Velocity Analysis and Statics Corrections

3 Velocity Analysis and
Statics Corrections
Introduction Normal Moveout NMO for a Flat Reector NMO in a Horizontally Stratied Earth Fourth-
Order Moveout NMO Stretching NMO for a Dipping Reector NMO for Several Layers with Arbitrary Dips
Moveout Velocity versus Stacking Velocity Velocity Analysis The Velocity Spectrum Measure of Coherency
Factors Aecting Velocity Estimates Interactive Velocity Analysis Horizon Velocity Analysis Coherency
Attribute Stacks Residual Statics Corrections Residual Statics Estimation by Traveltime Decomposition
Residual Statics Estimation by Stack Power Maximization Traveltime Decomposition in Practice Maximum
Allowable Shift Correlation Window Other Considerations Stack-Power Maximization in Practice Refraction
Statics Corrections First Breaks Field Statics Corrections Flat Refractor Dipping Refractor The Plus-
Minus Method The Generalized Reciprocal Method The Least-Squares Method Processing Sequence for Statics
Corrections Model Experiments Field Data Examples Exercises Appendix C: Topics in Moveout and
Statics Corrections The Shifted Hyperbola Moveout Stretch Equations for a Dipping Reector Traveltime
Decomposition for Residual Statics Estimation Depth Estimation from Refracted Arrivals Equations for a Dipping
Refractor The Plus-Minus Times Generalized Linear Inversion of Refracted Arrivals Refraction Traveltime
Tomography L
1
-Norm Refraction Statics References
3.0 INTRODUCTION
A sonic log represents direct measurement of the ve-
locity with which seismic waves travel in the earth as
a function of depth. Seismic data, on the other hand,
provide an indirect measurement of velocity. Based on
these two types of information, the exploration seismol-
ogist derives a large number of dierent types of velocity
interval, apparent, average, root-mean-square (rms),
instantaneous, phase, group, normal moveout (NMO),
stacking, and migration velocities. However, the veloc-
ity that can be derived reliably from seismic data is the
velocity that yields the best stack.
Assuming a layered media, stacking velocity is re-
lated to normal-moveout velocity. This, in turn, is re-
lated to the root-mean-squared (rms) velocity, from
which the average and interval velocities are derived.
Interval velocity is the average velocity in an interval
between two reectors.
Several factors inuence interval velocity within a
rock unit with a certain lithologic composition:
(a) Pore shape,
(b) Pore pressure,
(c) Pore uid saturation,
(d) Conning pressure, and
(e) Temperature.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
272 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 3.0-1. Change of P- and S-wave velocities as a
function of conning pressure observed in dry and water-
saturated Bedford limestone samples with pores in the form
of microcracks. Fluid volume has been kept constant dur-
ing measurements. Here, S = saturated, D = dry, v
P
=
P-wave velocity, and v
S
= S-wave velocity. (Adapted from
Nur, 1981.)
These factors have been investigated extensively under
laboratory conditions. Figure 3.0-1 shows laboratory
measurements of velocity as a function of the conn-
ing pressure in a Bedford limestone sample with pores
in the form of microcracks. The experiment was con-
ducted using enclosed samples to control the pore uid
pressure independent of the conning pressure.
From Figure 3.0-1, we make the following observa-
tions:
(a) Both compressional (P) and shear (S) wave ve-
locities increase with increasing conning pres-
sure. More specically, velocity generally increases
rapidly with conning pressure at small conning
pressures, then gradually levels o at high conn-
ing pressures. The reason for this is that as the
conning pressure increases, pores close. However,
at a high conning pressure, not much deformable
pore space is left. Therefore, any further increase in
the conning pressure will not cause a signicant
increase in velocity.
(b) Note that, regardless of conning pressure, P-wave
velocity is greater than S-wave velocity. This is true
for any rock type.
(c) The saturated rock sample has a higher P-wave
velocity than the dry sample at low conning pres-
sure. At high conning pressures, P-wave velocity
FIG. 3.0-2. Change of P- and S-wave velocities as a func-
tion of conning pressure observed in Berea sandstone sam-
ples with rounded pores. Fluid volume has been kept con-
stant during measurements. Here, v
P
= P-wave velocity and
v
S
= S-wave velocity. (Adapted from Nur, 1981.)
in the dry sample approaches the magnitude of the
P-wave velocity in the saturated sample.
(d) Note also that the P-wave velocity in the saturated
sample does not change as rapidly as in the dry
sample. This is because the uid is almost as in-
compressible as the rock. Whether the pores are
lled with uid or not has little eect on S-wave ve-
locity, since uids cannot support shear-wave prop-
agation.
We now examine velocity as a function of conning
pressure for an enclosed sample of Berea sandstone with
rounded pores (Figure 3.0-2). Again, note the increase
in velocity with increasing conning pressure. The im-
portant dierence between this sample and the one in
Figure 3.0-1 is the range of magnitude of the velocity.
The rock with microcracks has a higher velocity than
the rock with rounded pores at any given conning pres-
sure. The reason for this is that it is easier to close the
pores formed as microcracks than it is to close those
that are round.
The most prominent factor inuencing velocity in a
rock of given lithology and porosity probably is conn-
ing pressure. This type of pressure arises from the over-
burden and increases with depth. It is generally true
that velocity increases with depth. However, because of
factors such as pore pressure, there may be inversion in
the velocity within a layer.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Velocity Analysis and Statics Corrections 273
FIG. 3.0-3. Velocity range for rocks of dierent lithologic
compositions at dierent depths of burial. (Adapted from
Sheri, 1976; courtesy American Association of Petroleum
Geologists.)
Figure 3.0-3 shows the variation of velocity with
depth for various types of lithology. We make the fol-
lowing observations:
(a) Tertiary clastics, which usually are less indurated
than other rocks, occupy the low-velocity end of
the graph. They generally start out with a velocity
that ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 km/s at or near the
surface, then gradually increase to from 4.5 to 5.5
km/s at depths greater than 5 km.
(b) Carbonates with high porosity occupy the central
portion of the graph, starting at about 3 km/s and
increasing to nearly 6 km/s.
(c) Carbonates with low porosity, on the other hand,
have a smaller range of variation in velocity. If there
is not much pore space to close, then the conning
pressure cannot cause much of an increase in ve-
locity.
This chapter discusses ways to estimate veloci-
ties from seismic data. Velocity estimation requires the
data recorded at nonzero osets provided by common-
midpoint (CMP) recording. With estimated velocities,
we can correct reection traveltimes for nonzero oset
and compress the recorded data volume (in midpoint-
oset-time coordinates) to a stacked section (Figure 1.5-
1).
For a single constant-velocity horizontal layer, the
reection traveltime curve as a function of oset is a
hyperbola (Section 3.1). The time dierence between
traveltime at a given oset and at zero oset is called
normal moveout (NMO). The velocity required to cor-
rect for normal moveout is called the normal moveout
velocity. In the case of an earth model with a single
horizontal reector, the NMO velocity is equal to the
velocity of the medium above the reector. In the case
of an earth model with a single dipping reector, the
NMO velocity is equal to the medium velocity divided
by the cosine of the dip angle. When the dipping re-
ector is viewed in three dimensions, then the azimuth
angle (between the dip direction and the proling di-
rection) becomes an additional factor. Traveltime as a
function of oset for a series of horizontal isovelocity
layers is approximated by a hyperbola. This approxi-
mation is better at small osets than large osets. For
short osets, the NMO velocity for a horizontally lay-
ered earth model is equal to the rms velocity down to
the layer boundary under consideration. In a medium
composed of layers with arbitrary dips, the traveltime
equation gets complicated. However, in practice, as long
as dips are gentle and the spread is small (less than re-
ector depth), the hyperbolic assumption still can be
made. For layer boundaries with arbitrary shapes, the
hyperbolic assumption breaks down.
There is a dierence between the NMO and stack-
ing velocities that often is ignored in practice. The NMO
velocity is based on the small-spread hyperbolic travel-
time (Taner and Koehler, 1969; Al-Chalabi, 1973), while
stacking velocity is based on the hyperbola that best ts
data over the entire spread length. Nevertheless, stack-
ing velocity and NMO correction velocity generally are
considered equivalent.
Conventional velocity analysis is based on the hy-
perbolic assumption. Various methods for velocity anal-
ysis are discussed in Section 3.2. The hyperbolic trav-
eltime equation is linear in the t
2
x
2
plane, where t
is the two-way traveltime and x is the source-receiver
oset. Zero-oset time and stacking velocity for a given
reector can be estimated from the line that best ts the
traveltime picks plotted on the t
2
x
2
plane. Another
way to estimate the NMO velocity is to apply dier-
ent NMO corrections to a CMP gather using a range of
constant velocity values, then display them side by side.
The velocity that best attens each event as a function
of oset is picked as its NMO velocity. Alternatively, a
small portion of a line can be stacked with a range of
constant velocity values. These constant-velocity stacks
(CVS) can be plotted in the form of a panel. Stacking
velocities that yield the desired stack then can be picked
from the CVS panel.
Another commonly used velocity analysis tech-
nique is based on computing the velocity spectrum
(Taner and Koehler, 1969). The idea is to display some
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
measure of signal coherency on a graph of velocity ver-
sus two-way zero-oset time. The underlying principle
is to compute the signal coherency on the CMP gather
in small time gates that follow a trajectory in oset.
Stacking velocities are interpreted from velocity spec-
tra by choosing the velocity function that produces the
highest coherency at times with signicant event ampli-
tudes.
Occasionally the stacking velocity variation needs
to be determined in detail along a particular reector.
Horizon-consistent velocity analysis provides the stack-
ing velocity variation in the lateral direction along a
particular horizon of interest.
Reection traveltimes are not always hyperbolic in
horizontally layered media. One reason that traveltime
often deviates from a perfect hyperbola is the presence
of static time shifts caused by near-surface velocity vari-
ations. Statics can severely distort the reection hyper-
bola when there are large surface elevation changes or
when the weathering layer varies horizontally. Shown
in Figure 3.0-4 is a stacked section that exhibits severe
distortions of reection traveltimes in the susburface,
which is known to have generally at layers, caused by
the complexity in the near-surface that is composed of
glacial tills with irregular shapes. The traveltime dis-
tortions caused by the near-surface also are observed in
the CMP gather shown in Figure 3.0-5a. The velocity
spectrum derived from the CMP gather that has not
been corrected for the near-surface does not exhibit a
reliable stacking velocity trend (Figure 3.0-6a). By esti-
mating a model for the near-surface and correcting for
its eects on the reection traveltimes in the subsur-
face using the refracted arrivals from the near-surface,
the resulting CMP gather (Figure 3.0-5b) yields a more
accurate estimate of stacking velocities (Figure 3.0-6b).
The CMP stack derived from the CMP gathers with
statics corrections exhibits reection traveltimes free of
the near-surface distortions (Figure 3.0-7). A close-up of
portions of the CMP stack without (Figure 3.0-4) and
with (Figure 3.0-7) statics corrections clearly demon-
strates the improvement achieved by the statics correc-
tions as shown in Figure 3.0-8.
Residual statics variations usually remain in the
data even after initial corrections for estimated weather-
ing layer variations and elevation changes (eld statics)
(Section 3.4). Corrections for residual statics normally
must be estimated and applied to CMP gathers before
stacking. Estimation is done after a preliminary NMO
correction using either a regional velocity function or
information from a series of preliminary velocity analy-
ses along the line. Following the residual statics correc-
tions, velocity analyses usually are repeated to revise
the velocity picks for stacking. Various aspects of resid-
ual statics corrections are discussed in Sections 3.3 and
3.4.
As a nal note, velocities required by stacking and
migration are not necessarily the same. In fact, for data
collected parallel to the dip direction of a single dip-
ping reector, stacking velocity is the velocity of the
medium above the reector divided by the cosine of the
dip angle, while migration velocity is the velocity of the
medium itself. In other words, stacking velocity is dip-
dependent, while migration velocity is not. Migration
velocity estimation is discussed in Section 5.4.
3.2 NORMAL MOVEOUT
Consider a reection event on a CMP gather. The dif-
ference between the two-way time at a given oset and
the two-way zero-oset time is called normal moveout
(NMO). Reection traveltimes must be corrected for
NMO prior to summing the traces in the CMP gather
along the oset axis. The normal moveout depends on
velocity above the reector, oset, two-way zero-oset
time associated with the reection event, dip of the re-
ector, the source-receiver azimuth with respect to the
true-dip direction, and the degree of complexity of the
near-surface and the medium above the reector.
NMO for a Flat Reector
Figure 3.1-1 shows the simple case of a single horizon-
tal layer. At a given midpoint location M, we want to
compute the reection traveltime t along the raypath
from shot position S to depth point D then back to re-
ceiver position G. Using the Pythagorean theorem, the
traveltime equation as a function of oset is
t
2
= t
0
2
+
x
2
v
2
, (3 1)
where x is the distance (oset) between the source and
receiver positions, v is the velocity of the medium above
the reecting interface, and t
0
is twice the traveltime
along the vertical path MD. Note that vertical projec-
tion of depth point D to the surface, along the normal
to the reector, coincides with midpoint M. This occurs
only when the reector is horizontal.
Equation (3-1) describes a hyperbola in the plane
of two-way time versus oset. Figure 3.1-2 is an exam-
ple of traces in a common-midpoint (CMP) gather. The
gure also represents a common-depth-point (CDP)
gather, since all the raypaths associated with each
source-receiver pair reect from the same subsurface
depth point D. The oset range in Figure 3.1-2 is 0
to 3150 m, with a 50-m trace separation. The medium
velocity above the reector is 2264 m/s. All of the traces
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.0-5. A CMP gather associated with the stacked section in Figure 3.0-4 (a) without, and (b) with statics corrections.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.0-6. Velocity spectra derived from the CMP gather shown in Figure 3.0-5 (a) without, and (b) with statics corrections.
in this CMP gather contain a reection from the same
depth point.
From equation (3-1), we see that velocity can be
computed when oset x and two-way times t and t
0
are
known. Once the NMO velocity is estimated, the trav-
eltimes can be corrected to remove the eect of oset
as shown in Figure 3.1-3. Traces in the NMO-corrected
gather then are summed to obtain a stack trace at the
particular CMP location.
The numerical procedure involved in hyperbolic
moveout correction is illustrated in Figure 3.1-4. The
idea is to nd the amplitude value at A
on the NMO-
corrected gather from the amplitude value at A on the
original CMP gather. Given quantities t
0
, x, and v
NMO
,
compute t from equation (3-1). Assume that this is 1003
ms. If the sampling interval were 4 ms, then this time is
equivalent to the 250.25 sample index. The amplitude
value at this time can be computed using the ampli-
tudes at the neighboring integer sample values, two on
each side at 248, 249, 251, and 252 sample indexes.
This is done by an interpolation scheme that involves
the four samples.
An alternative numerical method for mapping
trace amplitudes from a nonzero-oset to zero oset
involves a nearest-neighbor sample as the output value.
Accurate implementation of this method requires, rst,
oversampling the traces in a CMP gather along the time
axis. Specically, for each trace in the CMP gather, per-
form 1-D Fourier transform and pad the frequency axis
with zeroes, usually by a factor of eight. Then, inverse
transform back to the time domain and obtain a trace
which has eight times as many samples at a sampling
interval that is one-eighth of the original sampling rate.
Now, given quantities t
0
, x, and v
NMO
, again, compute
t from equation (3-1). Assume that this is t = 1003.4
ms. If the original sampling interval were 4 ms, after
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
(a) (b)
FIG. 3.0-8. A close-up of portions of the CMP stacks shown in (a) Figure 3.0-4 and (b) Figure 3.0-7.
oversampling, the new sampling interval is 0.5 ms. Then
the amplitude at t = 1003.4 ms can be borrowed from
the nearest-neighbor sample with an index of 2006 with-
out much sacrice in accuracy.
The NMO correction is given by the dierence be-
tween t and t
0
:
t
NMO
= t t
0
, (3 2a)
or, by way of equation (3-1),
t
NMO
= t
0
_
1 +
_
x
v
NMO
t
0
_
2
1
_
. (3 2b)
Table 3-1 shows the moveout corrections for two
dierent oset values using a realistic velocity function
that increases with reector depth.
From Table 3-1, note that the NMO increases with
oset and decreases with zero-oset time, hence, with
depth. The NMO also is smaller for higher velocities,
and the combined eect of higher velocities at larger
depths makes it much smaller.
For a at reector with an overlying homogeneous
medium, the reection hyperbola can be corrected for
oset if the correct medium velocity is used in the NMO
equation. From Figure 3.1-5, if a velocity higher than
the actual medium velocity (2264 m/s) is used, then
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Table 3-1. NMO correction as a function of oset x and
two-way zero-oset time t
0
for a given velocity function
v
NMO
.
t
NMO
, in s t
NMO
, in s
t
0
, s v
NMO
, m/s x = 1000 m x = 2000 m
0.25 2000 0.309 0.780
0.5 2500 0.140 0.443
1 3000 0.054 0.201
2 3500 0.020 0.080
4 4000 0.008 0.031
the hyperbola is not attened completely. This is called
undercorrection. On the other hand, if a lower velocity
is used, then overcorrection results.
Figure 3.1-5 also illustrates the basis of conven-
tional velocity analysis. NMO correction is applied to
the input CMP gather using a number of trial con-
stant velocity values in equation (3-2b). The velocity
that best attens the reection hyperbola is the velocity
that best corrects for NMO before stacking the traces
in the gather. Furthermore, for a simple case of a sin-
gle horizontal reector, this velocity also is equal to the
velocity of the medium above the reector.
NMO in a Horizontally Stratied Earth
We now consider a medium composed of horizontal
isovelocity layers (Figure 3.1-6). Each layer has a cer-
tain thickness that can be dened in terms of two-
way zero-oset time. The layers have interval velocities
(v
1
, v
2
, . . . , v
N
), where N is the number of layers. Con-
sider the raypath from source S to depth point D, back
to receiver R, associated with oset x at midpoint loca-
tion M. Taner and Koehler (1969) derived the traveltime
equation for this path as
t
2
= C
0
+C
1
x
2
+C
2
x
4
+C
3
x
6
+ , (3 3)
where C
0
= t
0
2
, C
1
= 1/v
2
rms
, and C
2
, C
3
, are com-
plicated functions that depend on layer thicknesses and
interval velocities (Section C.1). The rms velocity v
rms
down to the reector on which depth point D is situated
is dened as
v
2
rms
=
1
t
0
N
i=1
v
2
i
i
, (3 4a)
where
i
is the vertical two-way time through the ith
layer and t
0
=

N
i=1

i
. By making the small-spread
approximation (oset small compared to depth), the se-
ries in equation (3-3) can be truncated to obtain the
FIG. 3.1-1. The NMO geometry for a single horizontal re-
ector. The traveltime is described by a hyperbola repre-
sented by equation (3-1).
familiar hyperbolic form
t
2
= t
2
0
+
x
2
v
2
rms
. (3 4b)
When equations (3-1) and (3-4b) are compared, we
see that the velocity required for NMO correction for a
horizontally stratied medium is equal to the rms veloc-
ity, provided the small-spread approximation is made.
How much error is caused by dropping the higher
order terms in equation (3-3)? Figure 3.1-7a shows a
CMP gather based on the velocity model in Figure 3.1-
8. Traveltimes to all four reectors were computed by
the raypath integral equations (Grant and West, 1965)
that exactly describe wave propagation in a horizon-
tally layered earth model with a given interval velocity
function. We now replace the layers above the second
shallow event at t
0
= 0.8 s with a single layer with a
velocity equal to the rms velocity down to this reector
2264 m/s. The resulting traveltime curve, computed
using equation (3-4b), is shown in Figure 3.1-7b. This
procedure is repeated for the deeper events at t
0
= 1.2
and 1.6 s as shown in Figures 3.1-7c and d. Note that
the traveltime curves in Figures 3.1-7b, c, and d are per-
fect hyperbolas. How dierent are the traveltime curves
in Figure 3.1-7a from these hyperbolas? After careful
examination, note that the traveltimes are slightly dif-
ferent for the shallow events at t
0
= 0.8 and 1.2 s only
at large osets, particularly beyond 3 km. By dropping
the higher order terms, we approximate the reection
times in a horizontally layered earth with a small-spread
hyperbola.
Fourth-Order Moveout
A review of the moveout equation (3-3) to attain higher
accuracy at far osets is given in Section C.1. At rst,
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.1-2. Synthetic CMP gather associated with the ge-
ometry in Figure 3.1-1. Traveltime curve for a at reector
is a hyperbola with its apex at zero-oset trace.
it seems that including the terms up to the fourth-order
in equation (3-3) should achieve this objective:
t
2
= t
2
0
+
x
2
v
2
rms
+C
2
x
4
. (3 5a)
Nevertheless, to compute a velocity spectrum using this
equation requires scanning for two parameters v
rms
and C
2
; thus, making equation (3-5a) cumbersome to
use for velocity analysis. Below, a practical scheme to
FIG. 3.1-3. NMO correction (equation 3-2a) involves map-
ping nonzero-oset traveltime t onto zero-oset traveltime
t
0
. (a) Before and (b) after NMO correction.
FIG. 3.1-4. Computational description of NMO correction.
For a given integer value for t
0
, and velocity v and oset x,
compute t using equation (3-1). The amplitude at time t,
denoted by A, does not necessarily fall onto an input integer
sample location. By using two samples on each side of t
(denoted by solid dots), we can interpolate between the four
amplitude values to compute the amplitude value at t. This
amplitude value then is mapped onto output integer sample
t
0
denoted by A
at the corresponding oset.

compute a velocity spectrum using equation (3-5a) is
suggested:
(a) Drop the fourth-order term to get the small-spread
hyperbolic equation (3-4b). Compute the conven-
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.1-5. (a) CMP gather containing a single event with a moveout velocity of 2264 m/s, (b) NMO-corrected gather using
the appropriate moveout velocity, (c) overcorrection because too low a velocity (2000 m/s) was used in equation (3-2b), and
(d) undercorrection because too high a velocity (2500 m/s) was used in equation (3-2b).
tional velocity spectrum (Section 3.2) by varying
v
rms
in equation (3-4b), and pick an initial velocity
function v
rms
(t
0
).
(b) Use this picked velocity function in equation (3-
5a) to compute a velocity spectrum by varying the
parameter C
2
, and pick a function C
2
(t
0
).
(c) Use the picked function C
2
(t
0
) in equation (3-5a) to
recompute the velocity spectrum by varying v
rms
.
Finally, pick an updated velocity function v
rms
(t
0
)
from this velocity spectrum.
Castle (1994) shows that a time-shifted hyperbola
of the form
t = t
0
_
1
1
S
_
+
_
t
0
S
_
2
+
x
2
Sv
2
rms
(3 5b)
is an exact equivalent of the fourth-order moveout equa-
tion (3-5a). Here, S is a constant (Section C.1). For
S = 1, equation (3-5b) reduces to the conventional
small-spread moveout equation (3-4b).
As for the fourth-order moveout equation (3-5a),
the time-shifted hyperbolic equation (3-5b) can, in prin-
ciple, be used to conduct velocity analysis of CMP gath-
ers.
FIG. 3.1-6. A horizontally layered earth model geometry.
The traveltime to the deepest reector is described by equa-
tion (3-3). An approximate form of this equation used in
practice is given by equation (3-4b).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.1-7. (a) A synthetic CMP gather derived from the velocity function depicted in Figure 3.1-8; (b), (c), and (d) are
CMP gathers derived from the rms velocities (indicated at the top of each gather) associated with the second, third, and
fourth reectors from the top. The traveltimes in (a) were derived using the raypath integral equations for a horizontally
layered earth model.
(a) Set S = 1 in equation (3-5b) to get equation (3-4b).
Compute the velocity spectrum by varying v
rms
in
equation (3-4b), and pick an initial velocity func-
tion v
rms
(t
0
).
(b) Use this picked velocity function in equation (3-
5b) and compute a velocity spectrum by varying
the parameter S. Pick a function S(t
0
), and
(c) use it in equation (3-5b) to recompute the velocity
spectrum by varying v
rms
. Finally, pick an updated
velocity function v
rms
(t
0
) from this velocity spec-
trum.
De Bazelaire (1988) oers an alternative moveout
equation to achieve higher-order accuracy at far osets:
t = (t
0
t
p
) +
t
2
p
+
x
2
v
2
s
, (3 5c)
where t
0
is the two-way zero-oset time, t
p
is related to
the time at which the asymptotes of the hyperbolic trav-
eltime trajectory converge (Section C.1), and v
s
is the
reference velocity assigned to the layer below the record-
ing surface (not the near-surface layer). When t
p
= t
0
,
equation (3-5c) reduces to the small-spread hyperbolic
equation (3-4b).
Thore and Kelly (1992) demonstrate the use of
equation (3-5c) to obtain a stacked section with a higher
stack power compared to the conventional stack de-
rived from the small-spread moveout equation (3-4b).
To use equation (3-5c) for velocity analysis, choose a
xed value of reference velocity v
s
. Then, for each out-
put time t
0
and for each oset x, apply time shift t
p
to
traces in the CMP gather and compute the input time
t for the oset under consideration. Compute a veloc-
ity spectrum for a range of t
p
values. Finally, pick a
function t
p
(t
0
) from the velocity spectrum.
NMO Stretching
Figure 3.1-9b shows the CMP gather in Figure 3.1-
7a after NMO correction. The rms velocity function
shown in Figure 3.1-8 was used in equation (3-2b)
for this correction. As a result of the NMO correc-
tion, a frequency distortion occurs, particularly for shal-
low events and at large osets. This is called NMO
stretching and is illustrated in Figure 3.1-10. The wave-
form with a dominant period T is stretched so that
its period T
0
, after NMO correction, is greater than T.
Stretching is a frequency distortion in which events are
shifted to lower frequencies. Stretching is quantied by
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.1-8. A hypothetical velocity function used in gen-
erating the synthetic CMP gather in Figure 3.1-7a.
f
f
=
t
NMO
t
0
, (3 6)
where f is the dominant frequency, f is the change in
frequency, and t
NMO
is given by equation (3-2b). The
derivation of equation (3-6) is given in Section C.1.
Table 3-2 lists the percent frequency changes
caused by the NMO stretching associated with the ve-
locity function in Table 3-1. Note that stretching is con-
ned mainly to large osets and shallow times. For ex-
ample, a waveform with a 30-Hz dominant frequency
at 2000-m oset and t
0
= 0.25 s shifts to nearly 10 Hz
after NMO correction.
Because of the stretched waveform at large o-
sets, stacking the NMO-corrected CMP gather (Figure
3.1-9b) will severely damage the shallow events. This
problem can be circumvented by muting the stretched
zones in the gather. Automatic muting is done by us-
ing the quantitative denition of stretching given by
equation (3-6). Figures 3.1-9c and d show two versions
of the CMP gather after NMO correction and muting;
one version has a stretch limit of 50 percent, while the
other has a stretch limit of 100 percent. The 50-percent
stretch limit does not show signicant frequency distor-
tion. However, the stretch limit can be extended to 100
percent because we want to include as much of the CMP
gather in the stack as possible without degradation.
A trade-o exists between the signal-to-noise ra-
tio and mute. In particular, if the signal-to-noise ra-
tio is good, then it may be preferable to mute more
than stretch mute requirements to preserve signal band-
width. On the other hand, if the signal-to-noise ratio is
Table 3-2. NMO stretching.
%f/f for %f/f for
t
0
, s v
NMO
, m/s x = 1000 m x = 2000 m
0.25 2000 123 312
0.5 2500 28 89
1 3000 5 20
2 3500 1 4
4 4000 0.2 0.8
poor, it may be necessary to accept a large amount of
stretch to get any events on the stack. A real data ex-
ample is provided in Figure 3.1-11. Here, the stretched
zone is seen as the low-frequency zone at the shallow
part of the CMP gathers without mute applied.
Another method for optimum selection of the mute
zone is to progressively stack the data. Figure 3.1-12a is
an NMO-corrected CMP gather without mute applied.
Figure 3.1-12b shows the stack traces derived from the
CMP gather (Figure 3.1-12a). The far right trace is the
same as the far right trace in the input CMP gather.
The second trace from the right is the sum of the two
near-oset traces, and so on, progressively increasing
the stacking fold. The far left trace is the full-fold stack
of the input CMP gather. By following the waveform
along a certain event and observing where changes oc-
cur, the mute zone is derived as shown in Figure 3.1-12b.
A similar procedure can be followed to determine an in-
side mute. This time, the stacking fold is progressively
increased in the near-oset direction.
Aside from the signal-to-noise ratio, attenuation of
multiples dictates the choice of a suitable mute pat-
tern. Specically, large osets often are needed to at-
tenuate multiple reections based on moveout discrimi-
nation between primaries and multiples. An inside mute
may be needed in addition to the application of a mul-
tiple attenuation technique to alleviate the small move-
out discrimination between primaries and multiples at
small osets. An inside mute also may be applied to land
records to suppress ground-roll energy and air waves as-
sociated with surface sources.
Muting also is dependent upon the ultimate use of
the stacked data. If the stacked data are intended as
input to amplitude inversion, you may want to apply
a harsh mute to minimize the angle-dependency of re-
ection amplitudes inferred by the Zoeppritz equations
(Section 11.3). If the stacked data are intended as input
to poststack depth migration, then a limited-oset stack
may be needed to minimize the amplitude and travel-
time distortions caused by the nonhyperbolic moveout
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.1-9. (a) Same gather as in Figure 3.1-7a, (b) after moveout correction using the rms velocity function depicted in
Figure 3.1-8, (c) and (d) after muting using threshold stretch limits of 50 and 100 percent, respectively.
associated with reections below complex overburden
structures (Section 8.0).
NMO for a Dipping Reector
Figure 3.1-13 depicts a medium with a single dipping re-
ector. We want to compute the traveltime from source
location S to the reector at depth point D, then back
to receiver location G. For the dipping reector, mid-
point M is no longer a vertical projection of the depth
point to the surface. The terms CDP gather and CMP
gather are equivalent only when the earth is horizontally
stratied. When there is subsurface dip or lateral ve-
locity variation, the two gathers are dierent. Midpoint
M and the normal-incidence reection point D
remain
common to all of the source-receiver pairs within the
gather, regardless of dip. Depth point D, however, is
dierent for each source-receiver pair in a CMP gather
recorded over a dipping reector.
Levin (1971), using the geometry of Figure 3.1-13,
derived the following two-dimensional (2-D) traveltime
FIG. 3.1-10. A signal (a) with a period of T is stretched to
a signal (b) with a period of T
0
> T after NMO correction.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.1-11. NMO correction and muting of a stretched zone on eld data, (a) CMP gathers, (b) NMO correction, and (c)
mute.
equation for a dipping reector (Section C.3):
t
2
= t
2
0
+
x
2
sin
2
v
2
, (3 7)
where the two-way traveltime t is associated with the
nonzero-oset raypath SDG from source S to reection
point D to receiver G, the two-way zero-oset time t
0
is associated with the normal-incidence raypath MD
at midpoint M, and is the angle between the normal

