Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

246 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Aspden - The Physics of Creation (2003)
- Wavelet
- Class VIII FOUNDATION & OLYMPIAD
- Dinamycs (english)
- Chapter_6_03.pdf
- Chapter_6_03.pdf
- 2001 Jun QP M1 edexcel
- M1 Statics - Equilibrium Problems
- On the Application of the Law of Gravitation to the Atomic Theory-English-Gustasv Theodor Fechner.
- Ch04_Newton's Laws of Motion
- AssessedLabReport-SimonSeligChute
- Static Equilibrium.docx
- Lec07.pdf
- science dropping races
- 249160001 9th Class Physics Paper Pattern 2013
- PhysicsLabI_exp3
- physicslabwriteup
- 09Jun-M2
- 06Jan-M2
- Deney 2

You are on page 1of 9

J. J. SaIlas*

ABSTRACT

free surface of a semi-infinite isotropic solid.” In it the relation-

While the need for phase compensation is well es- ship between stress applied to the surface of a half-space and

tablished, the best method to measure the seismic vibra- far-field particle motion was investigated. For an isotropic

tor output is not. Phase control of the force exerted by a homogeneous lossless half-space, downhole particle displace-

seismic vibrator upon the earth’s surface (ground force) ment and surface stress applied uniformly over a disc are in

is shown to be useful in producing consistent downhole phase except for an ideal time delay.

P-wave signatures. Experimental results are presented Castanet et al. (1965) were the first to develop a practical

which compare the downhole correlation wavelets pro- method of measuring the force applied by a seismic vibrator to

duced by phase-locking to ground force; reaction mass the earth’s surface. If some simplifying assumptions are made,

acceleration and baseplate acceleration as changes in Castanet’s weighted sum of reaction mass acceleration and

vibrator type, sweep bandwidth, drive level, and cou- baseplate acceleration can be used to approximate ground

pling medium are made. The empirical results support force over the seismic frequency band. Rickenbacker (1981)

earlier theoretical work which predicts with suitable as- exploited Castanet et al’s result to produce a system useful for

sumptions that ground force and far-field particle dis- controlling the peak force amplitude output of a seismic vibra-

placement are in phase except for a time delay. tor to ensure that decoupling does not occur.

Lerwill (1981) proposed using reaction mass acceleration for

a phase feedback signal. Lerwill compared uphole VibroseisTM

INTRODUCTION wavelets produced by phase-locking to mass acceleration and

baseplate acceleration on different surfaces. For the sweeps

Much work has been invested in improving the vibrator compared, the reaction mass acceleration phase-locked loop

phase controller to assure that a zero phase (or at least a known produced more stable wavelets than the conventional baseplate

phase) wavelet will result from the crosscorrelation of the vibra- acceleration method. Good agreement between empirical

tor output and the reference (pilot) sweep. SEG standards and measurements of earth compliance and a model based upon the

general usage define vibrator output in terms of baseplate radiation impedance theorized by Miller and Pursey (1954)

motion (displacement, velocity, or acceleration). Two other were reported. Also the model and empirical results produced

feedback signals have been recently proposed for phase con- by Lerwill are in good agreement with a much earlier work by

trol : reaction mass acceleration and ground force. The content Sung (1953).

of this paper is limited to (1) an explanation of how ground Sallas and Weber (1982), in a reply to Lerwill, presented an

force may be measured; (2) a review of earlier theoretical re- analytic expression relating ground force and reaction mass

sults; (3) introduction of a means of band-pass filtering first acceleration. For Lerwill’s vibrator and earth model, wavelets

arrivals from downhole data; and (4) comparison of empirical produced by ground force phase lock and reaction mass accel-

data obtained downhole using ground force, reaction mass, and eration phase lock were shown to be in phase at low frequencies

baseplate acceleration phase feedback. The empirical studies with increased phase shift as frequency increased.

were conducted on three GSI vibrator types equipped with TI Many of the practical advantages mentioned for reaction

MOD IIIA electronics. The vibrators used included X2/TR-4 mass acceleration control are also afforded by ground force

(30,000 Ibf), an X-3/TR-4 (45,000 lbf) and the ERV (78,000 Ibf control. The most significant’practical advantage of both meth-

experimental vibrator). The numbers in parentheses are the ods is a cleaner feedback signal on which to phase-lock than

rated actuator forces, and they are the product of the actuator that afforded by baseplate acceleration. Out of the three phase-

piston area and system pressure (3000 psi) for each vibrator. lock control methods, ground force has the potential for pro-

Furthermore, the effect of changes in sweep bandwidth, near- ducing consistent wavelets.

surface conditions, and drive level are included.

