A comparison of random and periodic
marine simultaneous-source encoding
David F. Halliday1 and Ian Moore2
https://doi.org/10.1190/tle37060471a1.1.
Downloaded 06/11/18 to 144.82.238.225. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Abstract
Separation algorithms for marine simultaneous-source data
generally require encoded sources. Proposed encoding schemes
include random time delays (time dithers), periodic time sequences
(such as those referred to as seismic apparition), and periodic phase
sequences (for sources with fully controlled phase like a marine
vibrator). At a given frequency, time dithers spread energy at a given
wavenumber over all wavenumbers, phase sequences shift the energy
by a fixed wavenumber (independent of frequency), and time
sequences split energy over multiple wavenumbers in a frequency-
dependent way. The way the encoding scheme distributes energy
in the wavenumber domain is important because separation algo-
rithms generally assume that, in the absence of encoding, all energy
falls into the signal cone. Time dithering allows separation by
inversion. At low frequencies, the inverse problem is overdetermined
and easily solved. At higher frequencies, sparse inversion works
well, provided the data exhibit a sufficiently sparse representation
(consistent with compressive sensing theory). Phase sequencing
naturally separates the sources in the wavenumber domain at low
frequencies. At higher frequencies, ambiguities must be resolved
using assumptions such as limited dispersion and limited complexity.
Time sequencing allows a simple separation at low frequencies
based on a scaling and subtraction process in the wavenumber
domain. However, the scaling becomes unstable near notch frequen-
cies, including DC. At higher frequencies, a similar problem to
that for phase sequencing must be solved. The encoding schemes,
therefore, have similar overall properties and require similar assump-
tions, but differ in some potentially important details. Phase
sequencing is clearly only applicable to phase-controllable sources,
and the different encoding schemes have other implications for
data acquisition, for example, with respect to operational complexity,
efficiency, spatial sampling, and tolerance to errors.
Introduction
Simultaneous-source acquisition is a key technology for marine
seismic exploration because it improves both shot sampling and
survey efficiency (Beasley, 2008; Moore, 2013). Marine seismic
acquisition typically employs air-gun sources; the most commonly
used method for encoding air guns is to use pseudorandom time
dithers. With time dithers, when the energy from one source is
aligned, the energy from other sources appears incoherent. This
incoherent crosstalk can be removed using conventional noise
attenuation techniques (Beasley, 2008), or separated using sparse
inversion techniques (Akerberg et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2008).
Recent interest in marine seismic vibrator technology raises
the possibility of using encoding schemes that are not based on
1
Schlumberger Cambridge Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom. E-mail: dhalliday@slb.com.
2
WesternGeco, Queenstown, New Zealand. E-mail: imoore1@slb.com.
time delays. For example, a high-fidelity marine seismic vibrator
would allow the source wavefield phase to be controlled from
shot-to-shot. Phase control enables techniques that do not rely
on random variation from shot-to-shot. Laws and Halliday
(2013) introduce phase sequencing, wherein the phase follows
a nonrandom sequence from shot-to-shot, such that signal in
the frequency-wavenumber (f-k) domain shifts along the wave-
number axis by a specified amount. At low frequencies, this
shifted energy can be removed using simple f-k filters. At higher
frequencies, inversion-based techniques can be used to separate
the data (Laws et al., 2016; Halliday et al., 2017). Note that
while our focus is on marine seismic vibrator applications, control
of waveform phase has also been used in land vibroseis acquisition
(e.g., Krohn and Johnson, 2003).
Similar nonrandom techniques have also been proposed using
time sequences. Zu et al. (2015, 2016) demonstrate the use of
time sequences for air-gun simultaneous-source acquisition.
Robertsson et al. (2016) demonstrate that sequences of alternating
time delays (a technique they refer to as seismic apparition) can
give similar properties to the phase-sequencing method of Laws
and Halliday (2013) but with a number of differences due to the
limited phase control offered by an air-gun source.
In this article, we present examples based on linear events
that allow us to investigate the differences between simultaneous-
source encoding using time dithers, time sequences, and phase
sequences. The value of such simple examples lies in their ability
to clearly demonstrate the important differences between the
encoding schemes. Further, to show that the encoding has a
similar effect on more complex data, we present more realistic
examples from the SEAM Phase 1 model (www.seg.org/seam).
We do not present the results of attempting to separate the simul-
taneous sources, as there are many different separation algorithms
that will perform differently for the various encoding techniques.
We refer the reader to Moore et al. (2008), Abma et al. (2010),
Laws et al. (2016), Andersson et al. (2017), and Halliday et al.
(2017) for examples of how data acquired using the different
encoding schemes can be separated.
Encoding two simultaneous sources
When acquiring simultaneous-source data, the goal is to use
an encoding scheme that allows the data from one source to be
distinguished from the data from other sources that are activated
at the same time. One of the most common ways to achieve this
is to apply pseudorandom time dithers to the firing times of one
source. Figure 1a shows a window of data containing a single,
undithered linear event, representing data acquired by multiple
June 2018 THE LEADING EDGE 471a1
Downloaded 06/11/18 to 144.82.238.225. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 1. Demonstration of different simultaneous-source encoding schemes using a simple linear event. (a) Unencoded data in the time-space (t-x) domain. (b) Time
dithering in the t-x domain, where the dither is drawn from a uniform distribution on the interval –200 to 200 ms. (c) Phase sequencing in the t-x domain, where the
phase changes by 180° (at all frequencies) from shot-to-shot. (d) Time sequencing in the t-x domain, where the time delay alternates between 0 and 0.016 s from shot-
to-shot. (e–h) as for (a–d), but in the f-k domain. The dashed red lines indicate the signal cone that supports the unencoded data (note the wrap-around at 30 Hz). The
blue diamond indicates the region where correct separation is possible for the time-sequenced case.