to the dipping reector and the direction of the line of
recording (Figure 3.1-13). The moveout velocity is then
given by
v
NMO
=
v
sin
. (3 8)
For the 2-D geometry of the dipping reector shown in
Figure 3.1-13, note that
sin = cos , (3 9)
where is the dip angle of the reector. Hence, equa-
tions (3-7) and (3-8) are written in terms of the reector
dip
t
2
= t
2
0
+
x
2
cos
2
v
2
(3 10)
and
v
NMO
=
v
cos
. (3 11)
The traveltime equation (3-10) for a dipping reector
represents a hyperbola as for the at reector (equa-
tion 3-1). However, the NMO velocity now is given by
the medium velocity divided by the cosine of the dip
angle as dened by equation (3-11). This equation indi-
cates that proper stacking of a dipping event requires a
velocity that is greater than the velocity of the medium
above the reector.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Table 3-3. NMO velocity for various earth models.
Model NMO Velocity
Single Horizontal Velocity of the medium above
Layer the reecting interface
Horizontally Stratied The rms velocity function
Earth provided the spread is small
Single Dipping Layer Medium velocity divided by
cosine of the dip angle
Multilayered Earth The rms velocity function
with Arbitrary Dips provided the spread is small
and the dips are gentle
FIG. 3.1-12. Optimum mute selection. Starting with the
NMO-corrected CMP gather in panel (a), a substack gather
(b) is obtained. The far right trace in this gather is the same
as that in the original gather. The second trace from the
right is the stack of the two near traces of the original gather.
Finally, the far left trace is the full-fold stack obtained from
the original gather. The area above the dotted line in (b) is
the mute zone.
FIG. 3.1-13. Geometry for NMO of a single dipping reec-
tor. See text for details.
In conclusion, the NMO velocity for a dipping re-
ector depends on the dip angle. The larger the dip an-
gle, the higher the moveout velocity, hence the smaller
the moveout. There is a 4 percent dierence between
moveout velocity v
NMO
and medium velocity v for a 15-
degree dip. The dierence is 50 percent at a 30-degree
dip and rapidly increases at steep dips. An accompany-
ing observation is that a horizontal layer with a high
velocity can yield the same moveout as a dipping layer
with a low velocity, as illustrated in Figure 3.1-14.
NMO for Several Layers with Arbitrary Dips
Figure 3.1-15 shows a 2-D subsurface geometry that is
composed of a number of layers, each with an arbitrary
dip. We want to compute the traveltime from source
location S to depth point D, then back to receiver loca-
tion G, which is associated with midpoint M. Note that
the CMP ray from midpoint M hits the dipping inter-
face at normal incidence at D
, which is not the same as

D. The zero-oset time is the two-way time along the
raypath from M to D
.
Hubral and Krey (1980) derived the expression for
traveltime t along SDG as
t
2
= t
2
0
+
x
2
v
2
NMO
+ higher order terms, (3 12)
where the NMO velocity is given by
v
2
NMO
=
1
t
0
cos
2
0
N
i=1
v
2
i
t
i
i1
k=1
_
cos
2
k
cos
2
k
_
. (3 13)
The angles and are dened in Figure 3.1-15. For
a single dipping layer, equation (3-13) reduces to equa-
tion (3-8). Moreover, for a horizontally stratied earth,
equation (3-13) reduces to equation (3-4). As long as
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.1-14. Moveout for low-velocity event (a) is larger
than for high-velocity event (b). Moveout for low-velocity
dipping event (c) may not be distinguishable from high-
velocity horizontal event (b). These observations are direct
consequences of equation (3-7).
the dips are gentle and the spread is small, the travel-
time equation is approximately represented by a hyper-
bola (equation 3-5), and the velocity required for NMO
correction is approximately the rms velocity function
(equation 3-4).
Moveout Velocity versus Stacking Velocity
Table 3-3 summarizes the NMO velocity obtained from
various earth models. After making the small-spread
and small-dip approximations, moveout is hyperbolic
for all cases and is given by
t
2
(x) = t
2
(0) +
x
2
v
2
NMO
. (3 14)
The hyperbolic moveout velocity should be distin-
guished from the stacking velocity that optimally allows
stacking of traces in a CMP gather. The hyperbolic form
is used to dene the best stacking path t
stk
as
t
2
stk
(x) = t
2
stk
(0) +
x
2
v
2
stk
, (3 15)
where v
stk
is the velocity that allows the best t of the
traveltime trajectory on a CMP gather to a hyperbola
within the spread length.
The optimum stacking hyperbola described by
equation (3-15) is not necessarily the small-spread hy-
perbola given by equation (3-14). Refer to the travel-
times illustrated in Figure 3.1-16 and note the follow-
ing:
(a) The observed two-way zero-oset time OC = t(0)
in equation (3-14) can be dierent from the two-
way zero-oset time OB = t
stk
(0) associated with
the best-t hyperbola (equation 3-15). This occurs,
FIG. 3.1-15. Geometry for the moveout for a dipping in-
terface in an earth model with layers of arbitrary dips.
(Adapted from Hubral and Krey, 1980.)
for example, if some heterogeneity exists in the ve-
locity layers above a reector under consideration.
(b) The dierence between the stacking velocity v
stk
and NMO velocity v
NMO
is called spread-length
bias (Al-Chalabi, 1973; Hubral and Krey, 1980).
From equations (3-14) and (3-15), the smaller the
spread length, the closer the optimum stacking hy-
perbola to the small-spread hyperbola, hence the
smaller the dierence between v
stk
and v
NMO
.
In practice, when we refer to stacking velocity and
the zero-oset time associated with the optimum stack-
ing hyperbola described by equation (3-15), we almost
always think of the moveout velocity and the zero-oset
time associated with the small-spread hyperbola given
by equation (3-14).
3.2 VELOCITY ANALYSIS
Normal moveout is the basis for determining velocities
from seismic data. Computed velocities can in turn be
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.1-16. The equation for moveout velocity is derived
by assuming a small-spread hyperbola (equation 3-14). On
the other hand, stacking velocity is derived from the best-
t hyperbola over the entire spread length (equation 3-15).
Here, (a) is the actual traveltime, (b) is best-t hyperbola
over the oset range OA, and (c) is small-spread hyperbola.
(Adapted from Hubral and Krey, 1980.)
used to correct for NMO so that reections are aligned
in the traces of a CMP gather before stacking. From
equation (3-15), we can develop a practical way to de-
termine stacking velocity from a CMP gather. Equation
(3-14) describes a line on the t
2
x
2
plane. The slope of
the line is (1/v
2
NMO
) and the intercept value at x = 0
is t
0
. The synthetic gather in Figure 3.2-1 was derived
from the velocity model in Figure 3.1-8. The far right
frame of Figure 3.2-1 shows the picked traveltimes of
four events at a number of osets plotted on the t
2
x
2
plane. To nd the stacking velocity for a given event,
the points corresponding to that event have been con-
nected by a straight line. The inverse of the slope of the
line is the stacking velocity. (In practice, least-squares
tting can be used to dene the line slopes.) A compar-
ison between the computed stacking velocities and the
actual rms velocities is made in Table 3-4.
The t
2
x
2
velocity analysis is a reliable way to es-
timate stacking velocities. The accuracy of the method
depends on the signal-to-noise ratio, which aects the
quality of picking. In Figure 3.2-1, results are compared
with the velocity spectrum (center frame) approach,
which is discussed later in the section.
A real data example is shown in Figure 3.2-2.
Velocities estimated from the t
2
x
2
analysis are
shown by triangles on the velocity spectrum. Note that
Table 3-4. Computed stacking and actual rms veloci-
ties for the synthetic model in Figure 3.2-1.
Computed Stacking Actual rms
t
0
, s Velocities, m/s Velocities, m/s
0.4 2000 2000
0.8 2264 2264
1.2 2519 2533
1.6 2828 2806
agreement between the t
2
x
2
approach and the picks
from the velocity spectrum are satisfactory.
Claerbout (1978) proposed a way to determine in-
terval velocities manually from CMP gathers. The ba-
sic idea is illustrated in Figure 3.2-3. First, measure the
slope along a slanted path that is tangential to both
the top and bottom reections of the interval of inter-
est (slope 1). Then, connect the two tangential points
and measure the slope of this line (slope 2). The interval
velocity then is equal to the square root of the product
of the two slope values. The accuracy of this method
primarily depends on the signal-to-noise ratio.
The method of constant velocity scans of a CMP
gather is an alternative technique for velocity anal-
ysis. Figure 3.2-4b shows a CMP gather which has
been NMO corrected repeatedly using a range of con-
stant velocities between 1500 and 4500 m/s. Scan the
constant-velocity moveout-corrected gathers displayed
to the right of the original gather (b) starting from
the low-velocity end and identify at events. A velocity
function can be composed by noting the velocity-time
pairs that correspond to the at events (Table 3-5). By
using this velocity function, the CMP gather (Figure
3.2-4b) is moveout corrected for stacking (Figure 3.2-
4a).
Accuracy in velocity picking depends on cable
length, the two-way zero-oset time associated with the
reection event, and the velocity itself. The higher the
velocity, the deeper the reector and the shorter the ca-
ble length, the poorer the velocity resolution. The res-
olution in velocity picking also depends on the signal
bandwidth; the more compact the wavelet is along the
reection traveltime trajectory in the CMP gather, the
more accurate is the velocity pick. Prestack deconvo-
lution (Section 2.5) prior to velocity analysis aimed at
wavelet compression helps to improve velocity resolu-
tion.
While Figure 3.2-4 exhibits primary reection
events before 3 s, Figure 3.2-5 exhibits primary reec-
tions below 3 s. Follow the NMO for event A. Note
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-1. The t
2
x
2
velocity analysis applied to the synthetic gather derived from the velocity function depicted in Figure
3.1-8. The center panel is the velocity spectrum based on equation (3-19b).
that this event is overcorrected at low velocities and
undercorrected at high velocities. The event is at on
the NMO-corrected gather that corresponds to the 2500
m/s velocity; thus, this is the optimum stacking veloc-
ity for event A. Event B is at on the NMO-corrected
gather that corresponds to the 2800 m/s velocity. Nev-
ertheless, there is a range of velocities around 2800 m/s
which exhibits nearly at character for event B. This re-
sults in an uncertainty in making an accurate velocity
pick.
The most important reason to obtain a reliable ve-
locity function is to get the best quality stack of signal.
Therefore, stacking velocities often are estimated from
data stacked with a range of constant velocities on the
basis of stacked event amplitude and continuity. Figure
3.2-6 illustrates this approach. Here, a portion of a line
containing 100 CMP gathers has been NMO-corrected
and stacked with a range of constant velocities. The
resulting constant-velocity CMP stacks then were dis-
played as a panel. Stacking velocities are picked directly
from the constant-velocity stack (CVS) panel by choos-
ing the velocity that yields the best stack response at a
selected event time.
The panel of constant-velocity stacks in Figure 3.2-
7 demonstrates how velocity resolution decreases with
increasing depth. The deep event at 3.6 s seems to stack
at a wide range of velocity values.
A variation of CVS analysis is a panel of CMP
stacks using a family of velocity functions that are a
xed percentage higher and lower than a base velocity
function (Figure 3.2-8). This type of velocity analysis
panel usually is used in combination with a velocity
spectrum computed at the central CMP location to pick
an optimum stacking velocity function.
The constant velocities used in the CVS method
described above should be chosen carefully. There are
two issues to consider besides the expected range of ac-
tual velocities in the subsurface: (a) the range of ve-
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-2. The t
2
x
2
velocity analysis applied to a CMP gather. The triangles on the velocity spectrum (center panel
based on equation 3-19b) represent velocity values derived from the slopes of the lines shown on the graph at the right.
Table 3-5. Velocity function derived from the constant-
velocity panel of Figure 3.2-4.
Two-way Zero-Oset RMS Velocity
time, ms Picked, m/s
0 1500
100 1500
760 1900
1400 2700
1800 3000
2150 3600
5000 4000
locities needed to stack the data and (b) the spacing
between trial stacking velocities. In choosing a range,
consideration should be given to the fact that dip-
ping events and useful out-of-plane reections may have
anomalously high stacking velocities. In choosing the
spacing of constant velocities, keep in mind that it is
moveout, not velocity, that is the basis for velocity esti-
mation. Thus, it is better to scan in increments of equal
t
NMO
than equal v
NMO
. This prevents oversampling
of the high-velocity events and undersampling of the
low-velocity events. A good way to choose (t
NMO
)
is to pick it so that the moveout dierence between adja-
cent trial velocities at the maximum oset to be stacked
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-3. The interval velocity between two reectors is
equal to the square-root of the products of the slope values
measured as shown above. This is the same gather as in
Figure 3.1-7a. Trace spacing is 50 m, slope 1 = 3150/0.43,
slope 2 = 550/0.44, and thus, the interval velocity between
0.8 and 1.2 s is 3026 m/s.
is approximately 1/3 of the dominant period of the data
(S. Doherty, 1986, personal communication). Shallow
data have short maximum osets because of muting,
while deep data have large dominant periods. Thus, the
number of trial stacking velocities needed to adequately
sample the data can be reduced considerably.
The CVS method is especially useful in areas with
complex structure (Exercise 3-5). In such areas, this
method allows the interpreter to directly choose the
stack with the best possible event continuity. (Often
the stacking velocities themselves are of minimal im-
portance.) Constant-velocity stacks often contain many
CMP traces and sometimes consist of an entire line.
The velocity spectrum method is described in the
next section. Unlike the CVS method, it is based on
the crosscorrelation of the traces in a CMP gather and
not on lateral continuity of the stacked events. Because
of this, when compared to the CVS method, it is more
suitable for data heavily contaminated with multiple re-
ections and somewhat less suitable for data associated
with complex structures.
The Velocity Spectrum
The input CMP gather in Figure 3.2-9a contains a single
reection hyperbola from a at interface. The medium
velocity above the reector is 3000 m/s. Suppose that
this gather is NMO-corrected and stacked, repeatedly,
using a range of constant velocities from 2000 to 4300
m/s. Figure 3.2-9b displays the resultant stack traces
for each velocity side by side on a plane of velocity ver-
sus two-way zero-oset time. This is called the velocity
spectrum (Taner and Koehler, 1969). We have trans-
formed the data from the oset versus two-way time
domain (Figure 3.2-9a) to the stacking velocity versus
two-way zero-oset time domain (Figure 3.2-9b).
The highest stacked amplitude occurs with a veloc-
ity of 3000 m/s. This is the velocity that should be used
to stack the event in the input CMP gather. The low-
amplitude horizontal streak on the velocity spectrum
results from the contribution of small osets, while the
large-amplitude region on the spectrum is due to the
contribution of the full range of osets (Sherwood and
Poe, 1972). Hence, we need long osets for good res-
olution on the velocity spectrum. A way to minimize
the streak eect of nite-cable length on the velocity-
spectrum is to transform the CMP gather from oset
to velocity domain by way of discrete Radon transform
(Section 6.4).
A CMP gather associated with a layered earth
model is shown in Figure 3.2-10a. Based on the stacked
amplitudes, the following picks for stacking velocity
function are made from the velocity spectrum (Figure
3.2-10b): 2700, 2800, and 3000 m/s. These picks corre-
spond to the shallow, middle, and deep events, respec-
tively. The velocity spectrum not only can provide the
stacking velocity function, but it also allows one to dis-
tinguish between primary and multiple reections.
The quantity displayed on the velocity spectra in
Figures 3.2-9b and 3.2-10b is the stacked amplitude.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-5. Constant-velocity moveout corrections applied to a CMP gather using a velocity range of 1500-4200 m/s with
an increment of 100 m/s. Events A and B are discussed in the text.
When the signal-to-noise ratio of the input data is poor,
then the stacked amplitude may not be the best display
quantity. The aim in velocity analysis is to obtain picks
that correspond to the best coherency of the signal along
a hyperbolic trajectory over the entire spread length of
the CMP gather. Neidell and Taner (1971) described
various types of coherency measures that can be used
as attributes in computing velocity spectra.
Measure of Coherency
Consider the CMP gather with a single reection
sketched in Figure 3.2-11. Stacked amplitude S at two-
way zero-oset time t
0
is dened as
S =
M
i=1
f
i,t(i)
, (3 16)
where f
i,t(i)
is the amplitude value on the ith trace at
two-way time t(i), and M is the number of traces in the
CMP gather. Two-way time t(i) lies along the stacking
hyperbola associated with a trial velocity v
stk
:
t(i) =
t
0
2
+
x
2
i
v
2
stk
. (3 17)
Normalized stacked amplitude is dened as
NS =
M
i=1
f
i,t(i)
M
i=1
|f
i,t(i)
|
, (3 18)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-7. Constant-velocity stacks of 24 CMP gathers using a range of velocities 1500-4400 m/s with an increment of 100
m/s.
where the range of NS is 0 NS 1. As for the
stacked amplitude given by equation (3-16), the nor-
malized stacked amplitude given by equation (3-18) is
dened at two-way zero-oset time.
Another quantity that is used in velocity spectrum
calculations is the unnormalized crosscorrelation sum
within a time gate T that follows the path correspond-
ing to the trial stacking hyperbola across the CMP
gather. The expression for the unnormalized crosscor-
relation sum is given by
CC =
1
2
t
__
M
i=1
f
i,t(i)
_
2
i=1
f
2
i,t(i)
_
, (3 19a)
or, by way of equation (3-16),
CC =
1
2
t
_
S
2
t