In 1954, Miller and Pursey published a paper entitled “The

field:and radiation impedance of mechanical radiators on the T”Registeredtrademarkof Conoco Inc.

Presentedin part at the 52nd Annual International SEC Meeting October 19, 1982, in Dallas. Manuscript received by the Editor October 3, 1983;

revised manuscript received December 12, 1983.

*Geophysical Service Inc., P.O. Box 225621, MS 3904, Dallas, TX 75265.

:(” 1984 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

732

Seismic Vibrator Control 733

Definition of terms

Figure 1b is a representation of the earth’s impedance as seen

by the vibrator. The variables are defined as follows:

FIG. I. (a) Mechanical model of the hydraulic vibrator actuator.

F, = Actuator force, the dynamic force exerted by the

(b) Mechanical ground impedance model.

hydraulic fluid upon the actuator piston (N).

F, = Dynamic force exerted by the vehicle frame upon

the baseplate due to vehicle vibration. F, acts upon

the baseplate through airbag acoustic isolators

(N). vibrator may not be in phase. Therefore, even though two

F, = Compressive force exerted by the earth upon the vibrators may be phase-locked perfectly to the pilot and on

baseplate (N). An equal and opposite force is also identical soil, there is a definite possibility that the downgoing

exerted at the same time by the baseplate upon the pressure wave may not completely reinforce (especially at high

earth as shown in Figure 1b. frequencies). This does not present a problem to ground force

M, = Mass of the reaction mass (kg). phase lock since a direct control over the force applied to the

M, = Mass of the baseplate (kg). earth is exerted. A second problem peculiar to both baseplate

K, = Spring constant for the actuator oil column due to and reaction mass phase lock is that when the baseplate loses

oil compressibility (N/m). contact with the earth, it will continue to accelerate and its

D, = Dashpot constant for the actuator which accounts sensor will continue to produce a signal which is no longer

for lossesin the oil column due to leakage (N s/m). representative of the earth’s motion. Similarly with reaction

K, = Ground spring constant (N/m). mass phase lock, actuator force is still required to accelerate the

D, = Ground damping coefficient (N s/m). baseplate mass even when the baseplate is in mid-air. Hence,

the potential exists for the generation of an erroneous feedback

Equations of motion

signal bearing no relation to what is happening at the earth’s

surface during separation.

Assuming the reaction mass and baseplate act as rigid

bodies, the actuator model of Figure la has the equations of

FAR-FIELD PARTICLE MOTION

motion :

Assume that a sinusoidal uniform vertical stress is applied to

Summing equations (1) and (2), one obtains the free surface of a half-space over a small disc region. The

problem is to determine the vertical displacement of a particle

F,-F,=M,X,fMJ,. (3) located at great depth directly beneath the radiator. The vari-

If the vehicle is vibrationally isolated from the baseplate for ables used for this geometry are defined as follows:

frequencies in the range of interest, forces transmitted through

the airbag isolators to the baseplate can be neglected. For most B = Radius of the disc over which stress is ap-

seismic vibrators in use today the vehicle is effectively isolated plied(m).

at frequencies above 3 Hz. Simplifying equation (3), Z = Particle depth(m).

C, = Effective compressional elastic constant

-F, = M,X, + M,X,. (4)

(N/m’).

Therefore, one method of obtaining a signal proportional to the o = Amplitude of the pressure applied to the

dynamic force applied to the earth is to form a weighted sum of half-space (N/m’).

calibrated accelerometers mounted on the reaction mass and p = Density of the half-space material (kg/m3).

baseplate assemblies. An insight into one problem that may be W = Frequency of perturbation (s- ‘).

encountered with reaction mass acceleration phase lock can be X(Z, W) = Particle displacement phasor at depth Z and

found by examining equation (1). As suggested by Lerwill, the frequency W, where positive displacement is

mass accelerometer provides a good approximation to the ac- downward (m).

tuator force when operating below the oil column resonance A(Z, W) = Particle acceleration phasor at depth Z and

and when leakage terms can be ignored. The problem is com- frequency W (m/s’).

plicated when two or more vibrators are to be synchronized. If F4( W) = Ground force phasor applied to the surface

the oil column resonance is different for each vibrator, or one at frequency W(N).

vibrator has a greater leakage due to wear, the actuator force V, = Compressional wave velocity in the half-

and, more importantly, the force applied to the earth by each space (m/s).