shots (i.e., a common receiver gather, or common channel gather).
The event has a velocity of 2000 m/s, the shot interval is 25 m,
and the time-sampling interval is 0.008 s. Figure 1b shows the
same event, but with time dithers drawn from a uniform distribu-
tion on the interval –0.2 to 0.2 s. The impact of the encoding is
clear; the coherency of the event is destroyed. The f-k spectra of
Figures 1a and 1b are shown in Figures 1e and 1f. The effect of
the encoding in this domain is also clear; the time dithers spread
the energy from the event across the entire wavenumber spectrum.
The signal cone (bounded by the speed of sound in water, which
is 1500 m/s in this example) is indicated by the dashed red lines.
Rather than randomly varying the time (or phase) of the
encoded source from shot-to-shot, Laws and Halliday (2013)
propose to use carefully selected sequences of phase. In the simplest
case, this involves alternating phases of 0° and 180°. The effect of
this is to shift the signal for the encoded source in the f-k domain
by the Nyquist wavenumber (see also Laws et al., 2016). Figure 1c
shows the effect of phase sequencing in the time domain. The
data still appear to be coherent, but the alternating phase creates
changes in polarity from positive (white) to negative (black).
Figure 1g shows the same data in the f-k domain, where the signal
shifting by the Nyquist wavenumber is clear.
A similar technique (Robertsson et al., 2016) substitutes time
sequences for the phase sequences of Laws and Halliday (2013).
In the two-source case, the encoded source uses time delays that
alternate between zero and some predefined delay. Figures 1d and 1h
show the effect of time sequencing for a delay of 0.016 s in the
time and f-k domains, respectively. Part of the signal (indicated
by the red arrow) shifts by the Nyquist wavenumber, but the
remainder (indicated by the blue arrows) is not shifted.
Theory for periodic encoding
For alternating time delays (every other shot delayed by
time T), the encoded spectrum, H(ω,k), is related to that for the
unencoded case, F(ω,k), by
1 1
H (ω , k) = [1+ A(ω )]F (ω , k)+ [1 − A(ω )]F (ω , k − kN ) , (1)
2 2
where A(ω) = eiωT is the time delay operator and k N is the Nyquist
wavenumber (Robertsson et al., 2016). The first and second terms
in this equation correspond to the energy highlighted by the blue
and red arrows, respectively, in Figure 1h. The support of F(ω,k)
(and, hence, of the first term) is limited to the signal cone, as is
the interference from an unencoded source (Figure 1e). The support
of the second term is the signal cone shifted by k N. Where these
regions do not overlap (i.e., for signal inside the dashed blue