M
i=1
f
2
i,t(i)
_
, (3 19b)
where CC can be interpreted as half the dierence be-
tween the output energy of the stack and the input en-
ergy. The outer summation is over the two-way zero-
oset time samples t within the correlation gate T.
A normalized form of CC is another attribute that
often is used in velocity spectrum calculations and is
given by
NC = MF
t
M1
k=1
Mk
i=1
f
i,t(i)
f
i+k,t(i+k)
_
t
f
2
i,t(i)
t
f
2
i+k,t(i+k)
,
(3 20)
where MF = 2/[M(M 1)].
Another coherency measure used in computing ve-
locity spectrum is the energy-normalized crosscorrela-
tion sum
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-8. Stacks of 100 CMP gathers using seven velocity functions which are a percent apart from a central function.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-9. Transformation of a synthetic CMP gather con-
taining a single reection event from oset to velocity do-
main. Each trace in the velocity-stack gather (b) is a stack of
the traces in the CMP gather (a) using a constant-velocity
NMO correction.
FIG. 3.2-10. Transformation of a synthetic CMP gather
containing three reection events from oset to velocity do-
main. Each trace in the velocity-stack gather (b) is a stack of
the traces in the CMP gather (a) using a constant-velocity
NMO correction.
FIG. 3.2-11. Stacked amplitude along a hyperbolic trajec-
tory. Amplitudes f
i,t(i)
along the best-t hyperbola (equa-
tion 3-17) dened by optimum stacking velocity v
stk
are
summed to get the stacked amplitude S (equation 3-16).
EC =
2
(M 1)
CC
M
i=1
f
2
i,t(i)
. (3 21)
The range of EC is [1/(M 1)] < EC 1.
Finally, semblance, which is the normalized output-
to-input energy ratio, is given by
NE =
1
M
M
i=1
f
i,t(i)
M
i=1
f
2
i,t(i)
. (3 22a)
The following expression shows the relation of NE to
EC:
EC =
1
M 1
_
M NE 1
_
. (3 22b)
The range of NE is 0 NE 1.
Table 3-6 shows the values of the attributes dened
by equation (3-16) and equations (3-18) through (3-22)
for the special case of a two-fold CMP gather where the
second trace is a scaled version of the rst as follows:
f
1,t
= f
t
, (3 23a)
f
2,t
= a f
t
. (3 23b)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Table 3-6. Various measures of coherency as applied
to the two-fold case given by equation (3-23).
Attribute a = 0.5 a = 0.5
Stacked Amplitude 1.5f(t) 0.5f(t)
S (equation 3-16)
Normalized 1 0.333
Stacked Amplitude
NS (equation 3-18)
Unnormalized 0.5
t
f
2
(t) 0.5
t
f
2
(t)
Crosscorrelation Sum
CC (equation 3-19b)
Normalized 1 1
NC (equation 3-20)
Energy-Normalized 0.8 0.8
EC (equation 3-21)
Semblance 0.9 0.1
NE (equation 3-22a)
Several conclusions can be made from the results
shown in Table 3-6. Note that stacked amplitude is sen-
sitive to trace polarity. The unnormalized crosscorrela-
tion oers a better standout of the strong reections on
the velocity spectrum, while the normalized or energy-
normalized crosscorrelation brings out weak reections
on the velocity spectrum. As equation (3-22b) implies,
semblance is a biased version of the energy-normalized
crosscorrelation sum.
The velocity spectrum normally is not displayed as
shown in Figures 3.2-9b or 3.2-10b. Instead, two pop-
ular types of displays are used to pick velocities in the
form of a gated row plot or a contour plot as shown
in Figure 3.2-12. Another quantity that helps picking
is the maxima of the coherency values from each time
gate displayed as a function of time next to the veloc-
ity spectrum, as shown in Figure 3.2-12. Unless other-
wise indicated, the unnormalized correlation was used
to construct the velocity spectrum of the synthetic CMP
gather (Figure 3.2-12a) that is used in subsequent dis-
cussions.
Factors Aecting Velocity Estimates
Velocity estimation from seismic data is limited in ac-
curacy and resolution for the following reasons:
(a) Spread length,
(b) Stacking fold,
(c) signal-to-noise ratio,
(d) Muting,
(e) Time gate length,
(f) Velocity sampling,
(g) Choice of coherency measure,
(h) True departures from hyperbolic moveout, and
(i) Bandwidth of data.
Figure 3.2-13 shows a synthetic CMP gather with
velocity spectra generated by using gradually decreas-
ing spread lengths. Lack of large-oset information
means lack of the signicant moveout required for ve-
locity discrimination. Note the loss in sharpness of the
peaks in the velocity spectra computed from the small-
spread portion of the CMP gather. Resolution decreases
rst in the deeper part of the spectrum where there is
little moveout (Table 3-1).
Figure 3.2-14 shows velocity spectra computed
from a real data set using spread lengths as indicated.
The broadened peaks caused by the use of smaller
spreads indicate loss of resolution in the velocity spec-
trum. This problem may be compounded by the poor
signal-to-noise ratio or residual static shifts. An exam-
ple of residual statics eect is shown in Figure 3.2-15.
Velocity spectrum computed from a spread length that
includes small osets (center panel) infers an incorrect
velocity function. As the spread length is made smaller
(right panel), the velocity trend becomes indistinct.
What if only the far osets are included when com-
puting the velocity spectrum? Although far-oset data
are needed to better resolve the velocity picks, there is a
stretching problem in the far-oset region. Therefore, a
velocity spectrum computed on the basis of only the far-
oset region of a CMP gather suers from the eects of
muting at shallow times. This problem is demonstrated
in Figure 3.2-16, where the spread is increasingly con-
ned to the far-oset region of the input CMP gather.
Note the loss of coherency peaks from the shallow events
because of muting, and the further degradation of the
coherency peaks corresponding to deeper events. Thus,
adequate resolution in the velocity spectrum can only
be obtained with a suciently large spread that spans
both near and far osets. This is analogous to the les-
son learned in Section 1.1 on temporal resolution, which
requires both low and high frequencies.
Stacking fold plays a signicant part in the degree
of resolution achieved from velocity spectra. In contem-
porary seismic data acquisition, it is common to record
data with 240 or more channels. For computational sav-
ings, high-fold data sometimes are reduced to a low-fold
equivalent gather by partial stacking. The idea is to
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-12. (a) A CMP gather, and two ways of displaying velocity spectrum computed from this gather: (b) gated raw
plot, and (c) contour plot.
FIG. 3.2-13. Eect of spread length on velocity resolution. Lack of long osets causes loss of resolution, especially at later
times.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-14. Missing large-oset traces cause loss of resolution in the velocity spectra, especially at later times.
FIG. 3.2-15. Velocity spectra can be distorted severely, particularly in areas with statics problems. When coupled with a
lack of long-oset traces, the velocity function that is derived can be misleading (center and right).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-16. Lack of short-oset traces can degrade the velocity spectrum. Note the loss of information at shallow times
and poor picks at later times.
FIG. 3.2-17. Partial stacking can reduce computational cost. However, do not use partial stacking if it could degrade the
velocity spectrum. (In this example, 8-fold partial stacking is too much.)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-18. The synthetic CMP gather derived from the velocity function depicted in Figure 3.1-8 and the same gather with
noise added at various strengths. The numbers on top represent the ratio of peak signal amplitude to peak noise amplitude.
stack a number of traces in a CMP gather from adjacent
osets to produce a CMP gather with lower fold. For
example, a reduction of fold from 64 to 16 amounts to
producing one output trace for each set of four adjacent
input traces. Partial stacking involves dierential NMO
application to each group of adjacent traces using a rea-
sonable, previously estimated velocity function so that
primaries are aligned before stacking. The CMP gather
in Figure 3.2-17 was partially stacked down to 32-, 16-
and 8-fold gathers. Corresponding velocity spectra also
are shown in Figure 3.2-17. No harm was done by re-
ducing the fold to 32. Even the 16-fold data seem to
produce accurate picks. However, use of lower fold sig-
nicantly shifts the peaks in the spectrum. Reducing
the fold by partial stacking merely to save computation
must not be done at the expense of accuracy.
Noise in seismic data has a direct eect on the qual-
ity of a velocity spectrum. Add band-limited random
noise to the CMP gather at increasingly higher levels
of amplitude (Figure 3.2-18). The corresponding veloc-
ity spectra are shown in gated row plot form in Figure
3.2-19 and, for comparison, in contour form in Figure
3.2-20. The velocity spectrum distinguishes signal along
hyperbolic paths even with high levels of random noise.
(Refer to the velocity spectrum for SNR = 3 in Figure
3.2-19.) This is because of the power of crosscorrela-
tion in measuring coherency. The accuracy of the veloc-
ity spectrum is limited when the signal-to-noise ratio
is poor. Refer to SNR = 1 in Figures 3.2-19 or 3.2-20.
The event at 0.8 s still can be picked, but the others are
dicult to distinguish.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-19. Velocity spectra derived from the CMP gathers in Figure 3.2-18. The display mode is gated row.
FIG. 3.2-20. Velocity spectra derived from the CMP gathers in Figure 3.2-18. The display mode is contour. See Figure 3.2-19
for the gated row plots of the same spectra for comparison.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-21. Muting eect on correlation values: (a) CMP gather, (b) mute compensated, (c) no compensation.
As a result of moveout correction, the waveform
along a reection hyperbola is stretched (Section 3.1).
Stretching is more severe in the shallow part of the
moveout-corrected gather, especially at large osets.
The stretched zone must be muted to prevent degra-
dation of the stacked amplitudes associated with shal-
low events. However, muting reduces fold in the stack-
ing process for shallow data (Figure 3.1-11c). It also
has an adverse eect on the velocity spectrum, for it
causes weakening of the peak amplitude that falls within
the mute zone, as demonstrated in Figure 3.2-21. These
peaks must be corrected for the weakening eect of the
muting process. This is done by multiplying stacked am-
plitudes by a scale factor equal to the ratio of the actual
multiplicity to the number of live traces in the mute
zone.
The velocity spectrum is computed along hyper-
bolic search paths for a range of constant velocity val-
ues, or constant t
NMO
(equation 3-2a). The hyper-
bolic path spans a two-way time gate specied at zero-
oset. Figure 3.2-22 shows velocity spectra computed
with four dierent gate lengths. If the gate length cho-
sen is too coarse, the spectrum suers especially from
lack of temporal resolution. This becomes more evident
on the same spectra displayed in contour form in Fig-
ure 3.2-23. In practice, the gate length is chosen between
one-half and one times the dominant period of the sig-
nal, typically 20 to 40 ms. Since the dominant period
can be time-variant (small in early and large in late
times), the gate length can be specied accordingly.
The velocity range used in the analysis must be
chosen carefully; it should span the velocities that cor-
respond to those of primary reections present in the
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-22. Too large a correlation gate length can lower resolution.
FIG. 3.2-23. The same velocity spectra as in Figure 3.2-22 displayed using the contour display mode for comparison.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-24. The CMP gathers associated with six neighboring midpoint locations. The reectors have a gentle downdip
from left to right.
FIG. 3.2-25. (a) Velocity spectrum derived from a single CMP gather (CMP 1) in Figure 3.2-24, (b) from the sum of six
CMP gathers in Figure 3.2-24, and (c) from the sum of six individual velocity spectra.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Table 3-7. Acceptable velocity errors (after Schneider,
1971).
% Error % Error
Use of Velocity for rms for Interval
NMO corrections for 2-10
conventional stack
Structural anomaly detection: 0.5
30-m anomaly at 3000-m depth
Gross lithologic identication: 0.7 10
300-m interval at 3000-m depth
Stratigraphic detailing: 0.1 3
150-m interval at 3000-m depth
CMP gather. The velocity increment must not be too
coarse, for it can degrade the resolution, especially for
high-velocity events.
Several options are considered in constructing the
velocity spectrum. Partial stacking is one option that al-
ready was discussed. Band-pass ltering and automatic
gain control (AGC) sometimes can improve the cross-
correlation process, especially when the input gather
has poor signal-to-noise ratio.
Another way to improve the quality of a velocity
spectrum is to use several neighboring CMP gathers in
the analysis. Figure 3.2-24 shows six neighboring CMP
gathers. By using the rst CMP gather in the group, we
get the velocity spectrum in Figure 3.2-25a. There are
two ways to analyze these gathers as a group. One way
is to sum the gathers and compute the velocity spec-
trum from the sum. This is shown in Figure 3.2-25b.
Another way is to compute the velocity spectra from
each individual gather and sum the spectra as shown in
Figure 3.2-25c. Clearly, the former is more cost-eective
than the latter. In practice, the number of CMP gathers
that may be used must be chosen so that there is negli-
gible dip across the gathers under consideration. If the
structural dip is signicant, then the number of CMP
gathers included in the velocity analysis must be kept
small. Note that the peak corresponding to the shallow
event in Figure 3.2-25b is smaller than its counterpart
in Figure 3.2-25c. Look closely at the CMP gathers in
Figure 3.2-24 and note the slight dierence in travel-
times from gather to gather, especially for the shallow
event. Summing these gathers distorts the hyperbolic
path and causes degradation in the velocity spectrum.
When the input gather has a signicant noise level,
some smoothing may be done on the velocity spectrum
matrix by averaging over velocity or time gates, or by
some combination of the two. Another way to suppress
small-amplitude correlation peaks that may be related
to the ambient noise level in the data is to apply some
percentage of bias to the correlation values. Biasing
refers to subtracting a constant value from the corre-
lation values over the entire velocity spectrum. Various
combinations of averaging and biasing of correlation val-
ues also are used in practice. Finally, for computational
eciency, correlation values may be computed within a
specied velocity corridor. The corridor must be chosen
so that it spans the velocity variations vertically and
laterally in the survey area.
Experience in a survey area helps when picking
appropriate stacking velocities for primary reections
from velocity spectra. Acceptable velocity errors vary
depending on use of the estimated velocities (Table 3-
7).
Interactive Velocity Analysis
With the availability of powerful workstations, ef-
ciency in seismic data analysis at large has in-
creased enormously. Applications that involve numer-
ically intensive computations and large input-output
operations are performed using multiprocessor servers,
and results are viewed and evaluated using high-
performance graphics workstations. Interactive data
analysis enables ecient parameter testing that is
needed for many of the steps in a processing se-
quence, such as ltering, deconvolution, and gain. Ad-
ditionally, interactive analysis provides eciency in
picking events rst breaks on shot records for
refraction statics, reection times on migrated sec-
tions, and velocity functions from velocity spectra.
Figure 3.2-26 shows a CMP gather and its veloc-
ity spectrum displayed in color. Note the distinct ve-
locity trend with changes in vertical gradient at 600,
1400, and 2000 ms. Color display of velocity spectra is
used for interactive picking of semblance peaks, whereas
the contour and gated row plots are used for the tra-
ditional paper display of velocity spectra. Figure 3.2-
27 shows the same velocity spectrum as in Figure 3.2-
26 with the velocity picks associated with primary re-
ections. The hyperbolic traveltime trajectories that
correspond to the velocity picks are superimposed on
the CMP gather to observe any discrepancy between
the modeled and the actual traveltimes, and thus ver-
ify the accuracy of the velocity picks. Further veri-
cation of the picks can be made by applying moveout
correction and examining the atness of events on the
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
CMP gather as shown in Figure 3.2-27. The undercor-
rected event at about 800 ms is the water-bottom mul-
tiple; this event is represented in the velocity spectrum
by the isolated peak to the left of the velocity trend.
Figure 3.2-28 shows the same gather and veloc-
ity spectrum as in Figure 3.2-27 but with a velocity
function erroneously picked along a high-velocity trend
to cause undercorrection of the reections. Note the
discrepancy between the modeled and actual travel-
times on the CMP gather before moveout correction,
and the misalignment of the reections after moveout
correction. The case of overcorrection caused by erro-
neously low velocities is demonstrated in Figure 3.2-29.
A localized mispick along a velocity trend yields
a physically implausable interval velocity value as ill-
strated in Figures 3.2-30 and 3.2-31. The strategy
for picking velocities from velocity spectra is based
on tracking the velocity trend that coincides with
semblance peaks associated with the primary reec-
tions. Whether these reections are associated with
key geological markers or not is irrelevant as many
picks as necessary should be picked so as to honor
changes in vertical velocity gradients and thus obtain
the best stack. However, picks at too close time in-
tervals can yield anomalous interval velocities from
Dix conversion (Section J.4); therefore, they should
not be used for deriving interval velocities. (Chap-
ter 9, in addition to Dix conversion, is devoted to
several techniques for estimating interval velocities.)
To derive plausable interval velocities from the
picked rms velocity functions, rst intersect the time
horizons picked from the time-migrated volume of
data with the velocity functions at analysis loca-
tions and extract horizon-consistent rms velocity func-
tions. Then, perform spatial interpolation to derive
horizon-consistent rms velocity proles along line tra-
verses or maps over the survey area. Next, per-
form Dix conversion of the horizon-consistent rms
velocities to interval velocities v
int
(Dix, 1955):
v
int
=
v
2
n
t
n
v
2
n1
t
n1
t
n
t
n1
, (3 24)
where v
n
and v
n1
are the rms velocities at
the layer boundaries n and n 1, respectively;
and t
n
and t
n1
are the horizon times at these
layer boundaries. An alternative method for deriving
horizon-consistent rms velocities is presented next.
Horizon Velocity Analysis
One way to estimate velocities with the accuracy re-
quired for detailed structural or stratigraphic studies is
to analyze the particular horizon of interest, continu-
ously. Such a detailed velocity estimation is called hori-
zon velocity analysis (HVA). Horizon velocity analysis
is an ecient way to get velocity information at every
CMP location along selected key horizons, as opposed
to the conventional velocity analysis that provides ve-
locity information at every time gate at selected CMP
locations. The underlying principle is the same as that
of the velocity spectrum. The output coherency values
derived from hyperbolic time gates are displayed as a
function of velocity and CMP position. Correlation val-
ues are computed from a gate that includes the horizon
of interest. Horizon times are digitized and input to the
horizon velocity analysis. Figures 3.2-32 shows a stacked
section and Figure 3.2-33 shows HVA semblance spec-
tra over ve horizons. Note the short-wavelength vari-
ations of stacking velocities along the line traverse
such variations ordinarily are not captured by veloc-
ity analyses conducted at sparse CMP intervals. These
semblance spectra can be picked to obtain horizon-
consistent rms velocities which are then used to de-
rive interval velocities (equation 3-24). Similar types
of computational details, such as smoothing and bi-
asing, are considered applicable to velocity spectrum.
Whenever there are structural discontinuities on a
stacked section, HVA is carried out on segments of the
horizon that are separated by faults. Horizon velocity
analysis can improve a stacked section in areas with
complex overburden structure that may cause nonhy-
perbolic moveout. This is somewhat surprising, since
HVA still is based on hyperbolic moveout. Neverthe-
less, in practice, HVA provides the detailed lateral ve-
locity variations along a marker horizon, which may be
missed by conventional velocity analysis locations that
are sparsely spaced along the line. Consider horizon A
in Figure 3.2-34, which is below the salt dome S. The
salt dome behaves as a complex overburden, causing
the raypaths that are associated with the underlying
reectors to bend. Note the rapid lateral changes in
velocity and the improvement in the CMP stack after
using the HVA picks. The rapid change in stacking ve-
locity associated with the base of the salt is typical.
Starting on the left, the reector is deep in time and
at. Then it dips; hence, the higher stacking velocity.
Then it gets shallower; hence, the lower stacking veloc-
ity. Then it dips again, yielding a higher stacking veloc-
ity. Finally, it becomes at; hence, a decrease in velocity.
A velocity section derived from HVA is structure-
consistent, whereas a velocity section derived from ver-
tical velocity functions picked at selected analysis lo-
cations along a line traverse is, in general, structure-
independent. Consider the stacked section in Figure
3.2-35 with interpreted time-horizon segments associ-
ated with subsurface geological markers. The semblance
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-26. A CMP gather and its velocity spectrum.
FIG. 3.2-27. The same CMP gather and its velocity spectrum (left and center panels) as in Figure 3.2-26 with the picked
velocities denoted by + marks coincident with the semblance peaks. The curve to the right of the semblance peaks is the
interval velocity function derived from the picked rms velocity function. The far right panel shows the CMP gather after
moveout correction using the picked rms velocity function.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-28. The same CMP gather and its velocity spectrum (left and center panels) as in Figure 3.2-26 with the erroneously
picked velocities denoted by + marks. The curve to the right of the semblance peaks is the interval velocity function derived
from the picked rms velocity function. The right-hand panel shows the CMP gather after moveout correction using the picked
rms velocity function. Note the undercorrection of events caused by the erroneously too high moveout velocities.
FIG. 3.2-29. The same CMP gather and its velocity spectrum (left and center panels) as in Figure 3.2-26 with the erroneously
picked velocities denoted by + marks. The curve to the right of the semblance peaks is the interval velocity function derived
from the picked rms velocity function. The right-hand panel shows the CMP gather after moveout correction using the picked
rms velocity function. Note the overcorrection of events caused by the erroneously too low moveout velocities.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-30. The same CMP gather and its velocity spectrum as in Figure 3.2-26 with an erroneously picked velocity at
1875 ms. The curve to the right of the semblance peaks is the interval velocity function derived from the picked rms velocity
function. Note the anomalous interval velocity derived from the erroneously picked interval velocity.
FIG. 3.2-31. The same CMP gather and its velocity spectrum as in Figure 3.2-26 with an erroneously picked velocity at
1875 ms. The curve to the right of the semblance peaks is the interval velocity function derived from the picked rms velocity
function. Note the anomalous interval velocity derived from the erroneously picked interval velocity.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-32. A stacked section with ve marker horizons as indicated.
FIG. 3.2-33. Horizon velocity analyses along ve marker horizons indicated in Figure 3.2-32. The vertical and horizontal
axes in each panel are stacking velocity and CMP axis, respectively.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-34. A CMP-stacked section obtained by sparsely spaced conventional velocity analysis (top) and the stacked section
(bottom) obtained by using velocities derived from horizon velocity analysis (HVA) (middle). The HVA for horizon A below
the salt dome S is shown in the center.
spectra associated with the eight horizons picked from
the stacked section computed by HVA are shown in
Figure 3.2-36. The top spectrum corresponds to the
shallowest time horizon (dark blue) after the water-
bottom horizon. These spectra were picked to obtain
the horizon-consistent rms velocity proles, which were
then used to derive the rms velocity section shown in
Figure 3.2-37 (top). The time horizons picked from the
stacked section (Figure 3.2-35) are superimposed on the
velocity section. Compare the velocity sections in Fig-
ure 3.2-37 derived from HVA (top) and vertical func-
tions (bottom), and note that the HVA-based velocity
section is more consistent with the subsurface struc-
ture. Hence, the HVA results are more appropriate to
use in Dix conversion to derive structure-consistent in-
terval velocities with meaningful magnitudes (equation
3-24).
What about the quality of stacks (Figure 3.2-38)
obtained from the velocity sections (Figure 3.2-37) de-
rived from HVA and vertical functions? Two sets of de-
tails from the stacked sections shown in Figures 3.2-39
and 3.2-40 reveal that, indeed, there can be more than
marginal dierences. While the HVA-based stack shows
better continuity of reections, it is inferior to the con-
ventional stack with regard to diractions. This should
be expected since the HVA analysis is done along re-
ection events and not diractions (Figure 3.2-35).
In conclusion, if the objective is to obtain an op-
timum CMP stack with the highest stack power pos-
sible, conventional velocity analysis at selected CMP
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-35. A CMP-stacked section with interpreted time horizon segments associated with geological markers.
locations along the line traverse or over the 3-D survey
area yields a robust velocity section. If, on the other
hand, the objective is to derive interval velocities from
Dix conversion, then horizon-consistent velocity analy-
sis yields structure-consistent results that are geologi-
cally plausable.
Coherency Attribute Stacks
The various measures of coherency discussed in this sec-
tion to compute velocity spectrum can also be used to
generate coherency attribute stacks. These stacks are
obtained as follows:
(a) Choose a specic measure of coherency stacked
amplitude (equation 3-16), normalized stacked am-
plitude (equation 3-18), unnormalized crosscorre-
lation sum (equation 3-19), normalized crosscor-
relation sum (equation 3-20), energy-normalized
crosscorrelation sum (equation 3-21), or semblance
(equation 3-22).
(b) Compute velcoity spectra at selected CMP loca-
tions along the line and pick rms velocity functions.
(c) By interpolating between the vertical functions, de-
rive an rms velocity section.
(d) Extract vertical rms velocity functions from the ve-
locity section at each CMP location along the line
traverse.
(e) Apply moveout correction to CMP gathers using
the extracted vertical functions.
(f) Now, compute not just the stacked amplitudes
(equation 3-16), but also the coherency attributes
using equations (3-18) through (3-22) and thus ob-
tain the coherency attribute sections.
Figure 3-2.41 shows portions of coherency attribute
sections associated with a eld data set. These sections,
in conjunction with conventional stack, may be useful
in enhancing fault patterns associated with structural
plays and identifying amplitude anomalies associated
with stratigraphic plays. Note the discriminating power
of semblance for the most coherent reection events in
the section. Conventional CMP stacking seems to yield
the most robust section that preserves reections and
dirations. The coherency attribute sections based on
crosscorrelation show an apparent higher frequency con-
tent compared to the stacked and normalized stacked
sections.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-36. Semblance spectra computed along the time horizons in Figure 3.2-35. The top spectrum corresponds to the
shallowest time horizon in dark blue.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-37. Top: the velocity section derived from the HVA-based semblance spectra shown in Figure 3.2-36; bottom: the
velocity section derived from the interpolation of the vertical rms velocity functions picked at selected CMP locations along
the line traverse. Superimposed on these sections are the time horizon segments interpreted from the stacked section in Figure
3.2-35.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-38. Top: the CMP-stacked section derived from the HVA-based velocity section shown in Figure 3.2-37 (top); bot-
tom: the CMP-stacked section derived from the velocity section shown in Figure 3.2-37 (bottom) derived from the interpolation
of the vertical rms velocity functions picked at selected CMP locations along the line traverse.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-39. A detailed portion of the sections in Figure 3.2-38.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-40. A detailed portion of the sections in Figure 3.2-38.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.2-41. Coherency attribute sections: (a) stack (equation 3-16), (b) normalized stack (equation 3-18), (c) unnormal-
ized crosscorrelation (equation 3-19), (d) normalized crosscorrelation (equation 3-20), (e) energy-normalized crosscorrelation
(equation 3-21), and (f) semblance (equation 3-22).
3.3 RESIDUAL STATICS CORRECTIONS
Reection times often are aected by irregularities in
the near-surface. This is best demonstrated by the real
data example in Figure 3.3-1. While the shot gathers
on the left contain reections that exhibit nearly hy-
perbolic moveout, those on the right have reections
that signicantly depart from hyperbolic moveout. Al-
though such distortions can be caused by a structural
complexity deeper in the subsurface, more often they
result from near-surface irregularities.
For land data, reection traveltimes are reduced to
a common datum level, which may be at or vary (oat-
ing datum) along the line. Reduction of traveltimes to
a datum usually requires correction for the near-surface
weathering layer in addition to dierences in elevation
of source and receiver stations. Estimation and correc-
tion for the near-surface eects usually are performed
using refracted arrivals associated with the base of the
weathering layer (Section 3.4).
Traveltime corrections to account for the irregu-
lar topography and near-surface weathering layer are
commonly known as eld statics or refraction statics
corrections (Section 3.4). These corrections remove a
signicant part of the traveltime distortions from the
data specically, long-wavelength anomalies. Nev-
ertheless, these corrections usually do not account for
rapid changes in elevation, the base of weathering, and
weathering velocity.
Removal of near-surface distortions on reection
times associated with deeper reectors is routinely done
by lowering the shots and receivers along vertical ray-
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-1. Common-shot gathers from a land prole. Note the departures from hyperbolic traveltimes on the gathers at
the right.
paths from the surface to a datum below the weather-
ing layer. The positioning of shots and receivers to a
datum along vertical raypaths amounts to static time
corrections in a surface-consistent manner (Taner et al.,
1974). The term static implies that it is a constant time
shift for an entire trace, and the term surface-consistent
implies that the time correction depends only on the
surface location of the shot and receiver associated with
the trace.
Figures 3.3-2a and 3.3-3a are selected CMP gath-
ers (with eld statics corrections) which were NMO cor-
rected using a set of preliminary velocity picks derived
from the velocity analyses in Figure 3.3-4. Deviations
from the hyperbolic trends on the CMP gathers sig-
nicantly degrade the quality of some of the velocity
spectra. For instance, velocity analysis at CMP loca-
tion 188 yields relatively poorer quality picks than those
from other velocity analyses. The CMP gathers in the
neighborhood of CMP location 188 have more travel-
time distortions compared to some other CMP gathers
(Figure 3.3-2a). The resulting stacked section could be
misleading in that residual statics may cause dim spots
along the reection horizons as well as false structures
(Figure 3.3-5a), particularly between midpoints 101 to
245. False structures also are apparent on the rms AGC
gained stack (Figure 3.3-6a) in which dim spots may
not be apparent.
Obviously a more correct picture of the subsur-
face should be attained from data corrected for rapidly
varying near-surface eects. After making these resid-
ual statics corrections, the CMP gathers with traveltime
deviations show better alignment of reections (Fig-
ure 3.3-2b), while those that did not require such cor-
rections are essentially unchanged (Figure 3.3-3b). Af-
ter the residual statics corrections, the ungained (Fig-
ure 3.3-5b) and gained stacked sections (Figure 3.3-6b)
show improvement in the continuity of reections as
well as signicant elimination of false structures (refer
to the segment between midpoints 101 to 245).
Following the residual statics corrections, velocity
analyses almost always are repeated to update the ve-
locity picks (Figure 3.3-7). Comparison of Figures 3.3-4
and 3.3-7 shows that residual statics corrections have
improved the velocity analysis. The same CMP gath-
ers after NMO corrections using the updated velocity
picks are shown in Figures 3.3-8a and 3.3-9a, while
the same gathers after residual statics corrections are
shown in Figures 3.3-8b and 3.3-9b. Comparison of the
CMP gathers before and after residual statics correc-
tions shows signicant elimination of time deviations.
The resulting stacked sections using the revised velocity
estimates are shown in Figure 3.3-10, while the gained
stacks are shown in Figure 3.3-11.
Compare the stacked sections in Figures 3.3-6a,b
and 3.3-11a,b, and observe the gradual improvement in
the following order:
(a) CMP stack based on preliminary velocity picks
(Figure 3.3-4) but with no residual statics correc-
tions applied (Figure 3.3-6a),
(text continues on p. 336)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-2. CMP gathers from a land prole: (a) before residual statics corrections, (b) after residual statics corrections.
(Shot gathers are shown in Figure 3.3-1.) NMO correction was applied using preliminary velocity picks derived from the
spectra in Figure 3.3-4. The CMP stacks are shown in Figure 3.3-5.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-3. CMP gathers from the same land line as in Figure 3.3-2 (a) before and (b) after residual statics corrections. This
part of the line does not have as severe a statics problem as that shown in Figure 3.3-2. The NMO correction was applied
using preliminary velocity picks derived from the spectra in Figure 3.3-4.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-4. Velocity analyses before residual statics corrections along the land line shown in Figure 3.3-5. Figures 3.3-2 and
3.3-3 show selected CMP gathers.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-5. CMP stacks derived from gathers in Figures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3. Stack (a) before and (b) after residual statics
corrections. NMO correction was applied using preliminary velocity picks derived from the spectra in Figure 3.3-4.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-6. The same CMP stacks as in Figure 3.3-5 with rms gain applied. Gained stacks (a) before and (b) after residual
statics corrections. D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-7. Velocity analyses after residual statics corrections along the line shown in Figure 3.3-5. Figures 3.3-8 and 3.3-9
show selected CMP gathers.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-8. CMP gathers from the land line shown in Figure 3.3-10. CMP gathers (a) without and (b) with residual statics
corrections. (Figure 3.3-1 shows the shot gathers from the same line.) NMO correction was applied using nal velocity picks
derived from the spectra in Figure 3.3-7.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-9. CMP gathers from the same land line as in Figure 3.3-8. CMP gathers (a) without and (b) with residual statics
corrections. This part of the line does not have as severe a statics problem as the part in Figure 3.3-8. NMO correction was
applied using nal velocity picks derived from the spectra in Figure 3.3-7.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-10. CMP stacks derived from the gathers in Figures 3.3-8 and 3.3-9. Stack (a) before and (b) after residual statics
corrections and using revised velocity estimates from Figure 3.3-7.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-11. The same CMP stacks as in Figure 3.3-10 with rms gain applied. Gained stacks (a) before and (b) after residual
statics corrections and using revised velocity estimates from Figure 3.3-7.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-12. Processing owchart with residual statics cor-
rections.
(b) stack based on preliminary velocity picks (Figure
3.3-4) and with residual statics corrections applied
(Figure 3.3-6b),
(c) stack based on nal velocity picks (Figure 3.3-7)
but with no residual statics corrections applied
(Figure 3.3-11a), and
(d) stack based on nal velocity picks (Figure 3.3-7)
and with residual statics corrections applied (Fig-
ure 3.3-11b).
Here, the velocity picks made from CMP gathers with
no residual statics corrections applied are referred to
as preliminary and those made from CMP gathers with
residual statics corrections applied are referred to as
nal.
Residual statics corrections usually are discussed
in terms of applications to land data. However, in cer-
tain cases, residual statics corrections have produced
dramatic improvement in marine data. Areas with ir-
regular water-bottom topography in shallow water (less
than 25 m), and areas with rapidly varying velocity in
the sediments near the water bottom are places where
statics corrections have been successful.
Figure 3.3-12 shows a commonly used owchart for
residual statics corrections and velocity analysis aimed
at producing an optimum stacked section. Start with
CMP gathers with eld statics or refraction statics
corrections applied (Section 3.4), and perform velocity
analysis, usually no more than a few locations along the
line. Then, apply NMO correction with the preliminary
velocity picks and compute residual static shifts. Apply
these corrections to the original gathers, and repeat the
velocity analysis this time at all necessary locations
along the line. Finally, apply NMO correction and stack
the data. In some cases, there may be more than one
iteration of estimating and applying the residual statics
corrections.
In practice, the owchart in Figure 3.3-12 usually
is augmented with additional quality control steps. It
often is necessary to examine CMP gathers and ve-
locity analyses after residual statics corrections. Di-
agnostic tools allow determination of the magnitude
of these corrections. For example, common-shot and
common-receiver gathers indicate relative static shifts
from one receiver location to another and from one shot
location to another (Figures 3.3-13 and 3.3-14, respec-
tively). Also, common-shot-point and common-receiver-
point stacks can be used in combination with common-
receiver and common-shot gathers, respectively. A
common-shot-point stack (Figure 3.3-15) should indi-
cate the range of magnitude of shot static shifts; a
common-receiver-point stack (Figure 3.3-16) should in-
dicate the range of magnitude of receiver static shifts
along the line. These displays enable the determination
of an optimum maximum allowable shift to consider
for picking traveltime deviations from the moveout-
corrected CMP data for input to residual statics esti-
amtion algorithms. From the example in Figures 3.3-15
and 3.3-16, the receiver component of static shifts is
greater than the shot component.
Residual Statics Estimation
by Traveltime Decomposition
Static deviations from a hyperbolic traveltime trajec-
tory are illustrated in Figure 3.3-17. After NMO cor-
rection, the misalignment of the wavelet associated with
a reection time horizon h along the oset axis in the
CMP gather will yield a poor stack trace. We want to
estimate the time shifts from the time of perfect align-
ment and correct for these time shifts. To do this, a
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-13. Moveout-corrected common-shot gathers from the same land line as in Figure 3.3-1. Common-shot gathers (a)
before and (b) after residual statics corrections.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-14. Moveout-corrected common-receiver gathers from the same land line as in Figure 3.3-13. Common-receiver
gathers (a) before and (b) after residual statics corrections.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-15. A diagnostic display for residual statics corrections. Common-shot-point (CSP) stack (a) before and (b) after
residual statics corrections. Note the missing shots between CMP 151 and 243. The CSP stack can be used to estimate the
magnitude and spatial variation of shot statics along a line.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-16. A diagnostic display for residual statics corrections. Common-receiver-point (CRP) stack (a) before and (b)
after residual statics corrections. The CRP stack can be used to estimate the magnitude and spatial variation of receiver
statics along a line. D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-17. Picking traveltime deviations from NMO-
corrected gathers.
model is needed for the moveout-corrected traveltime
from a source location to a depth point on a reect-
ing horizon, then back to a receiver location. Figure
3.3-18 shows the geometry and notation that will be
used in dening this model. The key assumption in the
commonly used traveltime model discussed here is that
residual statics are surface-consistent (Hileman et al.,
1968; Taner et al., 1974). This means that static shifts
are time delays that depend solely on source or receiver
locations at the surface, not on raypaths in the sub-
surface. Such an assumption is valid if all raypaths, re-
gardless of source-receiver oset, are vertical within the
near surface layer. The surface-consistent assumption
usually is a good one, because the weathering layer of-
ten has very low velocity and a strong refraction at its
base tends to make travel paths vertical. The assump-
tion may not be good for a high-velocity permafrost
layer that causes rays to bend away from vertical.
The picked traveltime t
ij
that corresponds to the
jth source station, the ith receiver station, and the kth
midpoint [k = (i +j)/2] along a specic reection time
horizon h (Figure 3.3-17) can be approximately modeled
by the following equation (Taner et al., 1974; Wiggins
et al., 1976):
t
ij
= s
j
+ r
i
+ G
k
+ M
k
x
2
ij
, (3 25)
where s
j
is the residual static time shift associated with
the jth source station, r
i
is the residual static time shift
associated with the ith receiver station, and G
k
is the
dierence in two-way time at a reference CMP location
and the traveltime at the kth CMP location along the
hth horizon. This term refers to structural variations
along the horizon and is called the structure term. The
term M
k
x
2
ij
is the residual moveout which is assumed
to be parabolic. It accounts for the imperfect moveout
correction within the specic time gate that includes
FIG. 3.3-18. Surface-consistent statics model to establish
the traveltime model equation (3-25). Here, T = topographic
layer, B = base of weathering layer, D = datum to which
static corrections are made, R = deep reector, j = shot sta-
tion index, i = receiver station index, k = midpoint location
index, x
ij
= oset between the shot and receiver stations.
the reection time horizon h. The coecient M
k
has the
dimensions of (time / distance
2
).
To be specic in an analysis of the system of equa-
tions implied by equation (3-25), assume n
s
shot lo-
cations, n
r
receiver locations, and n
G
CMP locations.
Then dene the fold as n
f
. The purpose is to decom-
pose the observed traveltimes estimated (picked) from
the data t
ij
to their individual components as dened
on the right side of equation (3-25). The number of time
picks (or individual equations) is equal to n
G
n
f
. The
number of unknowns is n
s
+ n
r
+ n
G
+ n
G
. Typically,
(n
G
n
f
) > (n
s
+n
r
+n
G
+n
G
); hence, there are more
equations than unknowns.
We can formulate a least-squares problem in which
we must minimize the sum of the least-squares error
energy between the observed traveltime picks t
ij
and
the modeled traveltimes t
ij
:
E =
ij
t
ij
t
ij
2
. (3 26)
Residual statics corrections involve three phases:
(1) Picking traveltime deviations t
ij
based on crosscor-
relation of traces in a CMP gather with a reference
or pilot trace that needs to be dened in some fash-
ion,
(2) Modeling t
ij
by way of equation (3-25) and decom-
posing it into its components: source and receiver
statics, structural and residual moveout terms, and
(3) Applying the derived source and receiver terms
s
j
and r
i
, respectively, to traveltimes on the pre-
NMO-corrected CMP gathers.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
The picking phase relates to estimating traveltimes
t
ij
from the data. Several picking schemes are in use in
the industry. The one described here often is known as a
pilot trace scheme. Starting with the CMP gathers that
are NMO-corrected using a preliminary velocity func-
tion(s), trace amplitudes are scaled to a common rms
amplitude in the time gate(s) to be used for picking.
For clarity, consider a time gate over the kth midpoint
gather as illustrated in Figure 3.3-17. (It is preferable to
start with a gather that has a good signal-to-noise ra-
tio.) A stack trace then is constructed within the time
gate h. Each individual trace in the gather is cross-
correlated with the stack trace. Time shifts t
ij
, which
correspond to maximum crosscorrelations, are picked.
A preliminary pilot trace is constructed by stacking the
time-shifted traces in the gather. This preliminary pilot
trace is, in turn, crosscorrelated with the original traces
in the gather and new values for t
ij
are computed. A -
nal pilot trace is constructed again by stacking the orig-
inal traces shifted by the new values for t
ij
. This nal
pilot trace is crosscorrelated with the traces of the next
gather to construct the preliminary pilot trace for that
gather. The process is performed this way on all CMP
gathers moving to the left and right from the starting
point. The picked time deviations t
ij
are passed on to
the next phase, which involves decomposing these time
picks into components as dened by equation (3-25).
Several practical issues are involved in the pick-
ing phase. Band-pass ltering often helps to estimate a
reliable time shift that corresponds to the peak cross-
correlation value. Selection of the time window used for
crosscorrelation is another important factor. If needed,
the window should be allowed to change laterally so that
it follows the marker horizon(s). A maximum threshold
for the correlation shift can be imposed to prevent unre-
alistically large time deviations from being passed on to
the decomposition phase. Any time deviations greater
than a specied maximum allowable shift can be set to
that shift, or rejected altogether. Alternatively, the re-
jected shift can be replaced by a secondary correlation
peak value. Finally, the input CMP gathers must be
NMO-corrected by using a regional velocity function or
velocities derived from a preliminary velocity analysis.
These parameters are discussed in detail later in the
section.
The next step in residual statics corrections in-
volves least-squares decomposition of the time picks t
ij
.
For a basic understanding of this step, consider the
following special problem. Suppose there are four ob-
servations t
ij
measured at receiver locations x
i
, where
i = 1, 2, 3, 4. We want to t the observed data into a
straight line t = a +bx, which is best in a least-squares
error sense. Start with the following set of equations:
t
1
a + bx
1
t
2
a + bx
2
t
3
a + bx
3
t
4
a + bx
4
.
(3 27)
There are two unknowns, a and b, and four equations.
This problem is similar to decomposing the time picks
into various components as described by equation (3-
25). We dene the error series e
i
, such that
t
1
+ a + bx
1
= e
1
t
2
+ a + bx
1
= e
2
t
3
+ a + bx
1
= e
3
t
4
+ a + bx
1
= e
4
.
(3 28)
We want to minimize the energy of the cumulative er-
rors as dened by
E =
i
e
2
i
. (3 29a)
The energy for the ith error is computed by squar-
ing both sides of equation (3-28)
e
2
i
=
t
i
+ a + bx
i
2
. (3 29b)
By substituting into equation (3-29a) and summing over
i = 1, 2, 3, 4, we obtain
E =
i
t
2
i
+ 4a
2
+ b
2
i
x
2
i
2a
i
t
i
2b
i
x
i
t
i
+ 2ab
i
x
i
.
(3 30)
To nd the best line, we want to determine un-
knowns a and b so that error energy E is minimal. The
sum E of the squared errors will attain a minimum if a
and b are chosen so that
E
a
= 8a 2
i
t
i
+ 2b
i
x
i
= 0, (3 31a)
and
E
b
= 2b
i
x
2
i
2
i
x
i
t
i
+ 2a
i
x
i
= 0. (3 31b)
We now have two equations with two unknowns that
can be put into a matrix form
4

