Main Menu

ID: 1162

An Improved Method for Mixed-phase Deconvolution Zhaogui Ma* and Shangxu Wang, State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resource and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum, Beijing
Summary Deconvolution is a necessary means improving seismic resolution in seismic data processing. It can compress the seismic wavelet and broaden the spectrum of the seismic data. However, conventional deconvolution methods do not work when seismic data dont satisfy the constraint of minimum phase. This paper proposes an improved method which is useful for mixed-phase deconvolution. Based on the Wold theorem, the mixed-phase wavelet can be decomposed into a minimum phase wavelet and a normalized and uncorrelated wavelet. The residual phase component can be removed when the seismic data is processed with the normalized and uncorrelated wavelet operator. The numerical test with the synthetic data proves that this method can improve the spiking deconvolution and enhance the resolution of the seismic data efficiently. 1 Introduction Deconvolution is an important technique in seismic data processing. We can make improvement with the seismic resolution and estimate the earth reflection coefficient sequence more exactly by deconvolution. Usually, deconvolution methods can be classified as statistical methods and determinate methods. With statistical deconvolution, we make some assumptions such that the seismic wavelet is minimum phase and the reflection coefficient sequence is random. However, these assumptions dont satisfy the real model of the earth. Compared with statistical method, determinat methods have some advantages. The inverses of wavelet in determinat methods are not computed by the optimal estimation of the seismic data. We can get the seismic wavelet by other methods such as high-order spectrum and method of picking up seismic wavelet at up-hole trace. Then, we can acquire the deconvolution operator by computing the inverse of the wavelet directly (Xude Huang, 1992). Many geophysicists have been studying the methods for mixed-phase deconvolution. From modifying the delay time of the desired output or calculating the two-sided deconvolution operator, we can improve the effects of the deconvolution. But it is difficult to determine the delay time of the desired output and the length of the two-side deconvolution operator (Yilmaz O, 1987). Xiaojing Huang proposed an improved deconvolution method (an iterative method) which combines the least-square deconvolution of unknown mixed-phase pulse with minimum-entropy type pulse shaping technique so as to improve the deconvolution of an unknown finite-length mixed-phase palse (Xiaojing Huang, 1989, 1990). Milton has developed a method by solving the extended Yule-Walker (EYW) system of equations to estimate the inverse filters of the mixed-phase wavelet and their corresponding mixed-phase pulse to improve the deconvolution (Milton JP et al., 1998). However, most of the wavelet deconvolution methods still cant remove the residual phase component in the seismic data completely. This paper proposes an improved method of mixed-phased wavelet deconvolution. This method can remove the residual wavelet phase component completely of the conventional spiking deconvolution. To discuss wavelet deconvolution, a convolution model is necessary. The conventional convolution model without noise can be described as the following:

s (t ) = x(t ) * (t )

(1)

where * denotes convolution, x(t ) is the seismic wavelet and sequence. Only s (t ) is known among all the parameters of the above model, so we cant compute the others. In order to overcome the ambiguity of the convolution model, we should make some assumptions to

(t ) is the reflection coefficient

CPS/SEG Beijing 2009 International Geophysical Conference & Exposition

obtain (t ) . We know that different assumptions result in different deconvolution method. Conventional deconvolution methods cant be applied freely because of these restraints. However, wavelet deconvolution methods are determinate methods so that we should not make any assumptions about the seismic wavelet. Here, we describe an improved method for mixed-phase deconvolutions. Firstly, we should extract the seismic wavelet with VSP method or high order spectrum method. These kinds of wavelet are close to minimum phase wavelet, but they are mixed-phase wavelet. According to Wold theorem, the mixed-phase wavelet can be decomposed into minimum delay part and all-pass filter part. We can use the all-pass filter and the inverse of the minimum delay wavelet to construct a filter. 2 Decomposition of the mixed-phase wavelet According to the Wold theorem, the mixed-phase wavelet can be decomposed as follows:

rxx (1) ... rxx (m) a0 1 rxx (0) r (1) rxx (0) ... rxx (m1) a1 0 xx = (5) M M M M M rxx (m) rxx (m1) ... rxx (0) am 0
Then, the all-pass filter rt can be calculated by the following equation:

rt = xt * at
The pure phase filter r t is

(6)

r t = x t * a t

(7)

xt = bt * rt

(2)

3 The theory of pure phase filtering A seismic trace is assumed to consist of a seismic pulse convolved with a reflectivity sequence plus noise. Here, we consider the model without noise as equation (1). Conventional deconvolution method makes an assumption that the wavelet is minimum and the reflection sequence is random. Then we can develop that the autocorrelation of the seismic data is equal to the autocorrelation of the seismic wavelet. That is:

where * denotes convolution, bt is the minimum wavelet and rt is the normalized and uncorrelated wavelet. Because of the property of the normalized and uncorrelated, the autocorrelation function of rt satisfies the following equation:

rss (t ) = rxx (t )