471a2 THE LEADING EDGE June 2018

Downloaded 06/11/18 to 144.82.238.225. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 2. (a–d) Wavenumber spectra at 10 Hz extracted from Figures 1e–1h. At this frequency, the unencoded event occurs within the blue diamond in Figure 1h. Dashed
lines indicate the limits of the signal cone. (e–g) show the spectra for the data in Figures 1b–1d after adding the unencoded event. Text boxes indicate the sources that
contribute to each spike (source 1 is the unencoded source, source 2 is the corresponding encoded source).
diamond in Figure 1h), the second term can be easily isolated,
and the first term is computed by scaling by a factor [1+A(ω)]/
[1–A(ω)] (Andersson et al., 2017).
For time dithering, separation is by inversion. At frequencies
corresponding to the lower half of the blue diamond, the inversion
is overdetermined and easily solved. At frequencies corresponding
to the upper half of the diamond, the inversion is underdetermined
and assumptions are necessary. It might appear that time sequenc-
ing has an advantage at these frequencies because it allows separat-
ing low wavenumbers without assumptions. However, time
sequencing consequently mixes signals from higher wavenumbers
into a narrow wavenumber range compared to time dithering,
which spreads the encoded signal evenly over all wavenumbers.
Therefore, it is not clear that time sequencing has any advantages
over time dithering at these frequencies when all wavenumbers
in the signal cone are considered.
For the phase-sequencing case, a phase shift (φ) that is constant
with frequency gives the encoded spectrum in equation 1 with
A(ω) = eiφ. For a phase sequence that alternates between 0° and
180° (Laws and Halliday, 2013), A(ω) is equal to –1, and
H(ω,k) = F(ω,k–k N). This gives the situation plotted in Figure 1g,
where all of the source energy is shifted by the Nyquist wave-
number. The first term in equation 1 is zero, and there is no need
for a scaling step in estimating the separated wavefield.
Let us now look at the example in Figure 1 in more detail.
The unencoded spectrum for a single linear event with
velocity v (ignoring the wavelet) is F(ω,k) = S(k–k e(ω)), where
471a4 THE LEADING EDGE June 2018
k e(ω) = ω/(2πν) and S is a sampling function (such as a sinc
function) that is concentrated near the zero value of its argument.
The 10 Hz wavenumber spectrum for this event is plotted in
Figure 2a, where the event is clearly identified as a single spike
(at ke(ω) = 0.005/m). This is a frequency slice taken from Figure 1e,
with the dashed red lines indicating the bounds of the signal
cone for the unencoded source.
The same spectrum is plotted for the time-dithered case in
Figure 2b. In this case, the signal from the dithered source appears
at all wavenumbers. The combination of unencoded and time-
dithered data is plotted in Figure 2e, where the single spike
corresponding to the nondithered event is clearly distinguished
from the dithered event. The inversion process tries to explain
the observed energy from both sources, using only wavenumbers
within the signal cone for each source. At this frequency, the
limited extent of the signal cones results in an overdetermined
problem. Perfect separation is theoretically possible. Although it
is not necessary to assume that the signal is sparse, such an
assumption may help stabilize the inversion in the presence of
noise, or if the condition number becomes large. See Abma (2014)
for a discussion on the impact of the choice of random time dithers
on the quality of source separation.
The phase-sequencing spectrum (Figure 2c) contains only a
single spike at wavenumber ke(ω)–k N (–0.015/m), which is outside
the signal cone (indicated by the dashed red lines). When combined
with the unencoded data (Figure 2f), two spikes are present, but
a simple wavenumber filter easily separates them.
Downloaded 06/11/18 to 144.82.238.225. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 3. As for Figure 2, but plotted at 20 Hz, where the unencoded event occurs outside the blue diamond in Figure 1h.
In the time-sequenced case, the wavenumber spectrum at a
given frequency (Figure 2d) contains spikes at wavenumbers ke(ω)
and ke(ω)–k N. Provided ke(ω) falls inside the diamond-shaped
region, the correct solution can be found (Andersson et al., 2017).
Figure 2g shows the combination of the unencoded source with
the time-sequenced source. The first term in equation 1 occurs at
the same wavenumber (0.005/m) as the unencoded event, but the
second term is shifted to –0.015/m, which lies outside the signal
cone. This allows it to be isolated, and source separation is achieved
by scaling and subtraction. We can consider each term as a linear
combination of sources, and that source separation is achieved
through the solution of a linear system of equations.
Figure 3 shows the 20 Hz equivalent of Figure 2. At this
frequency, ke(ω) falls outside the diamond-shaped region. Time-