i
x
i
i
x
i
i
x
2
i
a
b
i
t
i
i
x
i
t
i
. (3 32)
Equation (3-32) can be solved for the unknowns a and b.
The minimum energy between the estimated model and
the actual data values then can be computed by solving
for a and b and substituting into equation (3-30).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Table 3-8. Time picks t
i
at various x
i
locations.
i x
i
t
i
1 1 2.4
2 2 2.9
3 3 3.6
4 4 4.1
Consider the time values at various x locations
specied in Table 3-8. Using these time picks, the el-
ements of the coecient matrix on the left side and the
column matrix on the right side of equation (3-32) are
4 10
10 30
a
b
13
35.4
. (3 33)
The solution for equation (3-33) is a = 1.8 and
b = 0.58. Note that we are not constrained by the num-
ber of observations when setting up the least-squares
problem. This problem involves more equations (3-27)
than unknowns, a and b.
The least-squares approach has a wide range of
applications in applied geophysics. We also formulate
the inverse ltering used in deconvolution based on a
least-squares procedure (Section B.5). The Wiener l-
ter itself is based on a least-squares estimation of a fu-
ture sample point in a given time series. Here, we dis-
cussed another application of the least-squares method
residual statics estimation by traveltime decompo-
sition, which involves more equations than unknowns.
In Chapter 9, when discussing 2-D surface data pro-
cessing, we encounter the problem of tting irregularly
spaced observations into a uniform grid. This involves
least-squares tting to a local plane (Section J.5).
We now return to the problem of residual statics
estimation and refer to equation (3-26). We have the
observed traveltime deviations t
ij
picked from moveout-
corrected CMP gathers within a specied time gate that
includes a strong reection. We want to estimate the
parameters the surface-consistent source and receiver
static shifts, s
j
and r
i
, respectively. These parameters
are related to the modeled traveltime deviations t
ij
by
way of the model equation (3-25). If there are 50 000
picks, then you have 50 000 model equations.
Substitute for t
ij
from equation (3-25) and mini-
mize the error energy E in equation (3-26) by requiring
E
s
j
=
E
r
i
=
E
G
k
=
E
M
k
= 0, (3 34)
which yields n
s
+n
r
+n
G
+n
G
equations and that many
unknowns.
These equations can be solved for the residual stat-
ics associated with n
s
source locations, n
r
receiver lo-
cations, n
G
structural terms, and n
G
residual moveout
terms. For a real data set, the number of these terms can
be large. It is easy to solve the problem with the two
parameters given by equation (3-34). However, when
dealing with a large number of linear equations, the so-
lution must be done accurately and eciently. Wiggins
et al. (1978) used the Gauss-Seidel iterative procedure
to solve for equations (3-34) (Section C.4).
The Gauss-Seidel method is best described by re-
turning to the earlier line tting example and solving
for a and b in equation (3-33). When written as normal
equations, we have
4a + 10b = 13 (3 35a)
and
10a + 30b = 35.4. (3 35b)
These equations are rearranged as
a = 3.25 2.5b (3 36a)
and
b = 1.18 0.333a. (3 36b)
Since the Gauss-Seidel technique is iterative, starting
values are needed. To start the iteration, set a = b = 0.
Substituting b = 0 in equation (3-36a), we obtain a =
3.25. Putting this updated solution into equation (3-
36b) gives b = 0.0977. At the end of the rst iteration,
a = 3.25 and b = 0.0977. For the second iteration, put
b = 0.0977 into equation (3-36a) to get a = 3.0075. Put
a = 3.0075 into equation (3-36b) to get b = 0.1785. This
iterative procedure is continued in Table 3-9.
The solution from the iterative procedure slowly
converges toward the actual values, a = 1.8, b = 0.58.
Convergence is not always guaranteed. Nevertheless,
convergence can be attained with the Gauss-Seidel
method, provided the unknowns are ordered properly;
that is, iteration starts with the correct unknown. This
Table 3-9. Gauss-Seidel iteration for solving equation
(3-33) for a and b. (Values were rounded o for tabula-
tion.)
Actual values: a = 1.8, b = 0.58.
Iteration a b
1 3.25 0.0977
5 2.4918 0.3502
10 2.0712 0.4902
15 1.9031 0.5462
20 1.8358 0.5686
25 1.8090 0.5779
29 1.7997 0.5807
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
problem is addressed in Exercises 3-11 and 3-12. The ad-
vantage of the Gauss-Seidel method is its ability to solve
the large number of simultaneous equations rapidly.
The question of when to terminate the iterations
remains. The rate at which the solution changes can
be examined after each iteration. The computation is
stopped when this rate falls below a specied threshold
value.
The starting values for solving the normal equa-
tions (3-34), can be chosen as s
j
= r
i
= G
k
= M
k
= 0,
as in the simple numerical example. To some extent, the
best order of iteration depends on the exact nature of
the statics problem at hand. One order of iteration that
is commonly in use follows: Compute the structure term
G, the residual moveout term M, the static shift associ-
ated with source location s, then the static shift associ-
ated with receiver location r. The procedure cycles back
to G in the next iteration and continues until conver-
gence is satisfactory. The order in which the individual
terms are computed theoretically can be interchanged.
However, the above order forces long-wavelength vari-
ations of the time picks to be concentrated mainly in
the structure term. This leads to a lesser number of it-
erations (typically 2 or 3) for wavelength components
of the statics that are less than half the largest data
oset. A large number of iterations are required to han-
dle static variations that are greater than the maximum
oset.
After computing the individual static shifts asso-
ciated with each source and receiver location, these
shifts are passed on to the application phase, whereby
the shifts are applied to the pre-NMO-corrected gather
traces (Figure 3.3-13). In areas with extremely poor
signal-to-noise ratio or complicated near-surface varia-
tions, multiple passes of residual statics corrections may
be necessary. In other words, output from the rst pass
may be NMO-corrected, new picks estimated, decom-
posed, and applied, and so on.
The question remains as to whether equations (3-
25) are independent of each other. This is important,
for it tells whether the solution is unique or not. For
simplicity, consider the case of zero structure and zero
residual moveout. In that case, equations (3-25) take
the form
t
ij
= s
j
+ r
i
. (3 37a)
Consider only four unknowns: s
j
, where j = 1, 2, and
r
i
, where i = 1, 2, which yield four equations:
t
11
= s
1
+ r
1
t
12
= s
2
+ r
1
t
21
= s
1
+ r
2
t
22
= s
2
+ r
2
.
(3 37b)
However, from a close examination of equations (3-37b),
we note that
t
11
+ t
22
= t
12
+ t
21
. (3 38)
Therefore, one of the four equations (3-37b) is redun-
dant, leaving three independent equations for four un-
knowns.
This simple exercise shows that the statics solu-
tion obtained by solving equations (3-34) suers from
an uncertainty. In particular, the solution obtained by,
say, the Gauss-Seidel iteration, is nonunique. It is but
one of many possible solutions. In fact, the solution may
not even be physically reasonable. Because of the prob-
lem of fewer independent equations than unknowns, it
may be necessary to impose a constraint on the solution
from the traveltime decomposition (equation 3-25):
(a) A plausable constraint is that the dierence be-
tween shot and receiver statics be minimal (Gulu-
nay, 1985). It can be argued that this may not be
valid, as is the case with dynamite data in which
shots and receivers do not occupy the same physi-
cal locations.
(b) Other possible constraints can be in the form of
restrictions on the spatial variation of structure,
moveout, or statics terms themselves; all are used
in various practical implementations. For instance,
one may postulate a model equation for the resid-
ual statics problem, where the structure term has
been omitted. Then, you have to design your pick-
ing strategy accordingly, such that you do not ac-
cumulate the traveltimes as you go from one CMP
location to another. This may be preferable in ar-
eas with very low-relief structures.
(c) We may want to impose the surface-consistency
rule in a strict sense, and assign the same static
shift to a shot and receiver if they occupy nearly
the same physical location.
(d) We may also opt to set the residual moveout co-
ecient M to a constant across the line if we are
fairly condent of the velocity control. This then
gives us fewer parameters to estimate, thus mak-
ing the residual statics solution more likely to be
stable and physically plausable.
Residual Statics Estimation
by Stack-Power Maximization
Estimation of traveltime deviations from NMO-
corrected CMP gathers may fail with land data which
have low fold and poor signal-to-noise ratio. As a re-
sult, residual statics solution by traveltime decomposi-
tion can be erratic and unstable. A more robust alterna-
tive for surface-consistent estimates of shot and residual
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
static shifts is based on minimizing the dierence be-
tween modeled and actual traveltime deviations (equa-
tion 3-26) associated with a reection event on moveout-
corrected gathers. Specically, surface-consistent static
shifts also can be determined by maximizing the power
of stacked traces (Ronen and Claerbout, 1985).
The conceptual basis of the method of stack power
maximization is intuitively simple. Consider determin-
ing the residual static at a shot station. As in the case
of residual statics estimation by traveltime decomposi-
tion, this method also is applied to moveout-corrected
data.
(a) Apply a static shift to all the traces in the common-
shot gather associated with the station under con-
sideration.
(b) Stack over a time gate the CMP gathers that in-
clude traces from that shot gather.
(c) Compute the cumulative energy of the stacked
traces from step (b) by summing the squared am-
plitudes.
(d) Repeat steps (a), (b), and (c) for a range of static
shifts.
(e) Choose the static shift that yields the highest stack
power and assign it to the shot location under con-
sideration.
(f) Apply the shot residual static shift associated with
the highest stack power to all the traces in the shot
gather.
(g) Stack the CMP gathers that include traces from
this shot gather.
(h) Move to the next shot station and repeat steps (a)
through (g).
The process is then repeated for the receiver stations
using common-receiver gathers.
This formal recipe for stack-power maximization
is intensive both computationally and in terms of data
movement. A practical alternative involves creating two
supertraces one from the traces of the common-shot
or common-receiver gather under consideration, and a
second one from the traces of the stacked traces associ-
ated with the common-shot or common-receiver gather
(Ronen and Claerbout, 1985). A supertrace is created
by augmenting the individual segments of traces within
the specied time gate in a gather, one followed by the
other with a zone of zero-amplitude samples between
them. The subtlety of the method to keep in mind is
that the stack supertrace does not include the contri-
bution of the traces from the common-shot or common-
receiver gather.
Dene the shot and stack supertraces by the time
series F(t) and G(t), respectively. The stack power de-
ned as the power of the sum of these two traces over
the time gate t is
P(t) =
t
[F(t t) + G(t)]
2
, (3 39a)
where t is the trial static shift applied to the shot
supertrace F(t). By expanding the squared term, we
obtain
P(t)=
t
F
2
(tt)+
t
G
2
(t)+2
t
F(tt)G(t).
(3 39b)
The rst two terms are the powers of the two su-
pertraces that can be dened by a constant, and the
third term is the crosscorelation of the two supertraces.
Therefore, maximizing the stack power is equivalent to
maximizing the crosscorrelation (Ronen and Claerbout,
1985).
Now, consider, again, determining the residual
static at a shot station.
(a) Create the shot supertrace. To circumvent end ef-
fects in step (c), place zero-amplitude samples be-
tween the trace segments when creating the super-
traces.
(b) Create the stack supertrace.
(c) Crosscorrelate the two supertraces.
(d) Determine the correlation lag associated with the
peak crosscorrelation value this is the shot resid-
ual static shift.
(f) Apply the shot residual static shift associated with
the highest correlation value to all the traces in the
shot gather.
(g) Stack the CMP gathers that include traces from
this shot gather.
(h) Move to the next shot station and repeat steps (a)
through (g).
(i) Repeat steps (a) through (h) for all receiver sta-
tions.
Steps (a) through (i) usually are applied iteratively to
converge to a solution of shot and residual static shifts.
Traveltime Decomposition in Practice
As stated early in this section, residual statics esti-
mation by traveltime decomposition consists of three
stages: picking, decomposing, and applying residual
static shifts. The picking phase, in which traveltime de-
viations are derived from trace crosscorrelations, deter-
mines the eectiveness of residual statics corrections.
We now examine various parameters involved in the
picking phase.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-19. CMP-stacked section associated with a syn-
thetic data set. Shot and receiver statics were applied
on moveout-corrected gathers in a surface-consistent man-
ner, while the structure term was applied in a subsurface-
consistent manner. These terms are plotted above the
stacked section. Random noise was added to prestack data
with a spatially varying signal-to-noise ratio.
Maximum Allowable Shift
Consider the CMP-stacked section in Figure 3.3-19 as-
sociated with a synthetic data set. This data set was
created by using the eld geometry of a real seismic
line. The CMP traces were derived from the rst trace
of the rst CMP location from that real line. This trace
rst was zeroed out within selected time gates, then
treated with the shot and receiver static shifts in Fig-
ure 3.3-19 in a surface-consistent manner and with a
structure term that only depended on midpoint location
(subsurface-consistent). The shot and receiver static
shifts were varied from +32 to 32 ms. Finally, the syn-
thetic traces were blended with a band-limited random
noise, whose strength varied spatially. (The noise level
was set to zero at both ends of the prole and to max-
imum at the center.) The stacked section constructed
from data before treatment with synthetic shot and re-
ceiver static shifts is shown in Figure 3.3-20. Once resid-
ual statics corrections are made, the stacked section in
Figure 3.3-19 should resemble that in Figure 3.3-20.
FIG. 3.3-20. CMP-stacked section associated with the syn-
thetic data set as in Figure 3.3-19, but without synthetic
shot or receiver statics applied. Once residual statics correc-
tions are applied to the data set associated with the stacked
section in Figure 3.3-19, the resulting stacked section should
resemble the section shown here.
Note how degrading the eect of the synthetic shot and
receiver static shifts is on the continuity of reections
in Figure 3.3-19. The sole eect of random noise is seen
in Figure 3.3-20.
Consider three dierent tests of residual statics cor-
rections: one with a small maximum allowable shift (24
ms in Figure 3.3-21), one with a moderately sized shift
(80 ms in Figure 3.3-22), and one with a fairly large
shift (192 ms in Figure 3.3-23). All three tests had the
same input CMP gathers. All three were run using the
same set of parameters except for the maximum allow-
able shift.
The maximum value of combined shot and receiver
static shifts for any given trace implied by the model
in Figure 3.3-19 is 64 ms. When the maximum allow-
able shift is insucient (a value of less than 64 ms),
then the derived static shifts (Figure 3.3-21) are signif-
icantly smaller than the actual shifts (Figure 3.3-19).
Thus, stack quality, although signicantly improved
when compared to that in Figure 3.3-19, is far from
the quality of the section shown in Figure 3.3-20.
When the maximum allowable shift is sucient,
then the derived static shifts (Figure 3.3-22) are like the
actual shifts imposed on the input model shown on the
graph in Figure 3.3-19. Also, stacking quality (Figure
3.3-22) improved so that it now is comparable to the
no-static model (Figure 3.3-20).
Reasonable results (Figure 3.3-23) also were ob-
tained for the case allowing excessively large maximum
allowable shift, up to 192 ms. However, this result does
not imply that we can be liberal on the upper bound
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
thetic data set as in Figure 3.3-19 with residual statics cor-
rections. The derived shot, receiver, and structure terms are
plotted at the top. Compare these estimates with the actual
values in Figure 3.3-19. The maximum allowable shift is 24
ms. Also compare the resulting stacked section with that
shown in Figure 3.3-20.
of maximum shift in real data situations. In the pres-
ence of short-period multiple or reverberation energy,
or data with a narrow bandwidth or high noise level,
crosscorrelation can yield a multiple number of peaks
and cause uncertainty in the estimated time shifts (cy-
cle skipping). In this case, a large maximum allowable
shift could cause anomalously large time shifts to be
picked.
Based on the tests shown in Figures 3.3-21 through
3.3-23, the maximum allowable shift used in the picking
phase should be greater than all possible combined shot
and receiver static shifts at any given location along the
prole. On the other hand, jumping a leg in correlating
events from trace to trace in a CMP gather, commonly
known as cycle skip, especially in poor signal-to-noise
ratio conditions, also is more likely to occur if the maxi-
mum allowable shift is greater than the dominant period
of the data.
We may argue that the result of cascading a num-
ber of small-shift residual statics solutions is as good as
a single-step large-shift solution. This approach might
have the same eectiveness as the large-shift solution,
while avoiding the possibility of cycle skipping. Unfor-
tunately, cascading small-shift solutions does not work.
Starting with the CMP gathers associated with the
stack in Figure 3.3-19, we get the CMP gathers cor-
rected for shot and receiver statics based on a 24-ms
shift (rst pass). The stack is shown in Figure 3.3-21.
Using these gathers, a new statics solution was derived
and applied to the data (second pass). This process
was repeated for the third and fourth times. The re-
sult of this last iteration (Figure 3.3-24) does not have
the quality of the solution derived with the 80-ms shift
(Figure 3.3-22).
Now consider maximum allowable shift tests on the
eld data as in Figure 3.3-2. Figure 3.3-25 shows CMP
gathers from the problem zone of the prole in Figure
3.3-5. Refer to the panels for 24- and 40-ms shifts in
Figure 3.3-25, and note that an insucient maximum
allowable shift does not completely correct for all static
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
plotted at the top. This is the output from the four itera-
tive passes of the statics estimation and application. Com-
pare these estimates with the actual values in Figure 3.3-19.
First-pass results are shown in Figure 3.3-21. The maximum
allowable shift is 24 ms on each pass. Also compare the re-
sulting stacked section with that shown in Figure 3.3-20.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-25. Test of maximum allowable shift. CMP gathers after residual statics corrections using ve dierent maximum
allowable shifts. Figure 3.3-28 shows the CMP stacks.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-26. Diagnostics for maximum allowable shift tests (Figure 3.3-25) showing common-shot-point-stacked data.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-27. Diagnostics for maximum allowable shift tests (Figure 3.3-25) showing common-receiver-point-stacked data.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-28. Test of maximum allowable shift: CMP stacks after residual statics corrections using ve dierent maximum
allowable shifts. Figure 3.3-25 shows selected CMP gathers.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-29. Test of correlation window: CMP gathers after residual statics corrections using ve dierent correlation
windows. Figure 3.3-32 shows the CMP stacks.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-30. Diagnostics for correlation window tests (Figure 3.3-29) showing common-shot-point-stacked data.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-31. Diagnostics for correlation window tests (Figure 3.3-29) showing common-receiver-point-stacked data.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-32. Test of correlation window: CMP stacks after residual statics corrections using ve dierent correlation windows.
CMP gathers are shown in Figure 3.3-29.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-33. Test of correlation window: CMP gathers after residual statics corrections using ve dierent correlation
windows. CMP stacks are shown in Figure 3.3-36.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-34. Diagnostics for correlation window tests (Figure 3.3-33) showing common-shot-point-stacked data.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-35. Diagnostics for correlation window tests (Figure 3.3-33) showing common-receiver-point-stacked data.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-36. Test of correlation window: CMP stacks after residual statics corrections using ve dierent correlation windows.
CMP gathers are shown in Figure 3.3-33.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-37. Pilot traces (bottom) and shot and receiver statics solutions (top) for the 80-ms shift and the 400- to 1200-ms
window. CMP stack is shown in Figure 3.3-36.
shifts. Excessively large shifts, however, such as 120- or
160-ms, do not seem to harm this particular data set.
While common-shot-point (CSP) stacks (Figure 3.3-26)
indicate small shot-static shifts, common-receiver-point
(CRP) stacks (Figure 3.3-27) indicate a zone of signif-
icant receiver-static shifts. Again, small maximum al-
lowable shifts have not corrected completely for these
statics anomalies.
The ultimate judgment is made by examining the
stack response and plots of the estimated statics them-
selves. From Figure 3.3-28 (ungained stack responses),
it is clear that the maximum allowable shift must be
adequate to accommodate the combined shot and re-
ceiver statics present in the data at any location along
the prole.
Correlation Window
From the same eld data example (Figure 3.3-5), the
results of residual statics corrections (for the right half
of the stacked section) are examined by using dierent
correlation windows while keeping all other parameters
constant. The maximum allowable shift was 80 ms in
these tests. From Figure 3.3-29, note that a correlation
window conned to the mute zone (400 to 1200 ms)
is not desirable. It does not provide sucient statistics
because of the low fold of coverage and the shortness of
the data window available for crosscorrelation with the
pilot traces.
With high-fold data, the mute zone problem is han-
dled to a degree by limiting the correlation to small
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
thetic data set as in Figure 3.3-19. In addition to the surface-
consistent shot and receiver statics and the subsurface-
consistent structure term, residual moveout shifts were in-
troduced to the CMP gathers used in Figure 3.3-19.
osets. In this particular part of the prole, a large win-
dow including both the mute zone and deep data (800 to
2300 ms), a deep window (1700 to 2300 ms), a deep large
window (1400 to 2800 ms), or a deep narrow window
(1500 to 1700 ms) made no dierence. This is probably
because of the good signal-to-noise ratio in this part of
the prole.
These observations are veried by the diagnostics
based on the CSP and CRP stacks in Figures 3.3-30
and 3.3-31. Ungained stack responses are shown in Fig-
ure 3.3-32. In particular, note the relatively poor stack
response using a window conned to the mute zone (400
to 1200 ms).
The choice of the correlation window is more crit-
ical in conditions of poor signal-to-noise ratio. Refer to
the same diagnostics for the left half of the stacked sec-
tion in Figure 3.3-5. These diagnostics are shown in Fig-
ures 3.3-33 through 3.3-36. Again, a correlation window
conned to the mute zone not only provides an inade-
quate solution, as in the previous case (Figure 3.3-29),
but also can be devastating, as shown in Figure 3.3-33.
In this case, the CMP gathers with no corrections have
better signal quality. It now is apparent that a narrow
window, even if it is outside the mute zone (such as
thetic data set as in Figure 3.3-38 after the application of
residual statics corrections. Compare the results with those
in Figure 3.3-22.
the 1500 to 1700 ms window), may not provide su-
cient statistics. The CSP stacks (Figure 3.3-34) and the
CRP stacks (Figure 3.3-35) show the undesirable as-
pects of choosing a window within the mute zone or
choosing a window that is too narrow. The ungained
stacked sections (Figure 3.3-36) clearly demonstrate the
adverse eects of an improper choice of correlation win-
dow. Moreover, note the poor quality pilot traces for
each CMP gather in Figure 3.3-37 (to the left of mid-
point 377). The shot and receiver static solutions shown
in the graphs above the pilot traces are totally unreli-
able.
These test results suggest choosing a correlation
window that (a) contains as much signal as possible to
improve correlation values, and (b) is large enough and
is outside the mute zone whenever possible.
Other Considerations
The synthetic data set in Figure 3.3-38 is the same
as that in Figure 3.3-19, with the addition of residual
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-40. First portion of a land line illustrating the improvement in CMP stacking as a result of residual statics
corrections. Stack A (a) before residual statics corrections and using preliminary velocity picks and (b) after two passes of
residual statics corrections and using nal velocity picks.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-41. Second portion of the land line shown in Figure 3.3-40 illustrating the improvement in CMP stacking as a
result of residual statics corrections. Stack B (a) before residual statics corrections and using preliminary velocity picks and
(b) after two passes of residual statics corrections and using nal velocity picks.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-42. Diagnostics for segment A from the residual
statics corrections applied on the rst portion of the land
line in Figure 3.3-40.
moveout shifts. Residual moveout was introduced into
the data by inverse NMO correcting the CMP gath-
ers associated with the stack in Figure 3.3-19 using a
velocity function v
1
(t), then by NMO correcting using
a velocity function v
2
(t) = v
1
(t). The solution (Figure
3.3-39) implies some traveltime distortion at the edges
of the stacked section caused by low fold of coverage.
(Compare this with the solution in Figure 3.3-22). Oth-
erwise, stack response seems to be satisfactory. As long
as the residual moveout variations are not large within
the correlation window, the computed residual statics
solution should be adequate. Use of more than one small
correlation window during the picking phase may help
minimize the time-dependent eect of residual moveout.
In some areas, the signal-to-noise ratio is so poor
that a second pass of residual statics corrections must
be done. The idea is that the rst pass of residual statics
corrections improves the signal to such a degree that a
second pass should remove the residuals remaining from
the rst pass. For the second pass, the steps in Figure
3.3-12 must be repeated, such that the input are CMP
gathers that already were corrected for residual stat-
ics. Velocity estimates must be revised between passes.
Figures 3.3-40 and 3.3-41 show two dierent segments
of a section before and after residual statics corrections
that were done in two passes. Diagnostic plots of the
shot and receiver statics shown in Figures 3.3-42 and
3.3-43 indicate that the rst pass has taken out a sig-
nicant part of the static shifts in the rst segment. On
FIG. 3.3-43. Diagnostics for segment B from the residual
statics corrections applied on the second portion of the land
prole in Figure 3.3-41.
the other hand, the second pass was most eective in
the second segment, where the signal-to-noise ratio is
relatively poorer. Repeated estimation and application
of the residual statics and velocity estimation is com-
mon in some processing systems. Use of a large number
of trace correlations and multiple correlation peaks in a
statics program tends to minimize the number of passes
required.
Stack-Power Maximization in Practice
The method of stack-power maximization can yield bet-
ter stack compared to the method of traveltime decom-
position in areas with poor signal-to-noise ratio. Figure
3.3-44 shows a CMP-stacked section along a land pro-
le with eld statics corrections applied (Figure 3.3-45).
While the left-half of the section has a good signal-to-
noise ratio, the right-half has a poor signal-to-noise ra-
tio resulting from irregular topography and near-surface
complexity (Figure 3.3-45). Note, for instance, the loss
of continuity along the reection events at 0.8 and 1.3
s at the right-half of the section.
Selected CMP gathers shown in Figure 3.3-46 ver-
ify the presence of short-wavelength statics. Following
residual statics corrections by stack-power maximiza-
tion and the subsequent velocity analysis, the same
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-45. The elevation prole (top), and the shot (middle) and receiver (bottom) eld statics proles for the stacked
section shown in Figure 3.3-44.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.3-48. Shot (top) and receiver (bottom) residual static shifts computed by stack-power maximization. The resulting
CMP-stacked section is shown in Figure 3.3-47.
gathers indicate that short-wavelength statics have been
largely resolved (Figure 3.3-46), and thus, the result-
ing CMP stack shows signicant improvement in the
continuity of reections in the right-hand side (Figure
3.3-47). The shot and receiver residual static shifts de-
rived by using the supertrace scheme described above
are shown in Figure 3.3-48. Note that mainly large resid-
uals are in the right-half of the prole with irregular
topography.
3.4 REFRACTION STATICS CORRECTIONS
An important question in estimating shot and receiver
statics is accuracy of the results as a function of wave-
lengths of static anomalies. Figure 3.4-1 is a synthetic
data set that is identical to that in Figure 3.3-19, ex-
cept for additional long-wavelength shot and receiver
static components. (Compare the graphic displays in
Figures 3.3-19 and 3.4-1.) From the solution in Figure
3.4-2, note that the long-wavelength components of the
statics were severely underestimated. A signicant dif-
ference between the stacked sections, in terms of horizon
times, is apparent in Figures 3.3-22 and 3.4-2.
The surface-consistent solution discussed in Sec-
tion 3.3 resolves the short-wavelength static shifts (less
than a spread length), which cause traveltime distor-
tions in CMP gathers, and thus yield an improved stack
response. However, merely improving the stack response
by correcting for short-wavelength statics may not
always be sucient. The unresolved long-wavelength
components are assigned to the structure term in equa-
tion (3-25). If the long-wavelength components are
large, reector geometries inferred by the CMP stack
can be distorted signicantly. Field statics and refrac-
tion statics methods are used to correct for the long-
wavelength components.
The statics corrections require knowledge of the
near-surface model. The near-surface often consists of
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
thetic data set as in Figure 3.3-19 contaminated with long-
period statics.
a low-velocity weathering layer. However, there are ex-
ceptions to this simplied model for the near-surface.
Areas covered with glacial tills, volcanic stringers, and
sand dunes often have a near-surface that may consist
of more than one layer with dierent velocities. Layer
boundaries can vary signicantly from a at interface to
an arbitrarily irregular shape. The single-layer assump-
tion for the near-surface also is violated when there is a
lateral change in rock composition associated with out-
crops, pinchouts or a ood plain along a seismic prole.
In areas covered with a permafrost layer, which has a
signicantly higher velocity than the underlying layer,
the surface-consistency assumption for the near-surface
corrections is not valid. Moreover, the base of the per-
mafrost layer does not form a head wave and therefore
is not detectable.
In practice, a single-layer near-surface model often
is sucient for resolving long-wavelength statics anoma-
lies. Complexities in a single-layer near-surface model
can be due to one or more of the following:
(a) Rapid variations in shot and receiver station eleva-
tions,
(b) Lateral variations in weathering velocity, and
thetic data set as in Figure 3.4-1 after the application of
residual statics corrections. Compare the results with those
in Figure 3.3-22.
(c) Lateral variations in the geometry of the refractor,
which, for refraction statics, is dened as the inter-
face between the weathering layer above and the
bedrock below.
Near-surface velocity-depth models often are esti-
mated using refracted arrivals. The refracted energy is
associated with the head wave that travels along the in-
terface between the near-surface weathering layer and
the underlying bedrock. If refracted arrivals are observ-
able on common-shot gathers, it almost certainly im-
plies that the near-surface has a simple geometry. Nev-
ertheless, no ray-theoretical method can claim to esti-
mate short-wavelength variations in the base of weath-
ering that are much smaller than a cable length. These
variations are left to be handled by subsequent resid-
ual statics corrections using traveltime distortions asso-
ciated with reections on moveout-corrected common-
midpoint (CMP) gathers (Taner et al., 1974).
The head wave is distorted in the presence of ir-
regularities along the base of the weathering layer, and
it turns into a diving wave when there is no sharp ve-
locity contrast between the weathering layer and the
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-3. A shot record with distinct rst breaks.
FIG. 3.4-4. A shot record with a distinct refraction event.
FIG. 3.4-5. A shot record with a shallow and deep refrac-
tion event.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-6. A shot record with noise-contaminated rst
breaks.
FIG. 3.4-7. A shot record with a distinct refraction event
along the right-hand spread.
FIG. 3.4-8. A vibroseis shot record with not-so-distinct
rst breaks.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-9. A shot record in which the onset of the rst
arrivals is not clear.
substratum (Hill and Wuenschel, 1985). Such cases, if at
all possible, may be handled by wave-theoretical mod-
eling and inversion (Hill, 1987) or turning-wave tomog-
raphy (Section 9.5).
First Breaks
The refracted energy associated with the base of the
weathering layer often constitutes the rst arrivals on a
shot gather. The onset of these rst arrivals is referred
to as the rst break.
First breaks occur in varying degrees of quality
depending on the source type and the near-surface con-
ditions. The common-shot gather shown in Figure 3.4-3
has rst breaks with clear onset. Deviations from the
linear trend of the rst-break times may largely be at-
tributed to elevation dierences along the shot prole.
FIG. 3.4-10. A near-surface model for statics corrections
when shots are situated below the weathering layer. Here, S
= shot, E
S
= elevation at the shot station on the ground,
R = receiver, E
R
= elevation at the receiver station on the
ground, T = surface topography,B = base of weathering, D
= datum, E
D
= datum elevation, v
w
= weathering velocity,
and v
b
= bedrock velocity.
Figure 3.4-4 shows a record with rst breaks associ-
ated with a prominent refractor. In Figure 3.4-5, note a
shallow and a deep refractor. Figure 3.4-6 shows a shot
record in which automated procedures would largely fail
to pick the rst breaks. Figure 3.4-7 shows a shot record
with rst breaks that can be detected easily by auto-
mated procedures. From the rst breaks on the left, one
can infer near-surface irregularity either in the form
of a variable refractor shape or velocity variations in
the near-surface layer. The right-hand side shows the
presence of a distinct refractor. Figure 3.4-8 shows a
shot gather recorded with a vibroseis source, which of-
ten produces poor rst breaks compared to a dynamite
source. A similar situation exists in the record shown in
Figure 3.4-9 it is not simple to detect the rst breaks.
The remainder of the sidelobes from sweep correlation
masks the onset of the rst arrivals.
First-break picking can be done automatically, in-
teractively, manually, or as a combination thereof. To
make reliable picks, rst apply linear moveout (LMO)
to the data. Once picking is done, the LMO correction is
reversed. Note that eectiveness of both reection- and
refraction-based methods of statics corrections depends
on the reliability of the picking process. Apart from the
signal-to-noise ratio, indistinct rst breaks (such as in
vibroseis) sometimes can make picking consistent rst
breaks dicult.
The rst-break picks associated with the refracted
arrival times are then used in an inversion scheme to
estimate the near-surface model parameters. In this sec-
tion, we discuss ray-theoretical methods such as plus-
minus and its generalized form, the reciprocal method,
and the least-squares inversion methods. The basic as-
sumption made is that the refractor is at or nearly
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
at, with a smoothly varying shape along the seis-
mic prole. As demonstrated by the eld data ex-
amples, these methods appear to remove medium- to
long-wavelength statics anomalies associated with var-
ious types of near-surface models. Combined with the
reection-based residual statics corrections to resolve
any remaining short-wavelength statics variations that
aect the stack quality, we get a nal stacked section
ready for poststack processing.
Field Statics Corrections
It is appropriate now to review various methods of eld
statics corrections. Consider the near-surface model de-
picted in Figure 3.4-10. If shots (denoted by S) are lo-
cated below the weathering layer, then the total static
correction to apply to the trace associated with mid-
point M is t
D
= t
S
+t
R
, where t
S
and t
R
are the shot
and receiver static corrections, respectively, down to a
specied datum D. From the geometry of Figure 3.4-10,
the eld statics correction
D
can be computed by
D
=
E
S
E
D
D
S
v
b
E
R
E
D
D
R
v
b
t
UH
,
(3 40)
where E
D
is the datum elevation and E
S
and E
R
are the
surface elevations at the shot and receiver stations, re-
spectively, D
S
is the depth of the shot hole beneath the
shot station, and D
R
is the depth of the shot hole near
the receiver station, t
UH
is the uphole time measured
at the receiver location (the time associated with the
distance D
R
in Figure 3.4-3). Finally, v
b
is the bedrock
(subweathering) velocity that may be derived from a
deep uphole survey (to a point well below the weather-
ing layer) conducted in the area.
An uphole survey involves placing shots down the
hole at various depth levels, then recording the arrivals
at the surface near the hole. Alternatively, shots and
receivers can be reciprocated if there is a caving prob-
lem down the hole. The hole must be deep enough to
reach below the weathering layer. This provides a plot
of time versus depth from which the bedrock velocity is
obtained.
In land surveys, shots are not always placed in the
bedrock for economic reasons, especially in areas with a
thick weathering layer. Also, impulsive sources are not
always used. Instead, surface sources such as vibroseis
often are used. When surface sources or sources in shal-
low holes are used, the refracted arrivals can, at least in
theory, be used to compute the static correction
D
down to a specied datum.
Flat Refractor
Consider the refraction wavefront and raypath geome-
try in Figure 3.4-11a associated with a single-layer near-
surface model. On top, we see a plot of rst-breaks. For
simplicity, consider a at surface and at refractor. For
the head wave to form, and thus the refraction to occur,
the requirement is that the overburden velocity v
w
be
smaller than the substratum velocity v
b
.
The traveltime prole depicts the rst breaks seen
on the shot record in Figure 3.4-11b. Note that to the
left of the crossover oset x
c
(also known as critical dis-
tance) are the rst breaks associated with the the direct
arrivals. Also note that to the right of oset x
c
are the
rst breaks associated with the refracted arrivals. From
the refraction theory (Dobrin, 1960; Grant and West,
1965), the inverse of the slope of the line associated
with the refracted wave arrivals is equal to the bedrock
velocity v
b
. Also note that the inverse of the slope of the
line associated with the direct wave arrivals is equal to
the velocity of the weathering layer v
w
.
By picking the rst breaks, the weathering and
bedrock velocities, v
w
and v
b
are estimated. By extend-
ing the line associated with the refracted arrivals to
zero-oset, intercept time t
i
, the time at x = 0, is esti-
mated. From these three parameters, it is easy to show
that depth to the bedrock z
w
is given by
z
w
=
v
b
v
w
t
i
2
v
2
b
v
2
w
. (3 41a)
We assume that v
b
> v
w
. Derivation of this formula is
left to Section C.5.
Alternatively, we can measure the critical distance
corresponding to the change from the direct arrival to
the refracted arrival on the traveltime plot and use it in
computing the depth to the bedrock. Equation (3-41a),
in terms of the critical distance x
c
, takes the form
z
w
=
1
2
v
b
v
w
v
b
+v
w
x
c
. (3 41b)
It may not be easy to measure the critical distance
when depth to bedrock is small. In such cases, it is bet-
ter to use the intercept time to compute the depth to
the bedrock by way of equation (3-41a).
After computing z
w
, the total static correction
D
to the specied datum level can be applied by
D
=
2z
w
v
w
+
2(E
D
E
S
+z
w
)
v
b
, (3 42)
where E
S
is the surface elevation. If there is a dierence
between the elevations of shot and receiver stations,
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-11. (a) Geometry for refracted arrivals. Here, v
w
= weathering velocity, v
b
= bedrock velocity, z
w
= depth to the
refractor equivalent to the base of the weathering layer,
c
= critical angle, and x
c
= crossover distance. The direct wave
arrival has a slope equal to 1/v
w
and the refracted wave arrival has a slope equal to 1/v
b
. (b) A shot record that exhibits
the direct wave and the refracted wave depicted in (a). (c) Geometry for a dipping refractor with forward traveltime prole
associated with the direct wave and refracted wave arrivals, and (d) with both forward and reverse traveltime proles. See
text for details.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
then an additional elevation correction using the
bedrock velocity is required. Moreover, if the shots are
located in boreholes, then the measured uphole time
also must be incorporated into equation (3-42). The es-
timated statics correction given by equation (3-42) is an
average value over a distance that can range from the
critical distance to the spread length, depending on the
number of traces used in estimating the bedrock veloc-
ity. Nevertheless, more than one shot-point is within a
spread length. Therefore, an adequate denition of the
near-surface model can be achieved and datum correc-
tions can be computed for the entire prole.
Dipping Refractor
When the refractor is dipping, it turns out that the in-
verse slope of the refracted arrival is no longer equal to
the bedrock velocity (Figure 3.4-11c). An extra param-
eter the dip of the refractor, needs to be estimated
(Section C.6). This requires reverse proling as illus-
trated in Figure 3.4-11d. We have the refracted arrival
in the forward direction and the refracted arrival in the
reverse direction obtained by interchanging the shots
with receivers. The traveltimes for the refracted arrivals
of the forward and reverse proles are expressed as
t
= t
i
+
x
v
b
(3 43a)
and
t
+
= t
+
i
+
x
v
+
b
. (3 43b)
The inverse slopes are given by
v
b
=
v
w
sin (
c
+)
(3 44a)
and
v
+
b
=
v
w
sin (
c
)
, (3 44b)
where is the refractor dip and
c
is the critical angle
of refraction given by
sin
c
=
v
w
v
b
. (3 44c)
Finally, the intercept times are given by the follow-
ing relations:
t
i
=
2z
wS
cos
c
cos
v
w
(3 45a)
and
t
+
i
=
2z
wR
cos
c
cos
v
w
. (3 45b)
Derivation of the relations (3-44a,b) and (3-45a,b) are
left to Section C.6.
To estimate the thickness of the near-surface layer,
rst we compute the refractor dip from the slope mea-
surements v
w
, v
b
, and v
+
b
. These measurements are
then inserted into the expression
=
1
2
sin
1
v
w
v
b
sin
1
v
w
v
+
b
. (3 46a)
Then, we compute the bedrock velocity v
b
using the
expression
v
b
=
2 cos
1
v
b
+
1
v
+
b
. (3 46b)
Finally, we compute the depth to the bedrock at
shot/receiver stations
z
w
=
v
b
v
w
t
i
2 cos
v
2
b
v
2
w
. (3 46c)
Again, equations (3-46a,b,c) are derived in Section C.6.
By setting the refractor dip = 0, equation (3-46c)
reduces to equation (3-41a).
Keep in mind that, whether it is the at refractor
(equation 3-41a) or dipping refractor case (equation 3-
46c), the depth to bedrock estimation at a shot-receiver
station requires the knowledge of weathering velocity,
bedrock velocity and intercept time. In the case of a
at refractor, these can be measured directly from shot
proles; whereas, in the case of a dipping refractor, they
can be computed by way of equations (3-46a,b,c).
The Plus-Minus Method
It often is dicult to use rst breaks to estimate the in-
tercept time and velocities for the weathering layer and
bedrock. This is primarily because the base of weath-
ering typically is an undulating surface, which makes
traveltime plots dicult to interpret. Traveltime plots
also are aected by severe elevation changes. Addition-
ally, a typical eld cable layout does not provide a suf-
cient number of channels inside the crossover distance
x
c
(Figure 3.4-11a) for a reliable estimate of the weath-
ering velocity or thickness. In most cases, v
w
cannot be
measured and a reasonable value is assumed for it.
Hagedoorn (1959) formulated a method to indi-
rectly estimate intercept time and bedrock velocity. The
method still requires picking the rst breaks. However,
it does not require interpreting the traveltime prole
(Figure 3.4-11a). (Interpretation means drawing the lin-
ear segments for the direct and refracted waves.) Fig-
ure 3.4-12a shows three raypaths associated with shot-
receiver pairs AD, DG, and AG. The basis of Hage-
doorns method involves computing two time values, the
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-12. (a) Geometry for the plus-minus method. (b) Geometry for the generalized reciprocal method. Here, z
w
is the
depth to the refractor at the surface station where the plus-minus times as for (a) and intercept times as for (b) are to be
estimated, v
w
is the weathering velocity, and
c
is the critical angle of refraction.
plus and minus times given by
t
+
= t
ABCD
+t
DEFG
t
ABFG
(3 47a)
and
t
= t
ABCD
t
DEFG
+t
ABFG
. (3 47b)
The times given on the right side of these equations are
the measured (picked) values from the rst breaks for
the three raypaths shown in Figure 3.4-12a. From the
raypath conguration, we nd that (Section C.7)
t
+
=
2z
w
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
. (3 48a)
Rewrite equation (3-41a)
t
i
=
2z
w
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
, (3 48b)
and note that the plus time t
+
in equation (3-48a) is
identical to the intercept time t
i
in equation (3-48b).
Hence, instead of measuring t
i
directly from the shot
record, Hagedoorns method suggests estimating t
i
from
the rst break picks given by the right-hand terms in
equation (3-47a).
By applying algebra (Section C.7), we nd that
minus time t
is related to bedrock velocity v