734 Sallas

stant. For a lossless medium Q will be infi-

nite.

HTLP HTLP

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 first arrival wavelets.

FREQUENCY (HZ)

p=2 g/CC, Z = 153 M (500 FT)

VP = 1829 M/SEC (6000 FT/SEC)

. SCALE : 0 DB (0 .l Gs)

FIG. 2. Effect of Q on downhole acceleration in a homogeneous provides only a first-order approximation and does not explain

material. the minimum phase dispersion observed in real data. Aki and

Richards (1980) recently developed a more elaborate absorp-

tion model which includes dispersion. In this vein, one can

write

Fundamental theoretical results

Substitute equation (8) into equation (7). Assume Q is greater

For the case where the applied compressive stress is sinu- than 10 to yield approximation (9),

soidal and of amplitude o, Miller and Pursey (1954) showed A(Z, W)/F,(W) = [ - W2/(2XC,Z)]R(Z, W). (9)

that downhole far-field particle displacement and applied sur-

face stress are in phase except for an ideal time delay as shown exp C-jWZJ12G13

in equation (5), where j is the square root of - 1. Particle where

displacement is also in phase except for a time delay for points

not directly below the source; however, amplitude is affected: R(Z W) = exp C(- WZPQ)~I. (10)

XG, W = CBZa/W,Z)l expC-.WZJblC,)l. (5)

Equation (10) may be rewritten in terms of the P-wave veloc-

Working under the same set of assumptions, and in particu- ity. Use the P-wave velocity

lar the condition that no horizontal components of stress are

present at the interface between baseplate and the earth surface, v, = &Z (11)

an extension of equation (5) can be obtained. Ground force is to rewrite equation (9)

merely the applied vertical compressive stress applied to the

earth integrated over the baseplate area. If the stress is assumed 4‘ ,(-T WIF,Pv = c-w2/(2vv;z)1’

uniform, ground force is the stress times the baseplate contact

area. For this case, equation (5) may be rewritten as a transfer

ew [ - WZIVQ VP)1

function exp [ -jWZ/V,]. (12)

XV, V/F,(W) = C1/(2~C,Z)lew C-jWZJZjl. (6) As can be seen, downhole particle acceleration at a fixed

depth increases with frequency squared if a force of constant

Equation (6) may be rewritten in terms of particle acceler-

amplitude is applied. As depth increases in a lossy medium,

ation by twice differentiating particle displacement with respect

absorption quickly overcomes this boost. Furthermore, particle

to time Since I am concerned with only sinusoidal force inputs,

motion is greater in a low-velocity medium than in a high-

differentiation in time amounts to multiplication by jW. The

velocity material. The amplitude of particle motion is extremely

result is equation (7):

sensitive to the compressional wave velocity of the material.

AK Y/F,(W) = C-W2/(2~C,Z)1 exp C-jWZJiZj1. For a low-velocity material the particle acceleration-versus-

frequency curve is shifted upward, but for the same Q the

(7) high-frequency roll-off will begin sooner than in a high-velocity

The term C, is the effective compressional constant for the medium. Figure 2 depicts the effect of changes of Q on particle

medium. The above results are for a losslessearth. The effect of acceleration when a constant amplitude force is applied.

an earth with finite Q can be approximated in equation (7) by Another very important result which follows from equation

including an imaginary term in the compressional elastic con- (12) is that a zero-phase wavelet should be produced by cross-

stant. This method of accounting for frictional losses and other correlation of the pilot and a downhole accelerometer output

loss mechanisms has been widely used in the literature. This when a P-wave vibrator is phase-locked to -F, Because the

Seismic Vibrator Control 735

downhole accelerometer and SF must be time delayed on

output to effect no delay through the algorithm. The low-pass

filters are chosen based on the FM sweep parameters such as

sweep rate and minimum frequency in the sweep. Then the filter

cutoff is chosen so that late arrivals will be rejected. Two

low-pass filters were used: 1.O Hz on the l&l 10 Hz, 5 s sweeps

and 1.5 Hz on the 8180 Hz, 6 s sweeps. The resulting tracking

band-pass filters have 2 Hz and 3 Hz bandwidths, respectively.

These provide roughly a +50 ms time window about the first

arrival, so that effects of late arrivals in the computation of the

downhole first arrival power spectrum are minimized. In addi-

AFTER FILTER (3 HZ BW)

T tion, because of the low bandwidth, source-generated harmon-

ics are rejected. Iterative zero-phase low-pass filters were em-

ployed to reduce the effects of windowing (see Papoulis, 1975).