dithered encoding (Figures 3b and 3e) looks much the same as
at 10 Hz, but now the signal cones have a greater extent, and
the wavenumber sampling is not sufficient to uniquely explain
the energy from both sources. At even higher frequencies this
is compounded by aliased energy wrapping back into the sampled
wavenumber range. The inversion is now underdetermined. The
phase-sequencing (Figures 3c and 3f) and time-sequencing
(Figures 3d and 3g) spectra contain the same number of spikes
as at 10 Hz, but the encoded spikes now fall within the signal
cone and it is not easy to associate any of the spikes with a specific
source. Despite the source ambiguity, the phase-sequenced case
is still somewhat simpler than the time-sequenced case. In the
phase-sequenced case, there is still a one-to-one correspondence
between spikes and sources (Figure 3f), or equivalently the
shifted energy from the encoded source simply falls in the signal
cone of the unencoded source. This situation is very similar to
spatial aliasing of regularly sampled data (Laws et al., 2016). In
the time-sequenced case, there is the additional complication
that part of the energy from the encoded source is not shifted
and overlaps directly (rather than by wrapping) with the unen-
coded source.
Typically, we address aliasing by assuming that the wavenum-
ber spectrum is sparse at each frequency and that there is limited
or no dispersion (i.e., that the slownesses, k/ω, are independent
of frequency or vary slowly with frequency). Compressive sensing
theory implies that the optimum encoding (dithering) function
is random under the assumption of sparseness. It is, therefore,
reasonable to expect that aliasing problems are more easily handled
for the time-dithered case than for the time-sequenced case.
Considering the data plotted in Figure 3e, one simple compressive
sensing approach to discriminate between the unencoded data
and the dithered data would be to apply a threshold to the data
to identify the dominant spike, and to find the optimum amplitude
of that spike by inversion. This type of inversion would not work
for the time-sequencing approach in Figure 3g because, even if
the correct event could be isolated, mixing part of the encoded
event with the unencoded event would result in estimating incor-
rect amplitude. However, the known mixing of coded and unen-
coded signals could be exploited to attempt to separate the signals,
for example with constraints from lower frequencies used to
identify to which source energy belongs (as is often used for
interpolation of unencoded sources). For the phase-sequencing
approach, there is no overlap between the events, but they have
the same amplitude, so it is not clear which one should be selected.
June 2018 THE LEADING EDGE 471a5
 In this case, some extra information could be used to discriminate
between the two spikes to select the correct sparse solution. For
example, Halliday et al. (2017) consider the use of multiple fre-
quencies to resolve the issue of events from different sources
occurring within the defined signal cone.
Downloaded 06/11/18 to 144.82.238.225. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Choice of time sequence and spectral notches
An issue that arises with time sequences is that they generate
notches similar to those associated with free-surface ghost reflec-
tions. At frequencies for which A(ω) = 1, the second term in the
expression for H(ω,k) in equation 1 vanishes and the scale factor
becomes infinite. The data will not be separable from an unencoded
source at these frequencies. These notches occur when ωT = 2πn
for integer n. Separation will become unstable near these notches,
which always include DC (0 Hz). The next notch, at ω = 2π/T,
can be moved to an arbitrarily high frequency by selection of
sufficiently small T, but this has the undesired effect of broadening
the DC notch. It is somewhat obvious that the use of small T will
make low frequencies, for which T is small compared to the period,
indistinguishable from those for an unencoded source. However,
for some acquisition geometries where sources are close enough
together, it may not be necessary to separate these low frequencies.
For a typical maximum frequency of interest of 80 Hz, the maxi-
mum time shift that avoids the first notch is only 12.5 ms, which
is much smaller than that considered necessary to separate low
frequencies when random dithers are used.
The use of random dithers avoids the issue of notches and,
therefore, permits the use of a dither range large enough to enable
separation of the low frequencies. Phase sequences avoid the case
where A(ω) = 1 and issues related to notches do not occur.
Higher multiplicity sources
The earlier arguments extend to the case of multiple sources.
Regardless of the choice of time sequence, the time-sequenced
spectrum will have contributions from all sources in the central
signal cone, just as in Figure 1h. Issues related to source separation