(8)

With least square inverse filtering method, we can get the inverse of the minimum wavelet. Then, we can do spiking deconvolution using the reverse operator to get the reflection sequence (t ) . However, the real wavelet is usually a mixed-phase wavelet. So the equation (8) is not appropriate. In order to develop the deconvolution equation suitable for mixed-phase wavelet, we can write equation (1) as follows:

rrr (t ) = rt * r t = t

(3)

According to (2) and (3), we can develop this equation:

r t * xt = r t * rt * bt = bt

(4)

s (t ) = x(t ) * (t ) = b(t ) * r (t ) * (t )

(9)

Assuming at is the inverse of the minimum delay wavelet, at can be resolved by the following equation:

where b(t ) is the minimum wavelet and r (t ) is the normalized and uncorrelated wavelet. From equation (9), we can find that the result of spiking deconvolution is not the real reflection sequence (t ) , but r (t )* (t ) . In order to get a better result, we should remove the residual phase

CPS/SEG Beijing 2009 International Geophysical Conference & Exposition

component rt . According to equation (3), it is seen that we may write:

From equation (10), we can improve the spiking deconvolution by filtering with the all-pass filter r (t ) .

(t ) = (t ) * (t ) = r (t ) * r (t ) * (t ) (10)
1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1

0.02

0.04

0.06 (a)

0.08 /s

0.1

0.12

0.14

30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 0 50 100 (b) 150 /Hz 200 250

Fig.1 Decomposition of the mixed-phase wavelet

0.5 0 -0.5

0.02

0.04

0.06 (a)

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

/s

0.5 0 -0.5

0.05

0.1

0.15 (b)

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

/s

1 0 -1

0.05

0.1

0.15 (c)

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

/s

Fig.2 The inverse of the minimum phase wavelet and the all-pass filter

0.5 0 -0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 (a) 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

/s

1 0 -1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 (b) 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

/s

0.5 0 -0.5 0 0.5 0 -0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 (d) 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 (c) 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

/s

/s

Fig.3 the results of the mixed-phase deconvolution and spiking deconvolution CPS/SEG Beijing 2009 International Geophysical Conference & Exposition

4 Experiment with synthetic data The dominant frequency of the wavelet in figure 1 is 50Hz, and its sample interval is 1ms. Figure 1a shows us the waveform of the mixed-phase wavelet and the corresponding minimum phase wavelet. Figure 2a shows us the inverse operator at of the minimum phase wavelet and figure 2b is the normalized and uncorrelated wavelet rt and figure 2cis the autocorrelation of rt . Figure 3a is the original reflection coefficient sequence and figure 3b is the synthetic seismogram using the mixed-phase wavelet in figure 1. Figure 3c shows us the result of the conventional spiking deconvolution. Figure 3dis the result of figure 3cfiltered with the pure phase operator. From these figures, it can be concluded that we can remove the residential phase component in the seismic data after spiking deconvolution by a process of pure phase filtering. 5 Conclusion We have described an improved method for mixed-phase wavelet deconvolution. According to the Wold theory, a mixed-phase wavelet can be decomposed into a minimum phase wavelet and a normalized and uncorrelated wavelet. Then we can construct the pure phase filter operator with the uncorrelated wavelet. The seismic data after the spiking deconvolution can be filtered with the pure phase wavelet. Then, we can remove the residual phase component of the seismic data. At last, we

Figure 1b shows us the unwrapped phase spectrum of them. From figure 1, we can find that the phase spectrum of the mixed-phase wavelet have a lot of changes after a minimum phase processing verify this method with synthetic data and acquire a satisfying result. References 1. Xude Huang. Deconvolution and seismic trace inversion. Published by Petroleum Industry Press, 1992 2. Yilmaz O. Seismic data processing. Published by Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1987. Xiaojing Huang et al. A new least-squares deconvolution method for unknown finite length mixed-phase pulse. OGP, 1989, (5):497~503 Xiaojing Huang et al. An improved method for deconvolution of an unknown mixed-phase pulse. OGP, 1990, (1):39~44 Milton JP et al. Mixed-phase deconvolution. Geophysics, 1998, 63(2):637~647 Neldell et al. The convolutional model. Published by Petroleum Industry Press, 1986 Guisheng Xie et al. Wavelet Estimation and Processing Using High-order Accumulation Method. GPP, 2000, 39(4):19~25 Guisheng Xie et al. Wavelet estimation based on bispectrum. Journal of southwest petroleum institute, 2000, 22(3):25~28

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

CPS/SEG Beijing 2009 International Geophysical Conference & Exposition