One-way travel time to 300 ft, the shallowest geophone, was

measured to be 80 ms using two methods (cap detonated at the

surface and measurement from the Vibroseis wavelet). Figure 4

displays a typical downhole wavelet at the GSI Sherman, Texas

test site before and after filtering. Note most of the late arrivals

-1 I I I I I 1 have been knocked out and the first arrival wavelet signature is

-200 -100 TLE (M:::) 200 300

preserved. Note also there is some reverberation still present in

the processed wavelet, probably due to near-surface multiples

having arrived inside the time window.

FE. 4. Performance of the tracking filter on a 300-ft downhole

correlated wavelet. (An X2/TR-4 source was used in an 8180

Hz, 6 s FM sweep.)

EMPIRICAl. RESL’LTS

phase dispersive nature of absorption has not been incorpor- The initial experiment was conducted in August, 1982 at the

ated into equation (12) some deviation from zero phase can be GSI Sherman test site located one mile northeast of the junc-

expected in a lossy medium. tion of Texas FM902 and US Highway 75. The top soil is black

gumbo over caliche. The subsurface lithology follows the Ciulf

EXTRACTING THE FIRST ARRIVAL series. A IOOO-fthole is located at the site which is steel cased

for 20 ft with the remainder uncased. Wall clamping geophones

are installed at lOO-ft intervals beginning at 100 ft. with the last

The hand-pass tracking filter

at 1000 ft. The vibrators were shaken on a compacted area 20 ft

Thus far the vibrator candidate feedback control signals have from the well head.

been introduced. After some simplifying assumptions a special In June, 1983, a second experiment was conducted at the

relationship between one of these candidates, ground force, and same site. In April, 1983, sandpits were constructed at the site.

downhole particle motion has been presented. In order to test The pit used (10 ft square and 6 ft deep) was filled with Red

the validity of the theory in practice, it is useful to extract the River sand and compacted. The purpose of this second experi-

first P-wave arrival from downhole data. Figure 3 depicts a ment was to examine the effect of changes in the near-surface

tracking filter useful for eliminating sources of late arrivals from on downhole signatures. Unfortunately, valid data could not be

the data; Rayleigh and shear waves, multiple reflections, and obtained from a second sand pit which was thoroughly wa-

also the effects of source generated distortion need to be filtered tered. The surface would not support the vibrator vehicle

out. weight. Also, sweeps were run at different drive levels to find

The block diagram in Figure 3 is useful in understanding the out what effect source amplitude might have on downhole

operation of an off-line tracking band-pass filter that is capable signatures.

of extracting first arrivals. The raw sensor signal S is hetero-

dyned (multiplied) with a taperless (unit amplitude) version of August, 1982 experimental results

the pilot TLP in the upper leg and with the Hilbert transformed

taperless pilot HTLP in the lower leg. The outputs of the Figures 5 and 6 depict the phase and amplitude relationships

multiplier are low-pass filtered LPF to yield signals A and 9. between the candidate phase feedback signals as measured on

Signals A and B are the amplitudes of the components in the the three vibrators, If the earth radiation impedance model of

sensor signal which are coherent with the pilot at its instanta- Figure lb is used at low frequencies, the earth looks like a

neous frequency. By remixing and summing, a filtered sensor spring and therefore - FG and riB should be in phase. At high

signal SF is produced. (A2 + B’)’ ’ is the amplitude of the frequencies the radiation impedance tends to look more like a

fundamental component of the sensor coherent with the pilot. dashpot, and positive ground force and baseplate velocity will

For downhole signals knowledge of the first arrival time is be in phase. Therefore in this frequency region ~~ should lag

9

Sallas

20 ERV

gc~_.~~~.~.~~~

0

-20 1

0

I 20 40

I

60

I

80 100

I I

120

1

140 160 180

FREQUENCY (HZ)

0 20 40 60 BO 100 120 140 160 180 NOTE: FG - 0 DB (8820 LBF), ik AND ib - 0 DB (2.1 Gs)

FREQUENCY (HZ)

FIG. 6. Comparison of the fundamental amplitude of the candi-

date phase feedback signals as measured on three vibrator

FIG. 5. Comparison of the phase of baseplate acceleration (XiB) types.

and reaction mass acceleration (XR) referred to negative

ground force (- FG) as measured on three vibrator types.

model and equations (I) and (2) it can be shown that ;rid

referred to -FG should be in phase at low frequencies and

approach 90 degrees of lead at high frequency.