b
by
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
t
= t
+
+
2x
v
b
, (3 48c)
where x is the source-receiver separation AD.
Thus, Hagedoorns plus-minus method involves:
(a) Picking the rst breaks,
(b) Computing the plus-minus times, t
and t
+
(equa-
tions 3-47a and 3-47b),
(c) Deriving from the plus-minus times the intercept
time t
i
(equations 3-48a and 3-48b) and bedrock
velocity v
b
(equation 3-48c),
(d) Assuming a value for weathering velocity v
w
,
(e) Computing the depth z
D
to bedrock below station
D (Figure 3.4-12a) from equation (3-41a), and
(f) Computing the shot-receiver static shift
D
at
that station by
D
=
z
D
v
w
+
E
D
E
S
+z
D
v
b
, (3 49)
where E
S
and E
D
are the surface and datum elevations
at station D (Figure 3.4-12a). If there is a shot at sta-
tion D,
D
represents the shot static, and if there is
a receiver at station D, it represents the receiver static.
Again, uphole and elevation corrections are needed be-
fore making the plus-minus statics corrections.
The Generalized Reciprocal Method
In practice, raypaths that are suitable for rst-break
picking and are coincident at station D are not always
found. Palmer (1981) generalized Hagedoorns method
of using raypaths (Figure 3.4-12b). Palmers technique,
the generalized reciprocal method (GRM), takes into ac-
count oset separation D
1
D
2
when computing the plus
time
t
+
= t
ABCD
2
+t
D
1
EFG
t
ABFG
D
1
D
2
v
b
. (3 50a)
The denition of the minus time remains the same as in
equation (3-47b), except for accounting for the raypath
geometry in Figure (3.4-12b):
t
= t
ABCD
2
t
D
1
EFG
+t
ABFG
. (3 50b)
Note that more than one combination of raypaths
associated with dierent separations of D
1
D
2
can be
used to measure (pick) the traveltimes on the right sides
of equations (3-50a,b). Consequently, there is more than
one estimate of the plus-minus times at a given (shot-
receiver) station D. By carefully editing the rst breaks,
these estimates can be rened and reduced to a single
estimate for each station.
To derive the near-surface model, the generalized
reciprocal method uses the observed traveltimes from
refracted arrivals that are assumed to be associated with
the base of weathering. A problem arises when a near-
surface model with more than one layer needs to be de-
ned. This is the case in areas covered with glacial tills
and sand dunes. Several specialized techniques based
on generalized linear inversion (GLI) have been devised
for these problems (Hampson and Russell, 1984; Schnei-
der and Kuo, 1985). The GLI technique is an iterative,
model-based approach that provides exibility in den-
ing a near-surface model consisting of arbitrarily pa-
rameterized multilayers. The process begins by comput-
ing the refracted arrival times from an assumed initial
near-surface model. These computed traveltimes then
are compared with the actual rst-break picks (observed
traveltimes). The procedure tries to minimize the dier-
ence between the computed and observed traveltimes by
iteratively modifying model parameters for the near sur-
face (such as velocities and thicknesses). A GLI method
applicable to a single-layer near-surface model is pre-
sented next.
The Least-Squares Method
We want to estimate the near-surface parameters
weathering and bedrock velocities and thickness of the
weathering layer at shot-receiver locations by least-
squares inversion of the observed (picked) refracted
arrivals. Formulation of this problem using the least-
squares inversion leads to an estimate of the near-
surface parameters such that the dierence between the
observed arrivals and the modeled refracted arrivals is
minimum in the least-squares sense. This method is not
only applicable to 2-D line shooting but also to 3-D
swath shooting geometries.
There are several ways to parameterize the near-
surface layer. The most general formulation would in-
clude varying weathering and bedrock velocities and the
thickness of the weathering layer at all shot-receiver
stations. This, however, would require linearizing the
problem and iterating over the estimated parameters.
The problem also would have to be constrained to sta-
bilize the inversion. In a simplied version of this gen-
eral formulation, weathering velocity may be xed and
assumed to be known. This leaves the weathering thick-
ness and bedrock velocity as spatially varying parame-
ters.
As for any inversion problem, we shall need a model
equation that relates the model parameters we want to
estimate to the modeled refracted arrival times. Refer to
the sketch of a near-surface model in Figure 3.4-13. If we
let the weathering thickness vary as might be the case
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
in many eld data applications, then we have a problem
of not being able to write down an analytic expression
for the refracted raypath. We would not even begin to
anticipate how the head wave would behave or develop
in case of a laterally varying refractor geometry.
Instead, to be able to make use of the rst-break
picks, we shall take a simpler approach. We want to de-
scribe the near-surface with minimal parameterization
and consider the model with a at refractor. Now, we
can express the modeled traveltime t
ij
for the critically
refracted raypath from the source location S
j
to the
receiver location R
i
(Figure 3.4-13) as
t
ij
=
S
j
B
v
w
+
DE DB CE
v
b
+
CR
i
v
w
. (3 51a)
Keep in mind that we had to make the same as-
sumption that the refractor is at or nearly-at
within the spread length, as in the generalized recip-
rocal method. The rst and the third terms in equa-
tion (3-51a) are associated with the raypaths within
the weathering layer, and the second term is associated
with the raypath within the bedrock along the refrac-
tor. When the refractor dip is taken into account, the
problem cannot be readily linearized.
By regrouping the terms in equation (3-51a), we
get the expression
t
ij
=
S
j
B
v
w
DB
v
b
CR
i
v
w
CE
v
b
+
DE
v
b
.
(3 51b)
Finally, rewriting in terms of the model parameters that
we want to estimate v
w
, v
b
, and z
w
, we obtain the
expression for the model equation for the refracted ar-
rivals:
t
ij
=
z
j
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
+
z
i
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
+
x
ij
v
b
. (3 51c)
In addition to assuming a at refractor, we x the
bedrock velocity v
b
but retain it as a parameter to be
estimated. We also assume that v
w
is known. Under
these assumptions, the model equation (3-51c) for the
refracted arrivals can be written in the form (Farrell
and Euwema, 1984)
t
ij
= T
j
+T
i
+s
b
x
ij
, (3 52)
where s
b
= 1/v
b
is the bedrock slowness, and
T
j
=
z
j
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
, (3 53a)
T
i
=
z
i
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
. (3 53b)
By comparing equations (3-53a,b) with equation
(3-48b), note that T
j
and T
i
actually are (half) intercept
FIG. 3.4-13. Geometry of refracted arrival used in deriv-
ing the least-squares solution for intercept times. Here, S
j
and R
i
are source and receiver stations, respectively;
c
is
the critical angle of refraction, z
j
and z
i
are depths to the
bedrock at source and receiver locations, and v
w
and v
b
are
weathering and bedrock velocities, respectively.
time values at the shot and receiver locations. Hence, for
n shot-receiver stations, the parameter vector contains
(T
1
, T
2
, . . . , T
n
; s
b
).
Equation (3-52), which models refracted arrivals,
is solved for the parameter vector in the same manner
using the generalized linear inversion (GLI) theory (Sec-
tion C.8) as for equation (3-25), which models travel-
time deviations associated with residual statics (Section
C.4). The generalized linear inversion solution is based
on the objective of minimizing the least-squares dier-
ence between the observed refracted arrival times t
ij
and the modeled times t
ij
dened by equation (3-52).
Alternatively, the refraction statics solution can be ob-
tained by using the minimization criterion that is based
on the L
1
norm (Section C.10).
An extension of equation (3-52) to represent the re-
fraction statics associated with each shot and receiver
location in two parts long- and short-wavelength
components, is proposed by Taner et al. (1998). This
is done by including two more terms in equation (3-
52) to represent the shot and receiver short-wavelength
variations in refraction statics caused by rapid changes
in elevation and near-surface layer geometry. The con-
jecture for such an extension is to stabilize the long-
wavelength solution derived from equation (3-52). Al-
beit the extension includes short-wavelength terms for
shots and receivers, you still would need to estimate
residual statics and apply them to your data (equation
3-25).
Equation (3-52) describes a variable-thickness
scheme since the weathering velocity is assumed to be
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
constant. Note that the traveltime model equation (3-
52) suers from uncertainty in the value for the weath-
ering layer velocity, as was the case for the generalized
reciprocal method. The estimated refractor shape using
the variable-thickness scheme (whether it is based on
the the generalized reciprocal or least-squares method)
does not yield the true refractor shape. Instead, the un-
certainty in weathering velocity signicantly inuences
the implied refractor shape. Perhaps, uphole informa-
tion can be used to calibrate the estimated thicknesses
and thus an acceptable weathering velocity can be cho-
sen accordingly.
Once the parameter vector is estimated, then the
thickness of the weathering layer below shot and re-
ceiver locations can be computed using the expressions
for the intercept time values (equations 3-53a,b).
Because equation (3-52) does not contain a struc-
ture term, any long-wavelength static anomaly is par-
titioned between the other terms. This is not the case
for the reection-based residual statics model that is
based on equation (3-25). Thus, following the eld stat-
ics corrections (to account for elevation changes), statics
corrections are estimated and applied in two stages:
(a) Refraction-based statics corrections to remove
long-wavelength anomalies, and
(b) Reection-based residual statics corrections to re-
move any remaining short-wavelength static shifts.
Both the generalized reciprocal and least-squares
methods are based on computing intercept time anoma-
lies at shot-receiver stations. The generalized recipro-
cal method yields multi-valued intercept times for each
shot-receiver station, which need to be reduced to a
single-valued intercept time prole along the line be-
fore computing the shot-receiver statics. On the other
hand, the least-squares method yields a unique inter-
cept time value for each shot-receiver station based on
the least-squares minimization.
The generalized reciprocal method requires a spe-
cial combination of raypaths associated with the trav-
eltime picks that correspond to the terms in equations
(3-50a,b) in estimating intercept times. These raypaths
are not always attainable by 3-D swath shooting, and
therefore, the generalized reciprocal method is most
suitable for 2-D seismic proles. On the other hand,
the least-squares method yields intercept times for ar-
bitrary shot-receiver locations associated with 2-D or
3-D recording geometries. The important point to keep
in mind, however, is that neither method yields the true
physical parameters for the near-surface the variable-
thickness solution depends on the assumed value for the
weathering velocity. However, with extra information
such as from upholes, these solutions may be calibrated.
Processing Sequence for Statics Corrections
It is important that we revisit the processing sequence
in Figure 3.3-12 and the near-surface model depicted
in Figure 3.4-10 for a rigorous description of moveout
and statics corrections. Starting with unprocessed eld
records, a detailed version of the processing sequence in
Figure 3.3-12 is described below:
(a) Pick and edit rst breaks from unprocessed eld
records.
(b) Assume or derive from uphole information a value
for weathering velocity.
(c) For a downhole source, apply the uphole correction.
(d) Compute the bedrock velocity and intercept times
at all shot and receiver stations using a refraction
statics method, such as the generalized reciprocal
or the least-squares technique.
(e) By using the weathering velocity, bedrock velocity
and intercept times, compute the depth to bedrock
at shot-receiver stations (equations 3-53a,b).
(f) Apply the shot and receiver statics to replace the
weathering layer with the bedrock while placing
the shot and receivers on a oating datum that
corresponds to a smoothed form of the topographic
surface. The static time shift
ij
to apply for a
given source-receiver pair is (Figure 3.4-10)
ij
= (z
j
+z
i
)
1
v
b
1
v
w
1
v
b
E
Tj
E
FDj
+E
Ti
E
FDi
,
(3 54a)
where z
j
and z
i
are the thickness of the weathering
layer at shot and receiver stations, E
Tj
and E
Ti
are the true shot and receiver elevations referenced
to the topography, and E
FDj
and E
FDi
are the
shot and receiver elevations referenced to the oat-
ing datum, respectively. The reason for moving the
shots and receivers to a oating datum close to the
surface topography, rather than to a at datum, is
to be able to preserve the hyperbolicity of reec-
tion times while placing the shot and receiver pairs
associated with a CMP gather over the local datum
level that is nearly at within the spread length.
(g) Apply geometric spreading correction and decon-
volution to shot records and sort to CMP gathers.
(h) Perform preliminary velocity analysis and apply
moveout corrections.
(i) Apply datum corrections to move the shots and
receivers from the oating datum as specied in
step (f) to a at datumE
D
to which the CMP stack
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
is referenced. Refer to Figure 3.4-10 and note that
the datum correction
ij
for a source-receiver pair
is given by
ij
=
2E
D
(E
FDj
+E
FDi
)
v
b
, (3 54b)
where E
FDj
and E
FDi
are the shot and receiver
elevations with respect to the oating datum spec-
ied in step (f).
(j) Estimate surface-consistent shot and residual static
shifts using methods described in Section 3.3.
(k) Apply residual statics corrections to CMP gathers
from step (i).
(l) Apply the inverse of step (i) to move the shots and
receivers from the at reference datum back to the
oating datum.
(m) Apply inverse moveout correction using velocities
from step (h).
(n) Perform velocity analysis and apply moveout cor-
rection.
(o) Apply datum corrections to move the shots and
receivers from the oating datum to the reference
at datum as in step (i).
(p) Apply mute and stack the data. The stacked sec-
tion is referenced to the at datum level E
D
spec-
ied in step (i).
Model Experiments
We shall analyze the problem of near-surface model
estimation using two sets of synthetic data. The
near-surface model for the rst data set comprises
a single layer with an undulating refractor and a
at topography. The near-surface model for the sec-
ond data set comprises multiple layers below an ir-
regular topography. We shall examine the extent of
resolving the long- and short-wavelength anomalies
by way of the refraction and residual statics cor-
rection methods described in Sections 3.3 and 3.4.
Figure 3.4-14a shows an earth model that com-
prises a simple subsurface velocity-depth model and
a near-surface model that comprises a single layer
with an undulating refractor but at surface topog-
raphy. The refractor geometry has wavelength vari-
ations that range from short wavelengths that are
less than a cable length to long wavelengths greater
than a cable length. The weathering velocity is
1200 m/s and the refractor velocity is 2000 m/s.
Figure 3.4-14b shows the zero-oset section derived
from the earth model in Figure 3.4-14a. Note the travel-
time distortions associated with the at reectors. Also,
in this section we see the multiples from the refrac-
tor and the peglegs from reector 1. The zero-oset
section is appropriately aligned with respect to the
velocity-depth model in the lateral direction. The objec-
tive in this model experiment is, following the applica-
tion of refraction and residual statics corrections, to ob-
tain a stack response similar to this zero-oset section.
A two-way acoustic wave equation was used to
model a total of 154 shot records along the line. Both
shot and receiver group intervals are 50 m, and the num-
ber of channels is 97, including the zero-oset trace. The
split-spread recording geometry has a maximum oset
of 2350 m. Selected shot records shown in Figure 3.4-15
from the synthetic data set associated with the earth
model exhibit traveltime distortions on the reection
events caused by the undulating refractor. Note also the
distinct refracted arrivals and the ground-roll energy.
Figure 3.4-16a shows the CMP-stacked section with
no statics corrections. Compare with the zero-oset sec-
tion (Figure 3.4-14b) and note some dierences. As a
result of velocity discrimination, multiples have been
attenuated to some extent by CMP stacking. Both the
CMP-stacked and zero-oset sections have the imprint
of the near-surface eects on reection times. Note that
CMP stacking has given rise to the spurious structural
discontinuities on reections below 1 s between CMP
100-200. Following residual statics corrections (Figure
3.4-16b), these short-wavelength anomalies appear to
have been resolved. The moderate-to-long wavelength
anomalies expressed by the reection traveltime undu-
lations, however, have remained in the section. These
anomalies have been resolved by refraction statics cor-
rections as shown in Figure 3.4-17a using, in this case,
the generalized linear inverse (GLI) method to solve
equation (3-52). Nevertheless, some residual anomalies
still remain. After residual statics corrections based on
the solution to equation (3-25), the remaining long-
wavelength anomalies are untouched, while the resid-
ual short-wavelength anomalies have been further re-
solved. Unfortunately, not all of the traveltime distor-
tions due to the near-surface layer (the undulating re-
fractor R in Figure 3.4-14a) have been eliminated. Note,
for instance, the slight undulations in Figure 3.4-17b
on events at 0.5 and 1 s which correspond to horizons
1 and 2 in Figure 3.4-14a. Note also in Figure 3.4-17b
the distorted structural high represented by the reec-
tion between 1-1.5 s, which corresponds to horizon 3
in Figure 3.4-14a, and the sagging reection below 1.5
s, which corresponds to horizon 4 in Figure 3.4-14a.
The results of the GLI statics estimates are sum-
marized in Figure 3.4-18. For the variable-thickness
estimate (equation 3-52), the weathering velocity was
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-14. (a) A velocity-depth model with a near-surface refractor (R) and simple subsurface structure; (b) the corre-
sponding zero-oset section with trace spacing of 50 m.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-15. Selected shot records from the synthetic data set associated with the earth model in Figure 3.4-14a. Numbers
on top of each record indicate the CMP location in the vicinity of the shot.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-16. CMP stack associated with the model data in Figure 3.4-14: (a) with no statics corrections, (b) section as in
(a) after residual statics corrections. Datum level is 0 m in both sections.
FIG. 3.4-17. CMP stack associated with the model data in Figure 3.4-14 (a) with refraction statics corrections using the
GLI solution, (b) section as in (a) after residual statics corrections. Datum level is 0 m in both sections, and the weathering
velocity is assumed to be 1200 m/s.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-18. Summary of the variable-thickness GLI solution for refraction statics associated with the CMP stacked section
in Figure 3.4-17a. See text for details. Plot direction is the same as that in Figure 3.4-17. Except in frame 1, shot attributes
are denoted with and receiver attributes are denoted with vertical bars. Estimated parameters from equation (C-54) are
plotted in frame 1 with no distinction made between shot and receiver locations.
set to 1200 m/s the correct velocity for the near-
surface layer. Frame 1 shows the estimated GLI pa-
rameters the intercept time anomalies (equations 3-
53a,b), as a function of the shot-receiver station num-
ber. Frame 2 shows the pick fold, namely the number of
picks in each shot (denoted by ) and receiver (denoted
by the vertical bars) gather. Note the tapering of the
pick fold at both ends of the line.
A quantitative measure of the accuracy of the GLI
solution to refraction statics is the sum of the dierences
between the observed picks t
ij
and the modeled trav-
eltimes t
ij
(equation 3-52) over each shot and receiver
gather. These residual time dierences are plotted in
frame 3 of Figure 3.4-18. Large residuals often are re-
lated to bad picks. Nevertheless, even with good picks,
there may be large residuals attributable to inappropri-
ateness of the model assumed for the near-surface.
Figure 3.4-18 also shows the estimated weathering
thicknesses at all shot-receiver stations (frame 4). Fi-
nally, the computed statics and the near-surface model
are shown in frames 5 and 6, respectively.
Uncertainty in the assumed value for weathering
velocity is an important practical consideration in re-
fraction statics. Figure 3.4-19 shows results of GLI stat-
ics solution using two dierent weathering velocities.
Compare with the result using the correct weathering
velocity (Figure 3.4-17a) and note that the GLI solution
tolerates reasonable departures from the correct weath-
ering velocity.
The ability of statics solutions to resolve the eect
of the near-surface layer with the undulating refractor
shown in Figure 3.4-14a is further tested by applying
the generalized reciprocal method (GRM) described by
equations (3-50a,b). Compare the results of refraction
statics corrections using the GLI method (Figure 3.4-
17) and the GRM method (Figure 3.4-20), and note
that, in this case, the dierences are marginal. Never-
theless, it appears that neither of the statics solutions
appear to have resolved the time anomalies caused by
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-19. CMP stack associated with the model data in Figure 3.4-14 with refraction statics corrections using weathering
velocity (a) 1000 m/s and (b) 1400 m/s. Datum level is 0 m in both sections. Compare with the section in Figure 3.4-17a.
generalized reciprocal method (GRM), (b) section as in (a) after residual statics corrections. Compare with the GLI results
in Figure 3.4-17.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
the undulating near-surface layer, completely. Assump-
tions made about the near-surface model always limit
the resolving power of all the statics corrections meth-
ods.
Although in most cases the near-surface often con-
sists of a low-velocity weathering layer, in some explo-
ration basins, a single-layer near-surface model may not
be adequate. We shall examine the response of statics
solutions to a multilayer near-surface model shown in
Figure 3.4-21a. The zero-oset section at z = 0 is free of
the near-surface eects (Figure 3.4-21b) since the near-
surface anomalies are above z = 0 in the model (Fig-
ure 3.4-21a). Following the application of refraction and
residual statics corrections, ideally, we should like to ob-
tain a stack response similar to this zero-oset section.
The near-surface consists of layers with irregu-
lar geometry and an irregular topography. A two-way
acoustic wave equation was used to model a total of 154
shot records along the line. Both shot and receiver group
intervals are 50 m, and the number of channels is 97,
including that associated with the zero-oset trace. The
split spread recording geometry has a maximum oset
of 2350 m. Selected shot records from the synthetic data
set associated with the earth model (Figure 3.4-22) ex-
hibit traveltime distortions on reection events result-
ing from the complex near-surface model. Note also the
distinct refracted arrivals and the ground-roll energy.
Figure 3.4-23a shows the CMP-stacked section with
no statics corrections. Compare with the zero-oset
section (Figure 3.4-21b) and note the signicant dif-
ferences. Note the severe time anomalies caused by
the complexity of the near-surface layer. Some short-
wavelength anomalies have been resolved by residual
statics corrections (Figure 3.4-23b). Nevertheless, this
stacked section is far from implying the simple subsur-
face structure (Figure 3.4-21a).
By using the near-surface model (Figure 3.4-21a),
statics at all shot-receiver stations were calculated by
hand and corrections were applied to the data. The re-
sulting stacked section is shown in Figure 3.4-24a. Note
that most of the long-wavelength anomalies have been
removed. Remaining disortions on reection times, par-
ticularly betwen CMP 300-400, imply that correcting
for the near-surface eects by statics shifts applied to
CMP traces is a simplistic approach given the complex-
ity of the near-surface model. Residual statics correc-
tions do not help in removing the time anomalies that
are beyond the limit of statics corrections (Figure 3.4-
24b).
Now assume a near-surface model that comprises a
single layer with constant velocity (1400 m/s). The top
and base of this layer are dened by the elevation curve
and the at datum at z = 0, respectively. Then, com-
pute the elevation statics at each shot-receiver station
using the thickness of the constant-velocity layer, and
apply them to the CMP traces. Figure 3.4-25 shows
the CMP stack with elevation statics and the subse-
quent residual statics corrections. Compare with Fig-
ure 3.4-23 and note that much of the time anoma-
lies are due to elevation dierences along the line.
Elevation statics corrections are basically a sim-
ple alternative to statics corrections based on an esti-
mate of a near-surface model. Using the GLI solution
based on equation (3-52), inversion of the refracted ar-
rivals yields the stacked section in Figure 3.4-26a. Here,
the near-surface model was assumed to consist of a
