065 0.239 0.254 design: PhD thesis Delft University of Technology,

3DSymSam Geophysical Advice.

Designs 2-4 are solutions with input parameters B14:B23 in

Acknowledgments

Figure 2 set at (4000, 40, 40, 600, 2, 1.5, 40, 2277, 60, and

3492). Design 2 is the LUG solution, and design 3 is the

Pascal Winthaegen and Wilfred Visser of TNO-NITG for

MKB solution with values for cost elements as in Figure 2.

their implementation of the acquisition design wizard. Kees

Design 4 is an MKB solution with tighter control on fold. It

Hornman and Pascal Winthaegen for their constructive

may be a good compromise between cost and geophysical

criticism.

requirements.

- Composite-Order and Optimized Composite-Order IcaHochgeladen vonShafayat Abrar
- retlessonplanHochgeladen vonapi-243958585
- Math for MLHochgeladen vonAriyanto
- 14 Max-MinHochgeladen vonbarretteplett
- On Simultaneous ion of Smart Structures - Part I_TheoryHochgeladen vonAndreas_amp
- Control DispatchHochgeladen vonIgnacio Andres Portilla Alvarado
- Course Module BookHochgeladen vonKumar Ksitij
- Column OptimizationHochgeladen vonPratyush Mishra
- Tlbo CodesHochgeladen vonsin_laugh
- A Fuzzy Optimization-BasedHochgeladen vonJamerson Ramos
- Finite element lower bound yield line analysis.pdfHochgeladen vonrasna
- Qa -II Final - Cec SumtempHochgeladen vonMax Charadva
- Drill Bit ReplacementHochgeladen vonmario5681
- Optimum Coordination of Overcurrent Relays Using SADE AlgorithmHochgeladen vonJamile_P_N
- Optiizacion de Circuitos de Molienda ClasificacionHochgeladen vonAngel Canales Alvarez
- 15 NetworkPricingOptimization (TR2002)Hochgeladen vonguido gentile
- Analysis of Enterprise - GurukpoHochgeladen vonKiran Soni
- Optimization in one dimension.pdfHochgeladen vonUche Urch
- Port OptimisationHochgeladen vonNuraihan Hj Ismail
- No Free Lunch Theorem for OptimizationHochgeladen vonErick Farias
- 29595_1Hochgeladen vonKy Visoth Sambath
- Operation Research Question PaperHochgeladen vonDrNavleen Kaur
- Chapter 4 Length Yes SaysHochgeladen vonCe Vocalpiano
- Lecture 0Hochgeladen von_MerKeZ_
- Brochure-integrated-container-terminal-planning-optimization-EN.pdfHochgeladen vonHerum Manalu
- Nonlinear Estimation of External Power System Dynamic Equivalent ParametersHochgeladen vonRabah Magicc
- Optimal placement.pdfHochgeladen vonsrivaishnavi
- Montiel Dimitrakopoulos 2013Hochgeladen vonJOSE CARLOS MAMANI VALERIANO
- maxminHochgeladen vonTrevor Chimombe
- 1-s2.0-S0045790600000100-mainHochgeladen vonAmit saha

- Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical PracticeHochgeladen vonokakavta
- 2015 05 Internal ErosionHochgeladen vonokokok
- Effect of Hydraulic Loading Rate on TheHochgeladen vonokokok
- 1_2-D Symmetric SamplingHochgeladen vonokokok
- numerical testHochgeladen vonVivian Law
- 7 Prestack ModellingHochgeladen vonokokok
- geofisica_top07Hochgeladen vonokokok
- Geofisica_top04Hochgeladen vonokokok
- geofisica_top06Hochgeladen vonokokok
- geofisica_top06Hochgeladen vonokokok
- Geofisica_top03Hochgeladen vonokokok

- Earthquake Family Preparedness QuestionnaireHochgeladen vonGracey Pelagio
- IntroductionHochgeladen vonSamson Ayeni
- All About TsunamisHochgeladen vonabhinav
- Karakteristik Batuan Reservoir (Saturasi)Hochgeladen vonDebbie Novalina
- Provenance of Beach Sands of Mexico Using GeochemistryHochgeladen vonJohn S. Armstrong-Altrin
- G314-07-W13-L28-Continental-alkaline.pptHochgeladen vonsandra
- Subsidence prediction using regression modeHochgeladen vonAudrey Robinson
- Organic Geochemistry 06Hochgeladen vonAditya Ariewijaya
- Studies on Chemical and Geotechnical Properties of Marine SandHochgeladen vonIAEME Publication
- Refraction SeismicHochgeladen vonbharath35kumar
- IRJET-Review on the Effect of waste ceramic Dust on the Geotechnical Properties of Expansive SoilsHochgeladen vonIRJET Journal
- 9 Reservoir Sizing.pdfHochgeladen vonMiera Said
- IRC_075-1979 Design of High embankments.pdfHochgeladen vonRoshanRSV
- The Dinosaur Quarry. Dinosaur N - John M. GoodHochgeladen vonimsquidly
- Coastal Processes and Landforms-2Hochgeladen vonMalia Damit
- RMR 1976 ChartHochgeladen vonreginaldh
- Soil Improvement Case Study With Jet Grouting Solution for Soft SoilHochgeladen vonFarah Arisha
- Eq Bases HearHochgeladen vonhemantkle2u
- Seismic Provisions in the Saudi Building CodeHochgeladen vonMILL3482
- Thar Coal FieldHochgeladen vonRabisankar Karmakar
- CorpPres 2009 DecHochgeladen vonBepdj
- A Finite-Element Modeling Approach to Gravitational Tectonic Stress and Earthquakes.Hochgeladen vonV
- stratigraphic.pdfHochgeladen vonsami Na
- 4000 Years Later - HyLHochgeladen vonRodrigo Morales Acuña
- PDF_P324_06A_(for_class)_Lec_Mod2_01c_Material_Balance_(Orientation).pdfHochgeladen vonvitaxn
- science lesson-rocksHochgeladen vonapi-208643879
- How to Make Concrete at Site_ M 25 ExampleHochgeladen vonAZYGOSY
- Seismic Hazard AssessmentHochgeladen vonAye Hlaing Min
- Abrasive MaterialsHochgeladen vonMartin Ong
- Wetlands Sediment - Sedimentation of Nebraska's Playa WetlandsHochgeladen vonNEGameandParks