The data of Figures 5 and 6 are useful for predicting charac-

teristics of the downhole wavelets as phase feedback methods

are changed. The phase curves were generated from the 8-180

Hz, 6 s and 0.5 s cosine taper sweep. The abrupt phase change

4

below 20 Hz occurs within the taper time where amplitudes

were low. The greatest difference in downhole wavelet shape as

phase feedback signals are changed should occur when phase

differences between the candidates are emphasized by high

ground force amplitude. If the phase difference between the

three feedback signals is small or they disagree when ground

force is small, there will be no perceptible difference in the

unwhitened wavelets.

The greatest difference in downhole wavelets produced by

the X2/TR-4 on this soil should be expected between those

produced by ground force (- FG) and mass acceleration #id)

methods. At high ground force levels, the phase difference

between -FG and 8d is from 45 to 90 degrees, while the

L

difference between - FG and _%iBis from 20 to 50 over the same

interval. The same analysis applies to the X3/TR-4 phase and

amplitude data. For the X3 on a high-bandwidth sweep, if

- FG phase-locking yields a zero phase downhole wavelet, X’B

and kd should produce roughly $90 degree and -90 degree

1 I I I I

downhole accelerometer wavelets, respectively. For the ERV, , 10

downhole wavelets obtained by phase locking to AiB should

-1 -100 0 100 200 300

slightly lead those obtained by phase locking to - FG because time (MSEC)

28 slightly lags - FG. Ftc;. 7. Pilot and phase feedback signal correlagrams obtained

The assumption of rigid baseplate motion was used in the on an X3 vibrator for each of the phase-lock options.

Seismic Vibrator Control 737

--ir -FG

I:- -FG

time (MSEC)

FIG. 8. Crosscorrelation of pilot and filtered 500-ft downhole acceleration obtained for three vibrator types. Upper three rows of

wavelets obtained on a l&l 10 Hz, 5 s sweep. Bottom three rows used an 8-180 Hz, 6 s sweep.

Sallas

-FG ii3

0

-II+- 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 0

+

time (MSEC)

FIG. 9. Comparison of first arrival downhole wavelets with depth. (X3,/TR-4 vibrator, 8~ 180 Hz, 6 s.)

force. The baseplate motion sensor monitors the acceleration at

the center of the plate. At frequencies above 100 Hz the motion

of the edge of the baseplate is out of phase with the center. In

-60 Figures 5 and 6 the phase and amplitude of the baseplate with

respect to negative ground force varies with vibrator type.

These data were taken on the same clay surface for each vibra-

tor. The ERV and X3 baseplates had 14 percent greater area

4

_ -*Or x3

and were stiffer than the X2 baseplate. The data presented give

the appearance that the vibrators saw different radiation im-

pedances on the same surface. The discrepancy is probably due

more to the inaccuracies of measuring the earth surface motion

with the baseplate accelerometer than with the rigid body

assumption used to formulate - FG. The reason follows. Over

the frequency range of interest, the reaction mass is rigid and its

acceleration provides a large component of the ground force

-20 estimate. For these vibrators the mass ratio of reaction mass to

ERV

[ baseplate assembly is greater than 1.3 : 1. Second, the stilts and

actuator rod are part of the baseplate assembly and their mass

is included in the ground force formula. The stilt and rod mass

-60 is equal to the mass of the plate alone, and vertical resonances

in these assemblies are outside the seismic band. Over the

-80 ’ I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 seismic band, acceleration measured at the top cross of the

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

vibrators is essentially in phase with acceleration measured

FREQUENCY (HZ)

down on the baseplate in its center region. Therefore the top

cross acceleration provides a good measure of the acceleration

NOTES: 0 RECORDED ACCELEROMETER OUTPUT

HAS BEEN FILTERED TO YIELD POWER of over half of the mass of the baseplate assembly.

SPECTRUM OF FIRST ARRIVAL Good similarities were obtained on all three vibrators when

. SCALE: 0 DB (0.10 Gs) phase-locked to the various candidate phase feedback signals.