single layer, as in the case of elevation statics correc-
tions, but with varying refractor geometry. Note the
improvement on reection times on the stack associ-
ated with the GLI solution. Clearly, a more compli-
cated, multi-layered near-surface model can, in princi-
ple, be estimated from inversion of refracted arrivals.
However, the more complicated the model, the more
parameters need to be specied. This in turn will re-
quire a more complicated inversion scheme. Generally,
in practice, one should model the near-surface simply.
If traveltime distortions are not resolved adequately by
a simple near-surface model, it often means that the
problem is not solvable by statics methods. Speci-
cally, the near-surface corrections should not be done
using vertical time shifts applied to CMP traces. Un-
der those circumstances, very little can be achieved by
residual statics corrections (Figure 3.4-26b). Instead,
the problem should be characterized as dynamic and
be solved by earth modeling in depth (Chapter 9).
The results of the GLI statics estimates are sum-
marized in Figure 3.4-27. For the variable-thickness
single-layer near-surface, the weathering velocity was
assumed to be 1400 m/s. Frame 1 shows the estimated
GLI parameters the intercept time anomalies (equa-
tion 3-53a,b), as a function of the shot-receiver sta-
tion number. Frame 2 shows the pick fold, namely the
number of picks in each shot (denoted by ) and re-
ceiver (denoted by the vertical bars) gather. Note the
tapering of the pick fold at both ends of the line. The
sum of the dierences between the observed picks t
ij
and the modeled traveltimes t
ij
(equation 3-52) over
each shot and receiver gather is shown in frame 3.
Large residuals, in this case, are attributable to the
inappropriateness of the model assumed for the near-
surface. Figure 3.4-27 also shows the estimated weath-
ering thicknesses at all shot-receiver stations (frame
4). Finally, the computed statics and the near-surface
model are shown in frames 5 and 6, respectively.
For comparison, the GRM statics solution for the
multilayered near-surface model of Figure 3.4-21a is
shown in Figure 3.4-28. While both the GLI (Figure
3.4-26a) and GRM (Figure 3.4-28a) solutions are com-
parable, it appears that neither of the statics solutions
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-21. (a) A velocity-depth model that comprises a multilayer near-surface with a strong refractor (R) and simple
subsurface structure; (b) the corresponding zero-oset section with trace spacing of 50 m.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-22. Selected shot records from the synthetic data set associated with the earth model in Figure 3.4-21a. Numbers
on top of each record indicate the CMP location in the vicinity of the shot.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-23. CMP stack associated with the model data in Figure 3.4-21 (a) with no statics corrections, (b) section as in
(a) after residual statics corrections. Datum level is 0 m in both sections. Elevation curve is plotted on top of each section.
FIG. 3.4-24. CMP stack associated with the model data in Figure 3.4-21 (a) with statics corrections using hand-calculated
statics, (b) section as in (a) after residual statics corrections. Datum level is 0 m in both sections. Elevation curve is plotted
on top of each section.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-25. CMP stack associated with the model data in Figure 3.4-21 (a) with elevation statics corrections, (b) section
as in (a) after residual statics corrections. Datum level is 0 m in both sections. Elevation curve is plotted on top of each
section.
GLI solution, (b) section as in (a) after residual statics corrections. Datum level is 0 m in both sections, and the weathering
velocity is assumed to be 1400 m/s.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-27. Summary of the variable-thickness GLI solution for refraction statics associated with the CMP stacked section
in Figure 3.4-26a. Plot direction is the same as that in Figure 3.4-26. Except in frame 1, shot attributes are denoted with
and receiver attributes are denoted with vertical bars. Estimated parameters from equation (C-54) are plotted in frame 1
with no distinction made between shot and receiver locations.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
generalized reciprocal method (GRM), (b) section as in (a) after residual statics corrections. Compare with the GLI results
in Figure 3.4-26.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
appears to have resolved the time anomalies caused by
the complex near-surface layer, completely. Again, as-
sumptions made about the near-surface model always
limit the resolving power of all the statics methods.
Field Data Examples
We shall analyze eld data with three dierent near-
surface characteristics. Specically, near-surface models
with combinations of irregular topography and refractor
geometry are examined. Refraction statics solutions are
based on the variable-thickness scheme based on equa-
tion (3-52) and residual statics solutions are based on
equation (3-25), both solved by the generalized linear
inversion schemes (Sections C.4 and C.8).
The rst eld data example is from an area with
nearly at topography and presumably irregular base of
weathering. Shown in Figure 3.4-29a is a CMP-stacked
section based on elevation statics corrections that in-
volved a at datum and constant weathering velocity.
Note the presence of traveltime distortions along the
major reections down to 2 s caused by the unresolved
long-wavelength statics anomalies. We also note very
short-wavelength traveltime distortions, much less than
a cable length. This latter component of the statics can
be resolved by surface-consistent residual statics correc-
tions as shown in Figure 3.4-29b. Although the CMP
stacking quality has been improved after the residual
statics corrections, the long-wavelength statics anoma-
lies remain unresolved.
Figure 3.4-30 shows plots of the rst-break picks
from the far-oset arrivals associated with the refracted
energy. While most of the rst-break picks consistently
follow a linear moveout from shot to shot, note that
there are some local deviations that indicate a mod-
erate degree of complexity in the near surface. Figure
3.4-31 shows the CMP-stacked section after the applica-
tion of refraction statics using the generalized recipro-
cal method. Compare with Figure 3.4-29a and note the
signicant elimination of long-wavelength statics. Also
plotted are the intercept time anomalies at all shot-
receiver stations. Recall that equations (3-50a,b) yield
multiple values of intercept time estimates at each sta-
tion. These multiple values need to be reduced to unique
intercept time values at each station so as to be able to
estimate the thickness of the weathering layer at each
station, uniquely. The statics solution at all shot and
receiver stations shows that the generalized reciprocal
method can correct for all wavelengths of statics caused
by undulations along the base of the weathering layer.
Any remaining (residual) very short-wavelength stat-
ics should be corrected for by using a reection-based
method (Section 3.3).
Figure 3.4-32a shows the CMP-stacked section af-
ter the application of refraction statics corrections based
on the variable-thickness, least-squares scheme (equa-
tion 3-52a). Compare this result with Figure 3.4-29a
and note that the long-wavelength statics anomalies
have been removed. Also, note that both the general-
ized reciprocal method (Figure 3.4-31a) and the least-
squares method (Figure 3.4-32a) yield comparable re-
sults. The section in Figure 3.4-32a can further be im-
proved by applying residual statics corrections to re-
move the short-wavelength statics components (Figure
3.4-32b).
The results of the least-squares statics estimates
are summarized in Figure 3.4-33. The weathering veloc-
ity was assumed to be 450 m/s. Frame 1 shows the esti-
mated intercept times as a function of the shot/receiver
station number. Frame 2 shows the pick fold, namely
the number of picks in each shot and receiver gather.
Note the tapering of the pick fold at both ends of the
line.
A quantitative measure of the accuracy of the least-
squares solution is the sum of the dierences between
the observed picks t
ij
ij
(equation 3-52a) over each shot and receiver gather.
These cumulative residual time dierences over each
shot and receiver are plotted in frame 3 of Figure 3.4-33.
Large residuals often are related to bad picks. Neverthe-
less, even with good picks, there may be large residuals
attributable to the inappropriateness of the model as-
sumed for the near-surface.
Figure 3.4-33 also shows the estimated thickness of
the weathering layer at all shot-receiver stations (frame
4). Finally, the computed statics and the near-surface
model are shown in frames 5 and 6, respectively.
The next eld data example is from an area with
irregular topography associated with a sand dune and
presumably a near-at base of weathering. Figure 3.4-
34a shows the CMP-stacked section with elevation stat-
ics corrections. Note the severe distortions of the geome-
try of shallow reections and a very poor signal-to-noise
ratio in the central part of the section. Residual statics
corrections (Figure 3.4-34b) cannot improve the inter-
pretation, especially in the center of the line where the
rst breaks show signicant departures from a consis-
tent linear moveout (Figure 3.4-35).
Figure 3.4-36 shows the CMP-stacked section with
the application of refraction statics corrections using
the generalized reciprocal method. Again, note the
multiple-valued intercept time values at shot/receiver
stations. The statics solution based on the reduced
intercept times shows a signicant medium- to long-
wavelength variations. After the application of these
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-29. (a) A CMP stack with elevation statics corrections, (b) same as in (a) with residual statics corrections. (Data
courtesy Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V.)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-30 First-break picks associated with the data shown in Figure 3.4-29. The top and the bottom plots correspond
to the left- and right-hand of the split-spread geometry. The results of the refraction statics solution based on these picks are
shown in Figures 3.4-31 to 3.4-33.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG.3.4-31. (a) A CMP stack with refraction statics applied using the generalized reciprocal method (compare with Figures
3.4-29a and Figure 3.4-32a), (b) estimated multiple intercept times at each shot-receiver station and the computed shot (open
squares) and receiver (solid dots) statics.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-32. (a) A CMP stack with refraction statics applied using the least-squares method (compare with Figures 3.4-29a
and Figure 3.4-31a), (b) same as in (a) with residual statics corrections.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-33. Results of the least-squares refraction statics estimated from and applied to the data in Figure 3.4-32. In each
frame, shot attribute is denoted by and receiver attribute is denoted by the vertical bars. R is the refractor that represents
the base of the weathering layer. See text for details. D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-34. (a) A CMP stack with elevation statics corrections, (b) same as in (a) with residual statics corrections.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-35. First-break picks associated with the data shown in Figure 3.4-34. The top and the bottom plots correspond
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-36. (a) A CMP stack with refraction statics applied using the generalized reciprocal method (compare with Figures
3.4-34a and Figure 3.4-37a), (b) estimated multiple intercept times at each shot-receiver station and the computed shot (open
squares) and receiver (solid dots) statics.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
statics corrections, the near-surface eects on the re-
ector geometries have been largely removed (compare
with Figure 3.4-34a).
Figure 3.4-37a shows the CMP-stacked section af-
ter the application of refraction statics corrections based
on the least-squares method. Compare with Figure 3.4-
34a and note the signicant improvement in the center
of the line. This section can be improved further by
applying residual statics corrections and thus removing
the short-wavelength statics components (Figure 3.4-
37b).
are summarized in Figure 3.4-38. The weathering ve-
locity was assumed to be 800 m/s. (The description of
the frames in Figure 3.4-38 is the same as that of Figure
3.4-33.)
The third eld data example is from an area
with an abrupt change in topography and presumably
surface-following the base of weathering. The CMP-
stacked section with elevation statics corrections is
shown in Figure 3.4-39a. Residual statics corrections
signicantly improve the stacking quality (Figure 3.4-
39b); but the long-wavelength statics anomalies remain
on the section and appear as spurious structural anoma-
lies.
Figure 3.4-40 shows the rst-break picks from the
far-oset arrivals associated with the refracted energy.
Figure 3.4-41 shows the CMP-stacked section with the
refraction statics applied using the generalized recipro-
cal method and the rst-break picks in Figure 3.4-40.
Compare with Figure 3.4-39b and note the removal of
the spurious structural discontinuity along the strong
reection just above 2 s on the left half of the section.
By using the rst-break picks shown in Figure 3.4-
40, the variable-thickness least-squares parameters for
the near-surface were computed (equation 3-52a). The
corresponding CMP-stacked section is shown in Figure
3-4.27a. Note the elimination of the spurious structural
discontinuities seen in Figure 3.4-39b between 1 and 2
s. The CMP stacked section can be improved further by
applying residual statics corrections (Figure 3.4-42b).
are summarized in Figure 3.4-43. For the variable-
thickness estimate, the weathering velocity was as-
sumed to be 900 m/s. (The description of the frames
in Figure 3.4-43 is the same as that of Figure 3.4-33.)
Figure 3.4-44 is a stacked section with only the
eld statics applied. The pull-up at midpoint loca-
tion A probably is caused by a long-wavelength stat-
ics anomaly. Start with CMP gathers (Figure 3.4-45a)
and apply linear-moveout (LMO) correction (Figure
3.4-45b). Assuming that the rst breaks correspond to
a near-surface refractor, we use the estimated velocity
from the rst breaks (usually from a portion of the ca-
ble) to apply the LMO correction. The CMP-refraction
stack of the shallow part of the data after the LMO
correction is shown in Figure 3.4-45c. This section is
the equivalent of the pilot trace section that is associ-
ated with the reection-based statics corrections. (An
example of this is shown in Figure 3.3-37.)
Traveltime deviations are estimated from the
LMO-corrected gathers (Figure 3.4-45b) and are de-
composed into shot and receiver intercept time compo-
nents based on equation (3-52a). These intercept times
are used to compute shot and receiver static shifts,
which are then applied to the CMP gathers shown in
Figure 3.4-45a. A comparison of the CMP-refraction
stack section with (Figure 3.4-45d) and without (Fig-
ure 3.4-45c) refraction statics corrections clearly indi-
cates removal of the signicant long-wavelength statics
anomaly centered at midpoint location A (Figure 3.4-
44). The CMP-stacked section after the refraction stat-
ics corrections shown in Figure 3.4-46 no longer contains
the false structure (compare with Figure 3.4-44). This
long-wavelength anomaly cannot be removed by reec-
tion statics corrections alone (Figure 3.4-47). Neverthe-
less, the residual statics corrections resolved the short-
wavelength statics components that were present in the
data. By cascading the two corrections refraction and
residual statics, we get the improved section in Figure
3.4-48.
The last eld data example for refraction and resid-
ual statics corrections is from an overthurst belt with ir-
regular topography and large elevation dierences along
the line traverse. Figures 3.4-49 and 3.4-50 show se-
lected shot records. Note that the rst breaks are very
distinct, and the rst arrivals do not manifest signicant
departures from linear moveout. Nevertheless, there are
signicant distortions along the reection traveltime
trajectories; these are largely attributed to the subsur-
face complexity associated with the overthrust tecton-
ism in the area.
Figure 3.4-51 shows selected CMP gathers with el-
evation corrections applied and the data referenced to
a at datum of 1800 m above the topographic prole of
the line. Following the normal-moveout correction (Fig-
ure 3.4-52), note that the CMP gathers exhibit short-
wavelength deviations less than a cable length along the
reection traveltime trajectories. Velocity analysis and
moveout correction were performed from a oating da-
tum a smoothed version of the topographic prole.
The CMP stack with elevation corrections is shown in
Figure 3.4-53.
The same CMP gathers as in Figures 3.4-51 and
3.4-52 with refraction statics applied are shown in Fig-
ures 3.4-54 and 3.4-55. A comparison of these sets of
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
frame, shot attribute is denoted by and receiver attribute is denoted by vertical bar. R is the refractor that represents the
base of the weathering layer. See text for details.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-39. (a) A CMP stack with elevation statics corrections, (b) same as in (a) with residual statics corrections.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-40. First-break picks associated with the data shown in Figure 3.4-39. The top and the bottom plots correspond
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-41. (a) A CMP stack with refraction statics applied using the generalized reciprocal method (compare with Figures
3.4-39a and Figure 3.4-42a), (b) estimated intercept times and the computed shot (open squares) and receiver (solid dots)
statics.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
frame, shot attribute is denoted by and receiver attribute is denoted by vertical bar. R is the refractor that represents the
base of the weathering layer. See text for details.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-44. A CMP stack with eld statics applied. Note the unresolved long-wavelength statics manifested by the spurios
structural high below midpoint A.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-45. (a) Selected CMP gathers from the section in Figure 3.4-44, (b) CMP gathers after linear-moveout (LMO)
correction, (c) stack of the LMO-corrected gathers as shown in (b), and (d) stack of the LMO-corrected gathers after long-
period statics were removed; compare with (c).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-46. The CMP stack associated with the data in Figure 3.4-45 after refraction statics corrections. Compare with
Figure 3.4-44.
gathers indicates that the statics problem is primar-
ily of residual nature dierences between refraction
and elevation statics are not signicant. In other words,
long-wavelength statics, in this case, are associated for
the most part with irregular topography. Dierences be-
tween the CMP stack with refraction statics (Figure 3.4-
56) and the CMP stack with elevation statics (Figure
3.4-53) are marginal.
Short-wavelength traveltime deviations observed
on the CMP gathers in Figures 3.4-54 and 3.4-55 have
been resolved by residual statics corrections as shown in
Figures 3.4-57 and 3.4-58. Reection traveltimes in Fig-
ure 3.4-57 are much like hyperbolic and those in Figure
3.4-58 are reasonably at after moveout correction. The
corresponding CMP stack shown in Figure 3.4-59, when
compared with Figure 3.4-56, clearly demonstrates the
improvement attained by residual statics corrections.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-47. The CMP stack associated with the data in Figure 3.4-45 after eld statics and residual statics corrections.
Compare with Figure 3.4-44 and 3.4-46.
In areas with severely irregular topography and
large elevation changes along line traverses, one may
consider extrapolating the recorded data from the to-
pographic surface to a at datum above the topography
by using the wave-equation datuming technique (Sec-
tion 4.6). Bevc (1997) applied this technique to the data
as in Figures 3.4-49 and 3.4-50. You still will need to
apply residual statics corrections to account for short-
wavelength statics not associated with topography, but
related to the near-surface layer geometry.
Finally, in the presence of a permafrost layer or
a series of lava ows at the near-surface, the prob-
lem inherently is dynamic in nature. Specically, under
such circumstances, rays through the near-surface do
not follow near-vertical paths, and thus the near-surface
problem cannot be posed as a statics problem. Instead,
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.4-48. The CMP stack associated with the data in Figure 3.4-45 after refraction and residual statics corrections.
Compare with Figure 3.4-44 and 3.4-46.
one needs to estimate accurately a velocity-depth model
that accounts for the near-surface complexity so as to
honor ray bending through the near-surface layer.
Figure 3.4-60 shows a CMP-stacked section from an
area with a permafrost layer at the near-surface. Note
that refraction statics followed by residual statics cor-
rections (Figure 3.4-61) yield a section with improved
event continuity. Nevertheless, there still exist a num-
ber of spurious structural features that have to be ac-
counted for. Figure 3.4-62 shows a CMP-stacked section
from an area with lava ows at the near-surface. Al-
though residual statics corrections have improved event
continuity, spurious faults are troublesome (Figure 3.4-
63). The traveltime distortions on the stacked sections
in Figures 3.4-61 and 3.4-63 strongly suggest that they
cannot be resolved by statics corrections alone. Addi-
tional work, such as velocity-depth modeling (Chapter
9) and imaging in depth (Chapter 8), is required to
account for lateral velocity variations associated with
near-surface complexities that result from lava ows and
a permafrost layer.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
EXERCISES
Exercise 3-1. Why does salt have anomalously
high velocity (4.5 to 5.5 km/s)?
Exercise 3-2. Measure the traveltimes corre-
sponding to oset values of 1 and 3 km in Figure 3.1-2.
Then compute the velocity above the reector and ver-
ify that it is 2264 m/s. Note that the zero-oset trace
is not recorded; therefore, t
0
normally is not a known
quantity.
Exercise 3-3. The CMP gather in Figure 3.1-5a
contains a hyperbola. Following NMO corrections and
using 2000 (Figure 3.1-5c) and 2500 m/s (Figure 3.1-5d)
velocities, are the traveltime trajectories hyperbolic?
Exercise 3-4. Make velocity picks from the veloc-
ity panels in Figures 3.2-4, 3.2-5, 3.2-6, and 3.2-7.
Exercise 3-5. Make velocity picks from the CVS
panel in Figure 3.E-1.
Exercise 3-6. Consider two intersecting lines.
Would you expect that velocity analyses at the inter-
section point yield the same velocity function?
Exercise 3-7. Which is correct: velocity analysis
from datum or velocity analysis from surface?
Exercise 3-8. Fill the missing elements in the
following table. Average velocity v
avg
, which relates
vertical traveltime to depth in a horizontally layered
medium, is dened as
v
avg
=
N
i=1
v
i
t
i
N
i=1
t
i
,
where t
i
= z
i
/ v
i
, z
i
= layer thickness and v
i
=
interval velocity. The rms velocity is given by equation
(3-4).
Layer Interval RMS Average
Thickness, Velocity, Velocity, Velocity,
m m/s m/s m/s
200 2,000
300 3,000
400 4,000
350 3,500
500 5,000
Exercise 3-9. Explain why the velocity for horizon
A in Figure 3.2-34 behaves as shown in the HVA display
below the salt dome S.
Exercise 3-10. Suppose you want to t a set of
observed traveltimes to a parabola of the form t = a +
bx + cx
2
. The tabulated input values are given below.
Observed
i x
i
t
i
1 0 0.4
2 1 1.1
3 2 3.5
4 3 7.9
5 4 14.4
Set up the least-squares problem and solve for a, b, and
c. You will have ve equations and three unknowns.
Exercise 3-11. Solve the system
x
1
2x
2
= 1
x
1
+ 4x
2
= 4
by the Gauss-Seidel iterative method. Verify the results
by solving these equations by the method of substitu-
tion to obtain the correct solution: x
1
= 2 and x
2
= 0.5.
Exercise 3-12. Solve the system
x
1
+ 4x
2
= 4
x
1
2x
2
= 1
by the Gauss-Seidel iterative method. Note that this is
the same problem as in Exercise 3-11, except that the
order of the equations is reversed. The solution should
be the same. You will nd that the solution cannot be
obtained because the process of iteration will not con-
verge. This demonstrates the importance of ordering the
equations when solving by the Gauss-Seidel method.
Exercise 3-13. Write equation (3-37a) for i =
1, 2, 3, and j = 1, 2, 3. You will nd that there are six
unknowns, but ve independent equations.
Exercise 3-14. Can you use refraction-based stat-
ics techniques in permafrost areas?
Exercise 3-15. Which of the following adversely
aects the quality of velocity spectrum long-
wavelength or short-wavelength (less than a cable
length) statics anomalies?
Exercise 3-16. In what way does inside muting of
a CMP gather aect the velocity spectrum?
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. 3.E-1. Part 1: CVS panels for a line from an area with complex structure associated with overthrust tectonics.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Appendix C
TOPICS IN MOVEOUT AND STATICS CORRECTIONS
C.1 The Shifted Hyperbola
The objective in this section is to review the higher-order accuracy in normal moveout for a
horizontally layered earth model. Refer to the traveltime equation (3-3) by Taner and Koehler
(1969):
t
2
= C
0
+C
1
x
2
+C
2
x
4
+C
3
x
6
+ , (C 1)
where x is the oset, and
C
0
= t
2
0
, (C 2a)
where t
0
is the two-way zero-oset traveltime
C
1
=
1
2
, (C 2b)
C
2
=
1
4
2
2