outside of the diamond (which gets smaller as sources are added)
are compounded.
For example, in the case of a repeated three-source time
sequence [0, T, 2T] for a single linear event, there is one contribu-
tion in the central signal cone (ke(ω)), one contribution shifted by
2
two-thirds of the Nyquist wavenumber ke (ω )+ kN , and one
3
contribution shifted by minus two-thirds of the Nyquist wavenumber
2
ke (ω ) − kN . In this case, a single source introduces three
3 tion of encoded energy over all wavenumbers is the most appropri-
spikes, each corresponding to the same event. On the other hand,
the three-source phase sequence [0°, 120°, 240°] produces only
2
one shifted event at ke (ω )+ kN .
3 onstrate the encoding of three simultaneous sources with data
Similar f-k plots to those in Figure 1 are shown for this
three-source case. Figure 4a shows unencoded data, which is the
same as Figure 1a. Figures 4b and 4e show data with two different
sets of random time dithers. Figures 4c and 4f show the data with
471a6 THE LEADING EDGE June 2018
phase sequences [0°, 120°, 240°] and [240°, 120°, 0°], respectively.
Figures 4d and 4g show data with time sequences [0 s, 0.016 s,
0.032 s] and [0.032 s, 0.016 s, 0 s], respectively. The difference
between the approaches now becomes more apparent. For the
time-dithered case, the encoding does not change significantly
when moving from two to three simultaneous sources. For the
phase-sequenced case, different phase sequences are required, but
the entire source shifts along the wavenumber axis as in the
two-source case. However, for the time-sequenced case, the impact
of the encoding is very similar for both time sequences
(Figures 4d and 4g) in terms of the wavenumber shifts created.
The 10 Hz wavenumber spectra from Figures 4a–4g are plotted
in Figures 5a–5g, with the sum of three sources for each type of
encoding shown in Figures 5h–5j. At this frequency, the unencoded
event is within the diamond described by Andersson et al. (2017).
As mentioned earlier, the time-dithered spectrum (Figure 5h)
does not change significantly from that for two sources. There is
a higher level of crosstalk, but the unencoded event can still be
identified. The time-sequenced spectrum (Figure 5j) shows three
spikes, but now each spike corresponds to a mix of contributions
from at least two sources. This means that, even at this low fre-
quency, the simple isolate, scale, and subtract approach cannot
be used; the problem is now one of solving a linear system of
equations. The phase-sequenced spectrum (Figure 5i) also shows
three spikes, but each spike corresponds to a single source. Two
of the spikes lie outside the signal cone and, similar to the two-
source example in Figure 2f, the sources can be separated by
simple filtering.
We have not shown the single-frequency spectra for the higher
frequency case (plotted in Figure 3 for the two-source example).
However, from Figure 4, we can see that above around 22 Hz,
all of the events in the phase-sequenced case (Figures 4c and 4f)
and in the time-sequenced case (Figures 4d and 4g) will lie within
the signal cone of the unencoded data (Figure 4a). This produces
a similar situation to that in Figure 3. In the phase-sequenced
case (Figure 3f), when the three sources are summed, there will
simply be an extra spike within the signal cone corresponding to
the third source. In the time-sequenced case (Figure 3g), there
will also be a third spike in the signal cone, but each of the three
spikes will correspond to a different mixture of sources, as indicated
by the labels in Figure 5j.
As more sources are introduced, issues surrounding interfering
events are compounded for all methods. A three-source time
sequence introduces three shifted versions of the data; a four-source
sequence introduces four shifted versions, and so on. The complex-
ity of time sequencing relative to phase sequencing increases as
the number of sources increase. With time dithering, the distribu-
ate method when the spectrum is sparse.
While the examples shown thus far have only considered
simple linear events, the observations are equally applicable to
more complex data. As an example, in Figures 6 and 7 we dem-
modeled using the SEAM Phase 1 model (www.seg.org/seam).
Data are modeled as three adjacent shot lines for a single common-
node gather. In-line source spacing is 15 m, crossline spacing is
30 m, and the upper frequency of interest is 60 Hz. Figure 6 shows
Downloaded 06/11/18 to 144.82.238.225. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 4. f-k spectra demonstrating the encoding used for a three-source example. (a) unencoded data. (b) and (e) two different sets of random time dithers. (c) and
(f) phase sequencing using the repeating patterns [0°, 120°, 240°] and [240°, 120°, 0°], respectively. (d) and (g) time sequencing using the repeating patterns [0 s,
0.016 s, 0.032 s] and [0.032 s, 0.016 s, 0 s], respectively.

Figure 5. (a–g) Wavenumber spectra at 10 Hz extracted from Figures 4a–4g. (h–j) wavenumber spectra of the sum of the data in Figure 4a, with the data in Figures 4b
and 4e, Figures 4c and 4f, and Figures 4d and 4g, respectively. Red dashed lines indicate the limits of the signal cone. Text boxes indicate the sources that contribute to
each spike (source 1 is the unencoded source, source 2 is the first corresponding encoded source, and source 3 is the second corresponding encoded source).

471a8 THE LEADING EDGE June 2018

Downloaded 06/11/18 to 144.82.238.225. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 6. Synthetic data modeled using the SEAM Phase 1 model. (a) Nonencoded data for source 1, (b–d) are time-dithered data for source 2, phase-sequenced data for source 2,
and time-sequenced data for source 2, respectively. (e–g) are time-dithered data for source 3, phase-sequenced data for source 3, and time-sequenced data for source 3,
respectively. (h) is the combined simultaneous time-dithered data (sum of the data in [a], [b], and [e]), (i) Is the combined simultaneous phase-sequenced data (sum of the data
in [a], [c], and [f]), and (j) is the combined simultaneous time-sequenced data (sum of the data in [a], [d], and [g]). Encoding sequences are the same as those used in Figure 4.

Figure 7. f-k spectra of the synthetic data modeled using the SEAM Phase 1 model. (a) Nonencoded data for source 1, (b–d) are time-dithered data for source 2,
phase-sequenced data for source 2, and time-sequenced data for source 2, respectively. (e–g) are time-dithered data for source 3, phase-sequenced data for source 3,
and time-sequenced data for source 3, respectively. (h) is the combined simultaneous time-dithered data (sum of the data in [a], [b], and [e]), (i) is the combined
simultaneous phase-sequenced data (sum of the data in [a], [c], and [f]), and (j) is the combined simultaneous time-sequenced data (sum of the data in [a], [d], and
[g]). Encoding sequences are the same as those used in Figure 4. Text boxes indicate the sources that contribute to each region of coherent energy.