4
t
2
0
4
2
, (C 2c)
and
C
3
=
2
2
4

2
6

2
2
4
t
4
0
7
2
, (C 2d)
with the additional denitions of the terms (Castle, 1994)
j
=
1
t
0
N
i=1
v
j
i
i
. (C 3a)
Note that
2
= v
2
rms
(C 3b)
since
v
2
rms
=
1
t
0
N
i=1
v
2
i
i
, (C 3c)
where
i
is the vertical two-way traveltime through the i-th layer, v is the velocity, and t
0
=
N
i=1

i
. Derivation of equation (C-1) is based on the parametric equations for traveltime and
oset for a horizontally layered earth model (Slotnick, 1959; Grant and West, 1965) and is given
by Castle (1994).
Drop higher-order terms in equation (C-1) to obtain the fourth-order moveout equation
t
2
= C
0
+C
1
x
2
+C
2
x
4
. (C 4)
Now, substitute for the coecients from equations (C-2a), (C-2b) and (C-3a) to obtain
t
2
= t
2
0
+
x
2
v
2
rms
+C
2
x
4
. (C 5).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
This equation can in principle be used to compute a velocity spectrum (Section 3.2). First, drop
the fourth-order term to get the small-spread hyperbolic equation
t
2
= t
2
0
+
x
2
v
2
rms
. (C 6)
Compute the velocity spectrum using equation (C-6), and pick an initial velocity function
v
rms
(t
0
). Then, use this picked velocity function in equation (C-5) and compute a velocity
spectrum for the parameter C
2
. Pick a function C
2
(t
0
) and use in equation (C-5) to recompute
the velocity spectrum. Finally, pick an updated velocity function v
rms
(t
0
) from this velocity
spectrum.
The fourth-order moveout equation (C-4) can be expressed exactly by a time-shifted hy-
perbolic traveltime equation of the form (Castle, 1994)
t = t
0
_
1
1
S
_
+
_
t
0
S
_
2
+
x
2
Sv
2
rms
, (C 7)
where S is a constant of the form
S =

4
2
2
. (C 8)
For S = 1, equation (C-7) reduces to the conventional moveout equation (C-6).
Figure C-1 shows the traveltime trajectories of the hyperbolic moveout equation (C-6) and
the time-shifted hyperbolic equation (C-7) where
s
= t
0
(1 1/S). Note that the shifted hyper-
bola is a better match to the true traveltime trajectory at far osets. The latter was computed
for a horizontally layered earth model using the exact parametric equations for traveltime and
oset (Slotnick, 1959; Grant and West, 1965).
The shifted hyperbola equation satises the requirements for a moveout equation:
(a) The traveltime trajectory is symmetric with respect to the time axis.
(b) The instantaneous velocity dx/dt is never zero.
(c) For constant velocity, it reduces to the exact hyperbolic moveout equation.
As for the fourth-order moveout equation (C-5), this equation can, in principle, be used to
conduct the velocity analysis of CMP gathers. First, set S = 1 in equation (C-7) to get equation
(C-6). Compute the velocity spectrum using equation (C-6), and pick an initial velocity function
v
rms
(t
0
). Then, use this picked velocity function in equation (C-7) and compute a velocity
spectrum for the parameter S. Pick a function S(t
0
) and use in equation (C-7) to recompute
the velocity spectrum. Finally, pick an updated velocity function v
rms
(t
0
) from this velocity
spectrum.
De Bazelaire (1988) oers an alternative moveout equation to achieve higher-order accuracy
at far osets:
t = (t
0
t
p
) +
t
2
p
+
x
2
v
2
s
, (C 9)
where t
0
is the two-way zero-oset time, t
p
is related to the time at which the asymptotes of the
hyperbolic traveltime trajectory converge (Figure C-2), and v
s
is the reference velocity assigned
to the layer below the recording surface (not the near-surface layer). When t
p
= t
0
, equation
(C-9) reduces to the small-spread hyperbolic equation (C-6).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. C-1. Traveltime trajectories based on (top) the hyperbolic equation (C-23) and (bottom) the
time-shifted hyperbolic equation (C-14). Compare with the true traveltime trajectory associated with
a layered model (Castle, 1994).
C.2 Moveout Stretch
Refer to Figure 3.1-10 for a sketch of a wavelet before and after moveout correction. The moveout
equation is
t
2
= t
2
0
+
x
2
v
2
, (C 10)
where t is the two-way traveltime associated with a source-receiver separation x, t
0
is the two-way
vertical traveltime the time after moveout correction, and v is the moveout velocity.
Consider a reection event represented by a wavelet of dominant period T with an arrival
time t at oset x. After normal-moveout correction, the dominant period becomes T
0
= T +T.
The moveout equation (C-10) is associated with the onset of the wavelet. Similarly, the moveout
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. C-2. The traveltime trajectory associated with the moveout equation (3-5c) (De Bazelaire, 1988).
equation with the termination of the wavelet is expressed by
(t +T)
2
= (t
0
+T + T)
2
+
x
2
v
2
. (C11)
Expand the terms on both sides:
t
2
+ 2tT +T
2
= t
2
0
+ 2t
0
(T + T) + (T + T)
2
+
x
2
v
2
. (C 12a)
By making the substitution from equation (C-10), we obtain
2tT +T
2
= 2t
0
(T + T) + (T + T)
2
. (C 12b)
Simplify and rearrange the terms
2(t t
0
)T = 2(t
0
+T)T + T
2
. (C 12c)
Now, ignore the second term on the right-hand side of the equation and observe that t
NMO
=
t t
0
to obtain
t
NMO
T = (t
0
+T)T. (C 12d)
Assume that t
0
>> T and rearrange the terms to obtain a relationship for change in the period
of the wavelet as a result of moveout correction:
T
T
=
t
NMO
t
0
. (C 13)
Now, we want to express equation (C-13) in terms of the dominant frequency f of the
wavelet. Start with the relation
T =
1
f
, (C 14)
and obtain
T =
1
f
2
f. (C 15)
Finally, combine equations (C-13) and (C-15) to obtain the equation for the absolute value of
frequency stretching:
f
f
=
t
NMO
t
0
. (C 16)
This is the same as equation (3-6) in the main text.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
C.3 Equations for a Dipping Reector
We want to derive equation (3-7) of the main text using the geometry of a dipping reector
as shown in Figure C-3. (The derivation provided here is courtesy Zhiming Li, 1999). The
distance from source location S to reection point R back to receiver location G is given by
SR+RG = FR+RG = FG = vt, where point F is the mirror image of the source location S,
v is the velocity of the medium above the dipping reector, and t is the traveltime from F to G.
To compute the traveltime t associated with the distance FG, we shall need to compute
the coordinates of F : (x
F
, z
F
) and G : (x
G
, z
G
), so that
(FG)
2
=
_
x
F
x
G
_
2
+
_
z
F
z
G
_
2
. (C 17)
From the geometry of Figure C-3, the coordinates of F : (x
F
, z
F
) are
x
F
= OF cos 2
and
z
F
= OF sin 2,
where is the dip angle of the reector. Substitute the relation OF = OS = OM + x/2 into
the above equations to obtain
x
F
=
_
OM +
x
2
_
cos 2 (C 18a)
and
z
F
=
_
OM +
x
2
_
sin 2. (C 18b)
Again, from the geometry of Figure C-3, the coordinates of G : (x
G
, z
G
) are
x
G
= OM
x
2
, (C 19a)
and
z
G
= 0. (C 19b)
Substitute equations (C-18a,b) and (C-19a,b) into equation (C-17)
(FG)
2
=
_
_
OM +
x
2
_
cos 2
_
OM
x
2
_
_
2
+
_
_
OM +
x
2
_
sin 2
_
2
, (C 20a)
then use the trigonometric relation cos 2 = 2 cos
2
1 and apply some algebra to obtain
(FG)
2
=
_
OM +
x
2
_
2
+
_
OM
x
2
_
2
2
_
(OM)
2
x
2
4
_
_
2 cos
2
1
_
. (C 20b)
Further algebraic manipulation yields
(FG)
2
= 4(OM)
2
sin
2
+x
2
cos
2
. (C 21)
Finally, note from the geometry of Figure C-3 the relation
MN = OM sin. (C 22)
Subsitute equation (C-22) into equation (C-21), and use the relations 2MN = vt
0
and FG = vt
to obtain the desired expression for the reection traveltime associated with a dipping reector
t
2
= t
2
0
+
x
2
cos
2
v
2
, (C 23a)
and the moveout velocity
v
NMO
=
v
cos
. (C 23b)
Equations (C-23a) and (C-23b) are the same as equations (3-10) and (3-11) of the main text.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. C-3. Geometry of a dipping reector used in deriving the equations in Section C.3.
C.4 Traveltime Decomposition for Residual Statics Estimation
We want to model traveltime deviations t
ij
associated with a reection event on moveout-
corrected CMP gathers by the following equation (Taner et al., 1974; Wiggins et al., 1976):
t
ij
= s
j
+r
i
+G
k
+M
k
x
2
ij
, (C 24a)
where s
j
is the residual statics shift at the jth source location, r
i
is the residual statics shift at
the ith receiver location, G
k
is the structure term at the kth midpoint location, [k = (i +j)/2],
M
k
x
2
ij
is the residual moveout at the kth midpoint location.
For m picks of t
ij
, and n
s
shot locations, n
r
receiver locations, n
G
midpoint locations, we
have the following set of equations:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 1 1 x
2
ij

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
s
j
.
.
.
r
i
.
.
.
G
k
.
.
.
M
k
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
. (C 24b)
A more parsimonious parameterization can be achieved by an appropriate traveltime picking
strategy such that the structure term can be set to zero. Additionally, the residual moveout term
coecient M may be set to a constant. The model equation (C-24a) can be rewritten as
t
ij
= s
j
+r
i
+Mx
2
ij
. (C 25a)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Equation (C-24b) is modied, accordingly
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 1 x
2
ij
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
s
j
.
.
.
s
i
.
.
.
M
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
. (C 25b)
Whichever the preferred modeled traveltimes, write the respective equations (C-24b) or
(C-25b) in matrix notation as
t
= Lp, (C 26)
where t
is the column vector of m-length (number of traveltime picks) in equation (C-24b) or

(C-25b), L is the sparse matrix in the same equations with dimensions m(n
s
+n
r
+n
G
+n
G
)
in case of equation (C-24b) and m (n
s
+ n
r
+ 1) in case of equation (C-25b), and p is the
column vector of (n
s
+n
r
+n
G
+n
G
)-length in case of equation (C-24b) and (n
s
+n
r
+1)-length
in case of equation (C-25b) on the right-hand side of these equations. Except the three elements
in each row, the L matrix contains zeros.
The generalized least-squares solution to equation (C-26) satises the requirement that the
energy of the error vector
e = t t
(C 27a)
is minimum (Lines and Treitel, 1984). The cumulative error energy is
E = e
T
e. (C 27b)
Substitute equation (C-27a) into equation (C-27b) and use equation (C-26) to obtain
E = (t Lp)
T
(t Lp). (C 27c)
Minimization of E with respect to p requires that
E
s
j
=
E
r
i
=
E
G
k
=
E
M
k
= 0, (C 27d)
which, in the case of equation (C-24b), yields n
s
+ n
r
+ n
G
+ n
G
equations and that many
unknowns. These equations can be solved for the residual statics associated with n
s
source
locations, n
r
receiver locations, n
G
structural terms, and n
G
residual moveout terms.
Finally, the solution that satises the minimization requirement given by equation (C-27d)
follows (Lines and Treitel, 1984)
p = (L
T
L)
1
L
T
t, (C 28)
where t denotes the column vector of m-length that represents the traveltime deviations picked
from moveout-corrected CMP gathers, and T denotes the matrix transposition.
A practical scheme for solving equation (C-24a) is based on the Gauss-Seidel method. In
this scheme, each term on the right-hand side of equation (C-24a) is computed by the set of
recursive equations
s
m
j
=
1
n
r
n
r
i
{t
ij
G
m1
k
M
m1
k
x
2
ij
r
m1
i
}, (C 29a)
r
m
i
=
1
n
s
n
s
j
, {t
ij
G
m1
k
M
m1
k
x
2
ij
s
m1
j
}, (C 29b)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
G
m
k
=
1
n
h
n
h
l
, {t
ij
s
m1
j
M
m1
k
x
2
ij
r
m1
i
}, (C 29c)
and
M
m
k
=
1
n
G
n
G
k
1
x
2
ij
{t
ij
s
m1
j
G
m1
k
r
m1
i
}, (C 29d)
where i and j are the receiver and source indexes, respectively, l = |i j| is the oset index,
k = (i +j)/2 is the midpoint index, m is the iteration index, and n
h
is the fold of coverage. The
solutions in equations (C-29) are based on the orthogonality of the shot and receiver axes, and
the orthogonality of the midpoint and oset axes. Equations (C-29) can be modied as
s
m
j
=
1
n
r
n
r
i
{t
ij
}
1
n
r
n
r
i
{G
m1
k
M
m1
k
x
2
ij
r
m1
i
}, (C 30a)
r
m
i
=
1
n
s
n
s
j
{t
ij
}
1
n
s
n
s
j
{G
m1
k
M
m1
k
x
2
ij
s
m1
j
}, (C 30b)
G
m
k
=
1
n
h
n
h
l
{t
ij
}
1
n
h
n
h
l
{s
m1
j
M
m1
k
x
2
ij
r
m1
i
}, (C 30c)
and
M
m
k
=
1
n
G
n
G
k
1
x
2
ij
{t
ij
}
1
n
G
n
G
k
1
x
2
ij
{s
m1
j
G
m1
k
r
m1
i
}. (C 30d)
This modication enables us to compute and store the sum of the traveltime deviations

t
ij
,
thus circumventing the need for storing the individual traveltime deviations. The process is
iterated until an index m that yields the least-squares solution such that the dierences between
the solutions for s
j
, r
i
, G
k
, and M
k
from the mth and (m1)st iteration are smaller than some
specied values.
C.5 Depth Estimation from Refracted Arrivals
Refer to Figure 3.4-11a for a sketch of refracted arrivals associated with a at refractor. We want
to estimate the depth to bedrock z
w
(thickness of the weathering layer) at some shot-receiver
station. The traveltime t for the critically refracted arrival associated with a shot S and receiver
R has three parts
t =
SB
v
w
+
BC
v
b
+
CR
v
w
. (C 31a)
The terms in this equation can be expressed in terms of the near-surface model parameters
t =
z
w
v
w
cos
c
+
x 2z
w
tan
c
v
b
+
z
w
v
w
cos
c
, (C 31b)
where x is the shot-receiver separation, z
w
is the depth to bedrock, and v
w
and v
b
are weathering
and bedrock velocities, respectively. The critical angle of refraction
c
is related to the velocities
by the relation
sin
c
=
v
w
v
b
. (C 32)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Combine the rst and third terms on the right, and split the second term in equation (C-31b)
to get
t =
2z
w
v
w
cos
c
2z
w
sin
c
v
b
cos
c
+
x
v
b
. (C 33a)
Substitute equation (C-32) into equation (C-33a) and apply some algebra to obtain
t =
2z
w
_
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
+
x
v
b
. (C 33b)
Note that this is the equation of a line
t = t
i
+
x
v
b
, (C 34)
with its slope given by 1/v
b
inverse of the bedrock velocity, and the intercept time t
i
given
by
t
i
=
2z
w
_
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
. (C 35)
By measuring the slope of the line associated with refracted arrivals in Figure 3-4.11a, we
estimate the bedrock velocity v
b
. We also estimate the intercept time t
i
by extending the line
to x = 0. Finally, we assume a value for the weathering velocity v
w
. Then, equation (C-35) can
be rearranged to compute the depth to bedrock z
w
as
z
w
=
v
b
v
w
t
i
2
_
v
2
b
v
2
w
. (C 36)
This is equation (3-41a) in the text.
The depth to bedrock can also be computed from the crossover distance x
c
where the
refracted arrival and the direct arrival coincide (Figure 3-4.11a). The equation for the direct
arrivals is
t =
x
v
w
, (C 37)
whereas equation (C-34) describes the refracted arrivals. At the crossover distance x
c
, we equate
the arrival times in equations (C-34) and (C-37) as
t
i
+
x
c
v
b
=
x
c
v
w
. (C 38a)
By substituting equation (C-35), we obtain
z
w
=
v
b
v
w
x
c
2
_
v
2
b
v
2
w
_
1
v
w
1
v
b
_
. (C 38b)
By simplifying, we obtain the expression for depth to bedrock in terms of the crossover distance:
z
w
=
1
2
_
v
b
v
w
v
b
+v
w
x
c
. (C 39)
This is equation (3-41b) in the text.
C.6 Equations for a Dipping Refractor
Consider the dipping refractor depicted in Figure 3.4-11c. The traveltime for the refracted ar-
rivals from downdip shooting is given by
t
=
SA
v
w
+
AB
v
b
+
BR
v
w
. (C 40a)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
From the geometry and the variables of Figure 3.4-11c, the terms in equation (C-40a) are
explicitly written as
t
=
z
wS
v
w
cos
c
+
xcos z
wS
tan
c
(z
wS
+xsin) tan
c
v
b
+
z
wS
+xsin
v
w
cos
c
.
(C 40b)
Apply some algebra to obtain
t
=
2z
wS
cos
c
cos
v
w
+
xsin(
c
+)
v
w
. (C 41a)
This is the equation of a line
t
= t
i
+
x
v
b
, (C 41b)
with its inverse slope dened as
v
b
=
v
w
sin(
c
+)
(C 41c)
and the intercept time given by
t
i
=
2z
wS
cos
c
cos
v
w
. (C 41d)
Equation (C-41a) can be rewritten for the refracted arrivals from updip shooting (Figure
3.4-11d) as
t
+
=
2z
wR
cos
c
cos
v
w
+
xsin(
c
)
v
w
. (C 42a)
Again, this is the equation of a line
t
+
= t
+
i
+
x
v
+
b
, (C 42b)
with its inverse slope dened as
v
+
b
=
v
w
sin(
c
)
, (C 42c)
and the intercept time given by
t
+
i
=
2z
wR
cos
c
cos
v
w
. (C 42d)
To compute the refractor dip and bedrock velocity, rst, rewrite equations (C-41c) and
(C-42c)
c
+ = sin
1
v
w
v
b
(C 43a)
and
c
= sin
1
v
w
v
+
b
. (C 43b)
By subtracting equation (C-43b) from (C-43a), we obtain an expression for the refractor dip :
=
1
2
_
sin
1
v
w
v
b
sin
1
v
w
v
+
b
_
. (C 44)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
This is equation (3-46a) of the text. Measure the slopes of the downdip and updip refracted
arrivals in Figure 3.4-11d v
b
and v
+
b
, respectively. Then, assume a value for the weathering
velocity v
w
. By direct substitution into equation (C-44), compute the refractor dip .
To obtain the bedrock velocity v
b
, rst, rewrite slopes from equations (C-41c) and (C-42c)
as
1
v
b
=
sin
c
cos + sincos
c
v
w
(C 45a)
and
1
v
+
b
=
sin
c
cos sincos
c
v
w
. (C 45b)
Add equations (C-45a) and (C-45b) and take the inverse. Then use the relation given by equation
(C-32) to obtain
v
b
=
2 cos
_
1
v
b
+
1
v
+
b
_. (C 46)
This is equation (3-46b) of the text. Finally, we compute the depth to the bedrock at shot-
receiver stations by substituting the estimates for refractor dip from equation (C-44) and the
bedrock velocity v
b
from equation (C-46), and the measurements for the intercept times t
i
and
t
+
i
from the arrival times in Figure 3-4.11d into equations (C-41d) and (C-42d) to obtain
z
wS
=
v
b
v
w
t
i
2 cos
_
v
2
b
v
2
w
(C 47a)
and
z
wR
=
v
b
v
w
t
+
i
2 cos
_
v
2
b
v
2
w
. (C 47b)
These equations are equivalent to equation (3-46c) of the text.
C.7 The Plus-Minus Times
Consider the three raypaths in Figure 3.4-12a associated with shot-receiver pairs AD, DG, and
AG. The plus and minus times are dened as
t
+
= t
ABCD
+t
DEFG
t
ABFG
(C 48a)
and
t
= t
ABCD
t
DEFG
+t
ABFG
. (C 48b)
The times given on the right side of these equations are the picked values from the rst breaks
for the three raypaths shown in Figure 3.4-12a. From the raypath conguration, we have the
relation
t
+
= 2
_
CD
v
w
CH
v
b
_
. (C 49a)
By using the geometric relations from Figure (3.4-12a), equation (C-49a) can be expressed in
terms of the critical angle of refraction and depth to bedrock z
w
as
t
+
= 2
_
z
w
v
w
cos

z
w
tan
v
b
_
. (C 49b)
Finally, by using the relation (C-32), we have the relation for the plus time t
+
in terms of the
near-surface parameters depth to bedrock z
w
, weathering velocity v
w
, and bedrock velocity
v
b
:
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
t
+
=
2z
w
_
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
w
v
b
. (C 48c)
This is equation (3-48a) of the text.
Now, consider the minus time t
dened by equation (C-48b). By using the raypath con-

guration depicted in Figure 3.4-12b, we have
t
=
2CD
v
w
+
2BC
v
b
+
CE
v
b
. (C 49a)
Make substitutions in terms of the near-surface parameters to get
t
=
2z
w
v
w
cos
+
2BC
v
b
+
2z
w
tan
v
b
. (C 49b)
By some algebraic manipulation, we get
t
=
2z
w
v
w
cos