June 2018 THE LEADING EDGE 471a9

 a window of the modeled data. Figure 6a shows unencoded data
for source 1. Figures 6b and 6e show source 2 and source 3 data,
respectively, with time dithers. Figure 6h shows the combined
time-dithered simultaneous-source data. Figures 6c, 6f, and 6i
show the equivalent data for the phase-sequencing case (using
the same phase sequences as in Figure 4), and Figures 6d, 6g, and
Downloaded 06/11/18 to 144.82.238.225. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
However, when sources are close together, separation of these
frequencies may not be necessary.
At higher frequencies, where signals overlap, the differences
are more noticeable. For both phase and time sequencing, the
ability to separate data requires extra information. The separation
problem is less complicated for the phase-sequenced case, for

6j show the equivalent data for the time-sequencing case (using
the same time sequences as in Figure 4). The corresponding f-k
spectra are shown in Figure 7. For the time-dithered case,
Figures 7b and 7e show how the time dithering spreads crosstalk
from source 2 and source 3 across all wavenumbers. Figures 7c
and 7f show how the phase sequencing coherently shifts all energy
from a single source along the wavenumber axis. Figures 7d and
7g show how the time sequencing coherently shifts different parts
of each source by different wavenumber values. One key difference
between this more complex example and the simple linear dipping
examples considered previously is the presence of multiple events
with different apparent velocities and amplitudes. These multiple
events typically require some sort of iterative procedure to separate
the sources (Moore et al., 2008; Abma et al., 2010).
Discussion and conclusions
We considered encoding simultaneous sources using random
time dithers, periodic time sequences (also referred to as seismic
apparition), and sequences of phase. Simple examples demonstrate
the effect that these encoding schemes have on the data, and the
key differences and similarities are summarized in Table 1.
At lower frequencies (where the data are alias free) all three
methods can be expected to separate the data accurately, albeit
with different algorithms. Encoding using periodic time sequences
differs somewhat from the other two schemes in that it can
introduce notches into the data. These notches are likely to com-
promise the separation at certain frequencies, in particular at the
lower frequencies where the DC notch may become broad.
which each source introduces only one shifted version of the data.
For the time-sequenced case, each source introduces both shifted
and unshifted versions of the data. This issue worsens as more
sources are added because time sequencing introduces multiple
shifted copies of the data for each source, and each copy interferes
with data from all other sources.
An additional consideration is that, by design, both the time-
sequencing and phase-sequencing approaches require synchroniz-
ing sources. Modern simultaneous-source acquisition designs
often involve independent sources for reasons of efficiency and
simplicity. In this case, continuous data are recorded for each
channel, and the separation process starts with these data together
with the shot times and positions for each source. Acquisition
designs that are consistent with processing sequentially encoded
data are likely to be less efficient and more complicated to perform,
except, perhaps, in carefully selected applications.
In addition, some designs allow for self-interference, i.e.,
interference between shots for a given source. A solution to this
problem has not yet been published using the time-sequencing
approach, but Laws and Halliday (2013) describe a sequence of
phases that can be used to separate shots from a single source.
Time dithering naturally incorporates separation of self-interfer-
ence within the inversion.
Thus, while there are benefits to the phase-sequencing and
time-sequencing encoding schemes, the highlighted issues must
be addressed, both during development of algorithms for source
separation and during any comparison of data separation using
these different techniques.

Table 1. Summary of the properties of different encoding techniques.

Time dithering Phase sequencing Time sequencing

Effect of encoding on spectrum
Separation at unaliased
frequencies
Separation at aliased frequencies
Suitability for broadband data
Implications for multiple sources
Energy distributed across all
wavenumbers
Overdetermined inversion
Underdetermined inversion;
solvable if data are sufficiently
sparse
Choice of dithers allows encod-
ing for broadband data
Higher levels of crosstalk;
sparseness assumption more
restrictive
All energy shifted along wave-
number axis
Wavenumber isolation
Shifted energy remains in sig-
nal cone; additional constraints
required
Phase chosen independently of
frequency; notches are avoided
Each source creates one shifted
version of data; aliasing fre-
quency reduces
Some energy shifted along
wavenumber axis; remainder is
unshifted
Wavenumber isolation, scale
and subtract
Shifted energy remains in sig-
nal cone; additional constraints
required; solution of a linear
system of equations is required
Notches introduced; avoided
using small time delays, but
these broaden the DC notch;
poor separation at low
frequencies
Each of the sources creates
multiple shifted versions of
data; aliasing frequency reduces

471a10 THE LEADING EDGE June 2018

 Corresponding author: dhalliday@slb.com
References
Abma, R., 2014, Shot scheduling in simultaneous shooting: 84th
Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 94–98,
https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2014-0812.1.
Downloaded 06/11/18 to 144.82.238.225. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Abma, R., T. Manning, M. Tanis, J. Yu, and M. Foster, 2010,
High quality separation of simultaneous sources by sparse
inversion: 72 nd International Conference and Exhibition,
EAGE, Extended Abstracts, https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-
4609.201400611.
Akerberg, P., G. Hampson, J. Rickett, H. Martin, and J. Cole, 2008,
Simultaneous source separation by sparse Radon transform: 78th
Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
2801–2805, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3063927.
Andersson, F., J. O. A. Robertsson, D.-J. van Manen, J. Wittsten,
K. Eggenberger, and L. Amundsen, 2017, Flawless diamond
separation in simultaneous source acquisition by seismic apparition:
Geophysical Journal International, 209, no. 3, 1735–1739, https://
doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx124.
Beasley, C. J., 2008, A new look at marine simultaneous sources:
The Leading Edge, 27, no. 7, 914–917, https://doi.org/10.1190/
1.2954033.
Halliday, D. F., R. M. Laws, A. Özbek, and J.-F. Hopperstad, 2017,
Separating simultaneous sources using phase sequencing and
reconstruction in marine seismic vibrators: International Confer-
ence and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, https://doi.
org/10.3997/2214-4609.201701373.
Krohn, C. E., and M. L. Johnson, 2003, High fidelity vibratory seismic
(HFVS) I: Enhanced data quality: 73rd Annual International Meeting,
SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 43–46, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1817945.
Laws, R. M., and D. F. Halliday, 2013, Seismic acquisition using
phase-shifted sweeps: U.S. Patent US 2014/0278119 A1 and
WO2014152106.
Laws, R. M., D. F. Halliday, A. Özbek, and J.-F. Hopperstad, 2016,
Exploiting the control of phase in marine vibrators: First Break,
34, no. 11, 65–74.
Moore, I., 2013, Simultaneous sources: Recent advances in marine
acquisition and processing: 23rd Geophysical Conference, ASEG,
Extended Abstracts, 1–4.
Moore, I., B. Dragoset, T. Ommundsen, D. Wilson, C. Ward, and
D. Eke, 2008, Simultaneous source separation using dithered
sources: 78th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded
Abstracts, 2806–2810, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3063928.
Robertsson, J. O. A., L. Amundsen, and Å. Sjøen Pedersen, 2016,
Wavefield signal apparition, part I — Theory: 78th International
Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, https://
doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201600950.
Zu, S., H. Zhou, Y. Liu, S. Qu, and Y. Chen, 2015, A periodically
variational dithering code for improving deblending performance:
85th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
38–42, https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2015-5749159.1.
Zu, S., H. Zhou, Y. Chen, S. Qu, X. Zou, H. Chen, and R. Liu,
2016, A periodically varying code for improving deblending of
simultaneous sources in marine acquisition: Geophysics, 81, no.
3, V213–V225, https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015-0447.1.
June 2018 THE LEADING EDGE 1