2z
w
tan
v
b
+
2x
v
b
, (C 49c)
where x is the source-receiver separation AD. Compare the rst two terms on the right with
equation (C-48b), and rewrite equation (C-49c) to obtain
t
= t
+
+
2x
v
b
. (C 49d)
This is equation (3-48c) of the main text.
C.8 Generalized Linear Inversion of Refracted Arrivals
For an arbitrary source-receiver geometry, given a set of observed traveltimes associated with
the refracted arrivals, we can estimate the parameters associated with a single-layer near-surface
model using the generalized linear inversion (GLI). The parameters consist of the refractor
velocity, and the velocity and thickness of the near-surface layer at all shot/receiver locations.
The GLI solution for the parameters satises the requirement that the dierence between the
observed (picked) refracted arrival times and the estimated (modeled) times is minimum in the
least-squares sense. The modeled times are computed using the traveltime equation for refracted
arrivals for a at refractor considered as the base of a weathering layer.
The GLI schemes that allow velocity and thickness of a near-surface layer to vary spatially
require iterative strategies (Hampson and Russell, 1984; Schneider and Kuo, 1985; De Amorim
et al., 1987). Starting with initial estimates for the near-surface layer velocity and thickness,
and an initial estimate for the bedrock velocity, these parameters are changed such that the
dierence between the observed (picked) refracted arrival times and the estimated (modeled)
times is minimum in the least-squares sense. The GLI method is not only applicable to 2-D line
recording but also to 3-D swath recording geometries (Baixas and Du Pont, 1988; Kircheimer,
1988). It is important to parameterize the near-surface layer parsimoniously while conforming
with the basic assumptions required for the use of refracted arrivals in estimating the near-surface
model.
There are several ways to parameterize the near-surface layer. The most general formu-
lation would include varying the weathering and the bedrock velocities and the thickness of
the weathering layer at all shot/receiver locations. This, however, would require linearizing the
problem and iterating over the estimated parameters (Hampson and Russell, 1984; Schneider
and Kuo, 1985; De Amorim et al., 1987). In a simplied version of this general formulation,
the weathering velocity may be xed and is assumed to be known. This leaves the weathering
thickness and bedrock velocity as spatially varying parameters. A further simplication may
be made by dening a polynomial as a function of the space variable for the bedrock velocity
(Farrell and Euwema, 1984). In practice, we often nd that iterative GLI schemes suer from
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
stability problems. When an inversion scheme leads to unstable solutions, the most likely reason
is the ill-posed nature of the problem.
In this section, two robust parameterizations of the near-surface layer are presented and
the GLI method is used to estimate the associated parameters. In each, we assume that the
near-surface is made up of a single weathering layer with a signicant velocity contrast at its
base. The variable-thickness scheme allows the thickness of the weathering layer to vary spatially,
while assuming a xed known value for the weathering velocity. The bedrock velocity, however,
is included in the parameterization and is assumed to be constant. The variable-velocity scheme
allows the weathering velocity to vary spatially, while xing the refractor position at a specied
depth. The bedrock velocity, again, is treated as a parameter to be estimated and is asssumed
to be constant. We nd that in many eld data applications, these two inversion schemes are
able to remove long-wavelength statics variations from the data.
We want to describe the near-surface with minimal parameterization and consider the model
shown in Figure 3.4-13. The traveltime t
ij
for the refracted raypath from the shot location S
j
to the receiver location R
i
is given by
t
ij
= t
S
j
B
+t
BC
+t
CR
i
. (C 50)
The rst and the third terms are associated with the raypaths within the weathering layer and
the second term is associated with the raypath within the bedrock along the refractor. In Figure
3.4-13,
c
is the critical angle of refraction which is expressed in terms of the weathering and
bedrock velocities by the relation
c
= sin
1
(v
w
/v
b
). Also, as depicted in Figure 3.4-13, we
assume a at refractor. When refractor dip is taken into consideration, the problem cannot be
readily linearized.
By rewriting equation (C-50), for a at or near-at refractor, we obtain
t
ij
=
S
j
B
v
w
+
DE DB CE
v
b
+
CR
i
v
w
. (C 51)
By regrouping the terms, we get
t
ij
=
_
S
j
B
v
w
DB
v
b
_
+
_
CR
i
v
w
CE
v
b
_
+
DE
v
b
. (C 52)
Finally, by rewriting equation (C-52) in terms of the near-surface parameters, we obtain the
model equation for the refracted arrivals:
t
ij
=
z
j
_
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
+
z
i
_
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
+
x
ij
v
b
. (C 53)
In additon to asumming a at refractor, we x the bedrock velocity but retain it as a
parameter to be estimated. Under these assumptions, equation (C-52) can be rewritten in the
following form:
t
ij
= T
j
+T
i
+s
b
x
ij
, (C 54)
where
T
j
=
z
j
_
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
, (C 55)
T
i
=
z
i
_
v
2
b
v
2
w
v
b
v
w
, (C 56)
and
s
b
= 1/v
b
. (C 57)
Note that T
j
and T
i
are the intercept time anomalies at shot and receiver locations, respec-
tively, and s
b
is the bedrock slowness. Hence, for n shot/receiver stations the parameter vector is
p : (T
1
, T
2
, . . . , T
n
; s
b
). We refer to the scheme based on equation (C-54) as the variable-thickness
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
GLI solution. Once the parameter vector p : (T
1
, T
2
, . . . , T
n
; s
b
) is estimated, then the thickness
of the weathering layer below shot and receiver locations can be computed using equations (C-
55) and (C-56), respectively. For m picks of t
ij
, and n+1 parameters p : (T
1
, T
2
, . . . , T
n
; s
b
), we
have the following set of equations:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 1 x
ij
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
T
j
.
.
.
T
i
.
.
.
s
b
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
. (C 58)
By writing these equations in matrix notation, we have
t
= Lp, (C 59)
where t
is the column vector of m-length on the left-hand side of equation (C-58), L is the
sparse matrix in the same equation with dimensions m(n +1), and p is the column vector of
(n + 1)-length on the right-hand side of equation (C-58). Except for the three elements in each
row, the L matrix contains zeros. The GLI solution to equation (C-59) satises the requirement
that the energy of the error vector
e = t t
(C 60)
is minimum and is given by:
p = (L
T
L)
1
L
T
t, (C 61)
where t denotes the column vector of m-length that represents the observed (picked) refracted
arrival times, and T denotes matrix transposition.
In summary, the variable-thickness scheme for refraction statics is as follows:
(1) Assume a value for the weathering velocity v
w
. This can be varied spatially based on
available uphole information.
(2) Estimate the parameter vector p : (T
1
, T
2
, . . . , T
n
; s
b
), hence compute the intercept time
anomalies at shot/receiver locations and the bedrock slowness by solving equation (C-61).
(3) Solve equations (C-55) and (C-56) for the weathering layer thickness at shot and receiver
stations, respectively.
The shape of the weathering layer derived from the variable-thickness scheme strictly de-
pends on the assumed value for the weathering velocity. To demonstrate this important aspect of
the variable-thickness scheme, consider the near-surface model in Figure C-4a with a at refrac-
tor R1, and constant weathering and bedrock velocities. We use equation (C-53) and compute
the refracted arrival times associated with shot/receiver locations as indicated in Figure C-4a.
Then we use these arrival times in equation (C-61) and assume a value for the weathering velocity
dierent from its true value to estimate the thickness of the weathering layer at all shot/receiver
stations. Figures C-4b,c show the estimated refractor shapes R2, R3 for two dierent weathering
velocities. Note the signicant departure from the true refractor shape R1. Results of Figure
C-4 clearly demonstrate that the estimated refractor shape using the variable-thickness scheme
(whether it is based on GRM or GLI) does not yield the true refractor shape. Instead, the
uncertainty in weathering velocity signicantly inuences the implied refractor shape.
We now consider an alternative parameterization for the near-surface model. We assume a
at base of weathering as in Figure 3.4-13. This assumption makes the weathering thickness a
known quantity in equation (C-53), and leaves the weathering and bedrock velocities as unknown
parameters to be estimated. We take the similar view as in the variable-thickness scheme, and
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. C-4. (a) A single-layered near-surface model with a at refractor R1; v
w
= 3000 f/s, v
b
= 9000
f/s. Shot locations are denoted by and receiver locations are denoted by the vertical bars. Traveltimes
computed from the model in (a) and equation (C-53) are put into the variable-thickness GLI inversion
scheme (equation 2-5) to obtain the results shown in (b) where the weathering velocity is assumed to
be 3500 f/s, and (c) where the weathering velocity is assumed to be 2500 f/s. The estimated refractor
shapes are denoted by R2 and R3. Note the departure from the true location of the at refractor R1
due to the uncertainty in the weathering velocity.
FIG. C-5. (a) Same model as in Figure C-4a. (b) Results of the variable-velocity GLI inversion scheme
(equation 2-13) using the traveltimes computed from equation (C-53) and the model in (a) with an
assumed refractor position R2 that is dierent from the true position R1 of the refractor. The true
weathering and bedrock velocities, v
w
and v
b
, are 3000 f/s and 9000 f/s, respectively. Shot locations are
denoted by and receiver locations are denoted by vertical bars. While the GLI inversion yields the
true refractor velocity, note the spatially varying adjustment of the weathering velocity to the change
of the refractor position from R1 to R2 to compensate for the thickness R1-R2.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
further assume the bedrock velocity to be a constant parameter. Under these implicit constraints,
equation (C-53) takes the form
t
ij
=
j
z
j
+
i
z
i
+s
b
x
ij
, (C 62)
where
j
=
_
s
2
wj
s
2
b
, (C 63)
i
=
_
s
2
wi
s
2
b
, (C 64)
s
w
= 1/v
w
(C 65)
and
s
b
= 1/v
b
. (C 66)
Hence, for n shot/receiver stations, the parameter vector is p : (
1
,
2
, . . . ,
n
; s
b
). We
refer to the scheme based on equation (C-62) as the variable-velocity GLI solution. Once the
parameter vector p : (
1
,
2
, . . . ,
n
; s
b
) is estimated, then the weathering velocity below shot
and receiver locations can be computed using equations (C-63) and (C-64), respectively. For m
picks of t
ij
, and n+1 parameters p : (
1
,
2
, . . . ,
n
; s
b
), we have the following set of equations:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
. . . z
j
. . . z
i
. . . x
ij
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
j
.
.
.
i
.
.
.
s
b
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
. (C 67)
We write these equations in matrix notation as in equation (C-59), where t
is the column
vector of m-length on the left-hand side of equation (C-67), L is the sparse matrix in the same
equation with dimensions m (n + 1), and p is the column vector of (n + 1)-length on the
right-hand side of equation (C-67). Except for the three elements in each row, the L matrix
contains zeros. The GLI solution is given by equation (C-61) where the L matrix is dened as
in equation (C-67).
In summary, the variable-velocity scheme for refraction statics is as follows:
(1) Specify a at datum to which shot and receivers are to be lowered along vertical raypaths.
(2) Estimate the parameters: p : (
1
,
2
, . . . ,
n
; s
b
) using the GLI solution given by equation
(C-61) where the L matrix is dened as in equation (C-67).
(3) Solve equations (C-63) and (C-64) for the weathering velocity at shot and receiver stations,
respectively.
The estimated weathering velocity from the variable-velocity scheme depends on the as-
sumed refractor position. Consider the near-surface model in Figure C-5a, with a at refractor
R1, and constant weathering and bedrock velocities. We use equation (C-53) and compute the
refracted arrival times associated with shot/receiver locations as indicated in Figure C-5a. We
then use these arrival times in equation (C-61) and assume a refractor position R2 to estimate
the weathering velocity at all shot/receiver stations. Figure C-5b shows the estimated weath-
ering velocity which departs from the true value v
w
. The dierence arises from compensating
for the dierence between the true refractor position R1 and the assumed refractor position R2
(Figure C-5a).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
In equations (C-58) and (C-67), we made no distinction between a shot and a receiver
if they occupy the same location on the surface. This strictly surface-consistent solution is of
course not valid for a dynamite source. However, shots can be brought up to surface with an
uphole correction prior to setting up equations (C-58) and (C-67).
For most eld data applications, both the variable-thickness and the variable-velocity
schemes yield comparable statics solutions. The solution from the variable-thickness scheme
is sensitive to the uncertainty in weathering velocity, and the solution from the variable-velocity
scheme is inuenced by the assumed depth of the at refractor.
C.9 Refraction Traveltime Tomography
Return to equation (C-52) and re-express it in the following manner (De Amorim et al., 1987):
t
ij
= s
wj
Z
j
+s
wi
Z
i
+s
b
X
ij
, (C 68)
where
Z
j
=
z
j
cos
j
, (C 69a)
Z
i
=
z
i
cos
i
, (C 69b)
X
ij
= x
ij
z
j
tan
j
z
i
tan
i
, (C 69c)
s
w
=
1
v
w
, (C 69d)
and
s
b
=
1
v
b
. (C 69e)
In matrix form, equation (C-68) now is written as follows:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Z
j
Z
i
X
ij
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
s
wj
.
.
.
s
wi
.
.
.
s
b
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
. (C 70)
Consider an initial estimate of the parameter vector p : ( , s
wj
, , s
wi
, , s
b
). We want
to minimize the dierence between the observed and the modeled times by iteratively perturbing
the initial estimate of the parameter vector. A change p in the paramater vector will change
the modeled times as follows:
_
t
ij
_
modeled
=
_
t
ij
_
initial
+
_
t
ij
p
_
modeled
p. (C 71)
The error in modeling the traveltimes is given by
e
ij
=
_
t
ij
_
observed
_
t
ij
_
modeled.
(C 72)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Substitute equation (C-71) into equation (C-72) to obtain
e
ij
=
_
t
ij
_
observed
_
t
ij
_
initial
_
t
ij
p
_
modeled
p. (C 73)
Now dene the dierence t
ij
between the observed traveltimes t
ij
and the initial estimate of
the modeled traveltimes t
ij
, and rewrite equation (C-73) to get
e
ij
= t
ij

t
ij
p
p. (C 74)
The second term on the right is the amount of change in t
ij
as a result of the change in the
parameter p. Dene this term as t
ij
, and rewrite equation (C-74) once more to obtain
e
ij
= t
ij
t
ij
, (C 75)
where
t
ij
=
t
ij
p
p. (C 76)
The derivatives t
ij
/p in equation (C-76) can be computed by dierentiating the model
equation (C-68) with respect to each of the parameters:
t
ij
s
wj
Z
j
, (C 77a)
t
ij
s
wi
Z
i
, (C 77b)
and
t
ij
s
b
X
ij
. (C 77c)
These then are substituted back into the right-hand side of equation (C-76) to get
t
ij
= Z
j
s
wj
+Z
i
s
wi
+X
ij
s
b
. (C 78)
Examine the structure of equation (C-78) and note that, instead of modeling refraction
traveltimes by way of equation (C-68), we can model the change in traveltimes by way of
equation (C-78), and thus estimate the near-surface parameters. Hence, for n shot/receiver
stations, the parameter vector is p : (s
w1
, s
w2
, , s
wn
, s
b
). We refer to the scheme
based on equation (C-78) as the iterative GLI solution. For m picks of t
ij
, and n+1 parameters
p : (s
w1
, s
w2
, , s
wn
, s
b
), we have the following set of equations:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Z
j
Z
i
X
ij
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
s
wj
.
.
.
s
wi
.
.
.
s
b
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
. (C 79)
We write these equations in matrix notation as in equation (C-59) to obtain
t
=
t
p
p (C 80)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
or
t
= Lp, (C 81)
where t
is the column vector of m-length on the left-hand side of equation (C-79), L is the
sparse matrix in the same equation with nonzero elements as the partial derivatives t
/p and
with dimensions m (n + 1), and p is the column vector of (n + 1)-length on the right-hand
side of equation (C-79). Except for the three elements in each row, the L matrix contains zeros.
The GLI solution to equation (C-81) satises the requirement that the energy of the error
vector
e = t t
(C 82)
is minimum and is given by
p = (L
T
L)
1
L
T
t, (C 83)
where t denotes the column vector of m-length that represents the dierence between the
observed (picked) refracted arrival times and the initial estimate of the modeled times, and T
denotes matrix transposition.
In summary, the iterative scheme for refraction statics is as follows:
(a) Specify a at datum to which shot and receivers are to be lowered along vertical raypaths.
(b) Also specify a set of initial model parameters p : (s
w1
, s
w2
, , s
wn
, s
b
).
(c) Compute t
ij
, the time dierence between the picked (observed) times t
ij
and the initial
modeled times t
ij
.
(d) Estimate the change in parameters: p : (s
w1
, s
w2
, , s
wn
, s
b
), by way of the GLI
solution given by equation (C-83).
(e) Update the paramater vector p +p, and compute new modeled times t
ij
.
(f) Iterate steps (c), (d), and (e) to get a nal estimate of the parameter vector p.
The parameter vector for the iterative scheme described above comprises laterally varying
weathering velocity and a constant bedrock velocity. Depth to the refractor is assumed to be
known. An alternative parameterization of the near-surface model may involve estimating a
laterally varying weathering velocity and depth to the refractor while assuming a known value
for the bedrock velocity.
Rearrange the terms in equation (C-62):
t
ij
= t
ij
s
b
x
ij
, (C 84)
so that
t
ij
= T
j
+T
i
. (C 85)
Equation (C-84) implies that, in this scheme, we deal with picked times that have been linear-
moveout corrected using the assumed value for the bedrock velocity. By way of equations (C-55)
and (C-56), equation (C-85) is expressed as follows:
t
ij
= z
j
_
s
2
wj
s
2
b
+z
i
_
s
2
wi
s
2
b
. (C 86)
Compute the partial derivatives of the parameters to be estimated depth to refractor and
weathering velocity at shot and receiver locations:
t
ij
z
j
=
_
s
2
wj
s
2
b
Z
j
, (C 87a)
t
ij
z
i
=
_
s
2
wi
s
2
b
Z
i
, (C 87b)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
t
ij
s
wj
=
z
j
s
wj
_
s
2
wj
s
2
b
S
wj
, (C 87c)
and
t
ij
s
wi
=
z
j
s
wi
_
s
2
wi
s
2
b
S
wi
. (C 87d)
Now rewrite equation (C-76) in terms of the new variable t
to obtain
t
=
t
p
p, (C 88)
and substitute equations (2-49a, b, c, d) to get the model equation
t
= Z
j
z
j
+Z
i
z
i
+S
wj
s
wj
+S
wi
s
wi
. (C 89)
Finally, similar to equation (C-79), we have the following set of equations:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Z
j
Z
i
S
wj
S
wi

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
z
j
.
.
.
z
i
.
.
.
s
wj
.
.
.
s
wi
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
. (C 90)
Follow the steps which involve equations (C-80) through (C-83) to estimate the parameter
vector p : ( , z
j
, , z
i
, , s
wj
, , s
wi
).
C.10 L
1
-Norm Refraction Statics
The generalized linear inversion method applied to residual and refraction statics is based on
minimization of the quantity
E =
ij
t
ij
t
ij

2
, (C 91a)
where t
ij
are the actual traveltime picks and t
ij
are the modeled traveltimes dened by equation
(C-24a) for residual statics and (C-54) for refraction statics.
The minimization norm dened by equation (C-91) is formally referred to as the L
2
norm.
For statics applications, it may be desirable to use the L
1
minimization norm dened by
E =
ij
t
ij
t
ij
. (C 91b)
Outliers in picked times can cause biased results from the L
2
-norm, whereas, they may be
better handled by the L
1
-norm schemes. The L
2
-norm solutions to equations (C-24a) and (C-54)
are expressed by the generalized linear inversion formula (equations C-28 or C-61). Whereas,
the L
1
-norm solution is based on linear programming techniques (Press et al., 1987) and will
not be dealt with here. Instead, we shall refer to model experiments and a eld data example
for the L
1
-norm refraction statics corrections.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. C-6. CMP stack associated with the model data in Figure 3.4-14 (a) with refraction statics
corrections using the L
1
-norm, (b) section as in (a) after residual statics corrections using the L
1
-norm.
Compare with the L2-norm results in Figure 3.4-17.
FIG. C-7. Summary of the L
1
-norm solution
for refraction statics associated with the CMP
stacked section in Figure 3.4-15a. Plot direc-
tion is the same as that in Figure 3.4-15. Ex-
cept in frame 1, shot attributes are denoted
with and receiver attributes are denoted
with vertical bars. Estimated parameters are
intercept time anomalies and are plotted in
frame 1 with no distinction made between shot
and receiver locations.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. C-8. CMP stack associated with the model data in Figure 3.4-21 (a) with refraction statics
corrections using the L
1
-norm, (b) section as in (a) after residual statics corrections using the L
1
-norm.
Compare with the L2-norm results in Figure 3.4-26.
FIG. C-9. Summary of the L
1
-norm solution for refrac-
tion statics associated with the CMP stacked section
in Figure 3.4-26a. Plot direction is the same as that in
Figure 3.4-26. Except in frame 1, shot attributes are de-
noted with and receiver attributes are denoted with
vertical bars. Estimated parameters are intercept time
anomalies and are plotted in frame 1 with no distinction
made between shot and receiver locations.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
FIG. C-10. The CMP stacked section of the data in Figure 3.4-29 (a) after refraction statics using an
L
1
-norm scheme for refraction statics, and (b) followed by residual statics corrections. Compare with
Figure 3.4-29 and note the signicant improvement of CMP stacking as a result of resolving both long-
and short-wavelength statics anomalies by refraction and residual statics corrections, respectively. Also,
compare with Figure 3.4-32 and note that the results of L
1
- and L
2
-norm statics solutions, in this case,
yield very similar results.
Consider the single-layered near-surface model shown in Figure 3.4-14. Figure C-6 shows
results of refraction and residual statics corrections using the L
1
-norm. Note that these results
are comparable to those obtained from L
2
-norm minimization (Figure 3.4-17).
The results of the L
1
-norm statics estimates are summarized in Figure C-7. Compare with
those of the L
2
-norm solution in Figure 3.4-18 and note that the statics solutions exhibit minor
dierences, although the resulting stacked sections are almost identical. Frame 1 shows the
estimated intercept time anomalies (equations 3-53a,b), as a function of the shot-receiver station
number. Frame 2 shows the pick fold, namely the number of picks in each shot (denoted by )
and receiver (denoted by the vertical bars) gather.
A quantitative measure of the accuracy of the L
1
-norm solution to refraction statics is the
sum of the dierences between the observed picks t
ij
ij
(equation
C-91b) over each shot and receiver gather. These residual time dierences are plotted in frame
3 of Figure C-7. Large residuals often are related to bad picks. Nevertheless, even with good
picks, there may be large residuals attributable to inappropriateness of the model assumed for
the near-surface.
Figure C-7 also shows the estimated weathering thicknesses at all shot-receiver stations
(frame 4). Finally, the computed statics and the near-surface model are shown in frames 5 and
6, respectively.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Now consider the multilayered near-surface model shown in Figure 3.4-21. Figure C-8 shows
results of refraction and residual statics corrections using the L
1
-norm solution. Again, results
are comparable to those obtained from L
2
Results of the L
1
-norm refraction statics solution are summarized in Figure C-9. Compare
with those of the L
2
-norm solution in Figure 3.4-27 and note that the statics solutions and the
resulting stacked sections are virtually identical. Although the actual near-surface model consists
of several layers (Figure 3.4-21a), the L
1
-norm solution is based on a single layer with a constant
velocity of 1400 m/s as for the L
2
-norm solution (Figure 3.4-27). In Figure C-9, Frame 1 shows
the estimated intercept time anomalies (equation 3-53a,b), as a function of the shot-receiver
station number. Frame 2 shows the pick fold, namely the number of picks in each shot (denoted
by ) and receiver (denoted by the vertical bars) gather. The sum of the dierences between the
observed picks t
ij
ij
(equation C-91b) over each shot and receiver
gather is shown in frame 3. Large residuals, in this case, are attributable to inappropriateness
of the model assumed for the near-surface. Figure C-9 also shows the estimated weathering
thicknesses at all shot-receiver stations (frame 4). Finally, the computed statics and the near-
surface model are shown in frames 5 and 6, respectively. Whatever the inversion norm, the
important point is how the near-surface model is parameterized and how close it is to the real
situation.
Figure C-10 shows the results of refraction and residual statics corrections applied to eld
data as in Figure 3.4-29 using the L
1
-norm solution. The results are comparable to those obtained
from L
2
REFERENCES
Al-Chalabi, M., 1973, Series approximations in velocity and traveltime computations: Geophys.
Prosp., 21, 783-795.
Baixas, F. and Du Pont, R., 1988, Practical view of 3-D refraction statics: 58th Ann. Internat.
Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophs., Expanded Abstracts, 787-790.
Bevc, D., 1997, Flooding the topography: Wave-equation datuming of land data with rugged to-
pography: Geophysics, 62, 1558-1569.
Castle, R. J., 1994, A theory of normal moveout: Geophysics, 59, 983-999.
Claerbout, J. F., 1978, How to derive interval velocities using a pencil and straight edge: Stanford
Expl. Proj., Rep. No. 14.
De Amorim, W. N., Hubral, P. and Tygel, M., 1987, Computing eld statics with the help of
seismic tomography: Geophys. Prosp., 35, 907-919.
De Bazelaire, E., 1988, Normal moveout revisited: Inhomogeneous media and curved interfaces:
Geophysics, 53, 143-157.
Dix, C. H., 1955, Seismic velocities from surface measurements: Geophysics, 20, 68-86.
Dobrin, M. B., 1960, Introduction to geophysical prospecting: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Farrell, R. C. and Euwema, R. N., 1984, Refraction Statics: Proc. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng., 72,
1316-1329.
Grant, F. S. and West, G. F., 1965, Interpretation theory in applied geophysics: McGraw-Hill Book
Co.
Gulunay, N., 1985, A new method for the surface-consistent decomposition of statics using dimin-
ishing residual matrices (DRM): 55th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded
Abstracts, 293-295.
Hagedoorn, J. G., 1959, The plus-minus method of interpreting seismic refraction sections: Geophys.
Prosp., 7, 158-182.
Hampson, D. and Russell, B., 1984, First-break interpretation using generalized inversion: J. Can.
Soc. Explor. Geophys., 20, 40-54.
Hileman, J. A., Embree, P., and Peuger, J. C., 1968, Automated static corrections: Geophys.
Prosp., 16, 326-358.
Hill, R. N., 1987, Downward continuation of refracted arrivals to determine shallow strucutre:
Geophysics, 52, 1188-1198.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
Hill, R. N. and Wuenschel, P. C., 1985, Numerical modeling of refraction arrivals in complex areas:
Hubral, P. and Krey, T., 1980, Interval velocities from seismic reection time measurements: Soc.
Expl. Geophys.
Kircheimer, F., 1988, 3-D Refraction statics by weighted least-squares inversion: 59th Ann. Internat.
Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 794-797.
Levin, F. K., 1971, Apparent velocity from dipping interface reections: Geophysics, 36, 510-516.
Lines, L. R. and Treitel, S., 1984, Tutorial: A review of least-squares inversion and its application
to geophyiscal problems: Geophys. Prosp., 32, 159-186.
Neidell, N. S. and Taner, M. T., 1971, Semblance and other coherency measures for multichannel
data: Geophysics, 34, 482-497.
Nur, A., 1981, Physical properties of rocks: Soc. Expl. Geophys. Continuing Education Course
Notes.
Palmer, D., 1981, The generalized reciprocal method of refraction seismic interpretation: Geo-
physics, 46, 1508-1518.
Press, W. H., B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky and W. A. Vettering, 1987: Numerical recipes
The art of scientic computing, Cambridge University Press.
Ronen, J. and Claerbout, J. F., 1985, Surface-consistent residual statics estimation by stack-power
maximization: Geophysics, 50, 2759-2767.
Schneider, W. A., 1971, Developments in seismic data processing and analysis (1968-1970): Geo-
physics, 36 , 1043-1073.
Schneider, W. A. and Kuo, S., 1985, Refraction modeling for statics corrections: 55th Ann. Internat.
Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 295-299.
Sheri, R. E., 1976, Inferring stratigraphy from seismic data: Am. Assn. Petr. Geol. Bull., 60,
528-542.
Sherwood, J. W. C. and Poe, P. H., 1972, Constant velocity stack and seismic wavelet processing:
Slotnick, M. M., 1959, Lessons in seismic computing: Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Taner, M. T. and Koehler, F., 1969, Velocity spectra digital computer derivation and applications
of velocity functions: Geophysics, 39, 859-881.
Taner, M. T., Koehler, F., and Alhilali, K. A., 1974, Estimation and correction of near-surface time
anomalies: Geophysics, 41, 441-463.
Taner, M. T., Wagner, D. E., Baysal, E., and Lu, L., 1998, A unied method for 2-D and 3-D
refraction staitcs: Geophysics, 63, 1-15.
Thore, P. D. and Kelly, P., 1992, Stack enhancement using the three-term equation: Synthetic
and real data examples: 62nd Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts,
1550-1553.
Wiggins, R. A., Larner, K. L., and Wisecup, R. D., 1976, Residual statics analysis as a general
linear inverse problem: Geophysics, 41, 922-938.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

0
1
/
0
5
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
2
.
1
5
9
.
1
0
6
.
2
0
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
E
G

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

T
e
r
m
s

o
f

U
s
e

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
s
e
g
.
o
r
g
/

Velocity Analysis and Statics Corrections

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Velocity Analysis and Statics Corrections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Velocity Analysis and

at the corresponding oset.

at midpoint M, and is the angle between the normal

, which is not the same as

is related to bedrock velocity v

is the column vector of m-length (number of traveltime picks) in equation (C-24b) or

dened by equation (C-48b). By using the raypath con-

You might also like