FIG. 10. Output measured downhole for three vibrator types. Figure 7 is a representative example of the zero-phase wavelets

(8-l 80 Hz, 6 s, 0.5 s taper sweep.) obtained when the pilot was crosscorrelated to the phase feed-

Seismic Vibrator Control 739

-FG

time (MSEC)

FIG. 11. Comparison of filtered 700-ft downhole wavelets produced by X3/TR-4 vibrator for different phase control methods. (Top

rowdry clay, high force output; center-dry clay, low force output; bottomdry sand. 8180 Hz, 6 s sweep.)

back signal used for control in that sweep. For all records of very short delay multiples. Note also that Q is generally a

displayed, the phase error between the pilot against which the depth-dependent quantity. O’Doherty and Anstey (1971) dis-

data was correlated and the appropriate phase feedback signal cussed the difficulty in discerning which mechanism is respon-

was less than 2 degrees over the entire central portion of the sible for the high-frequency cut.

sweep, i.e., from the end of taper up to the beginning of the

taper down.

Figure 8 depicts the first arrival 500-ft downhole wavelet June, 1983 experimental results

signature measured for each of the three vehicles on the two

different bandwidth sweeps. As can be seen, the downhole Figure 11 shows the 700-ft downhole first arrival wavelets

wavelet obtained by -FG phase-lock is close to zero phase in obtained on dry clay at high and low ground force output levels

each case. The phases of the wavelets produced by utilizing the with an X3/TR-4 vibrator. The wavelets lack some of the

other candidates appear more variable as frequency parameters high-frequency content evident in the initial test. In the earlier

are changed using the same vehicle. They appear to vary more test, the X2 and ERV data were taken with no linear taper on

also as vehicle type is changed. Their relative character is the vibrator drive signal. The X3 was set up to use ramp drive.

consistent with results predicted by examination of the phase (Ramp drive enhances X3 power output above 80 Hz. The

and amplitude plots measured for each of the candidate feed- ground force curve of Figure 6 shows this boost.) For the June,

back signals. 1983 tests, the X3/TR-4 instrument was operated without ramp

Figure 9 demonstrates how the wavelet shape changes with drive or any linear taper, resulting in a flat ground force ampli-

depth for the high bandwidth sweep on the X3/TR-4. Note that tude between 6&160 Hz.

the zero phase of the wavelet produced by -FG phase lock is For all tests, the pilot used for correlation was of flat ampli-

closely preserved to the lOOO-ftdepth. tude within the central portion of the sweep. The ground force

Figure 10 shows the amplitude of the first arrival wavelets for amplitude for the high output setting (Figure 11) was 7 dB

each of the vibrators on the 8-180 Hz sweep at various depths. (same scale as Figure 6) and 0 dB for the low setting over the

Note the upward trend with frequency as predicted by equation central part of the sweep. As can be seen, there is a slight

(12). These plots have not been normalized by the amplitude of increase in phase lag in all of the wavelets presented as level is

FG, but by referring back to Figure 6, the ground force ampli- increased.

tude is seen to be relatively flat or decreasing out to 80 Hz. The Also in Figure 11 are the wavelets produced by an X3/TR-4

leveling off and downturn of downhole amplitude in the 60 to on sand. The ground force amplitude was measured to be about

160 Hz range may be attributed to absorption and/or the effect 3.0 dB in the central region of the sweep with a significant

740 Sallas

reduction in output below 30 Hz and higher output between Seismic vibrator control based on ground force provides an

4&70 Hz. A comparison of the high drive level on dry clay and alternative to the baseplate acceleration method used in the

sand data shows little change in the ground force wavelets and past. It offers the advantage of producing a more consistent

a significant change in the phase of the wavelets produced by downhole wavelet than the other methods studied. Fur-

the Sd or .,?iBphase lock. A comparison of low drive level and thermore, the theory upon which ground force phase control is

sand data does show some change in the phase of all wavelets. based predicts downhole wavelet characteristics which are con-

sistent with empirical measurements.

CONCLUSION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Ground force polarity recommendation

Many people in Geophysical Service Inc. participated in this

Baseplate acceleration phase-lock is the most predominant study. I wish to thank them for their help. Special thanks to

method of controlling vibrators in use today. For ground force Eric Amiot for processing the data, Dick Weber for his insights

phase-lock use, I recommend that -FG and the pilot be in into the mechanical problems, Cam Wason for his recommen-

phase. For most sweeps below 100 Hz, raw data collected using dations, Joyce Barker for preparing the artwork, and George

both methods would compare most closely. Wood for securing funding for this project,

Aki, K., and Richards, P. E., 1980, Quantitative seismology theory and

To quantify the effect of baseplate flexing on the ground force

methods, v. 1: San Francisco, W. H. Freeman and Co.

estimate, another experiment needs to be conducted. Load cells Castanet. A., Ruell-Malmaison, and Lavergne, M.. 1965, Vibrator con-

mounted over the contact surface of the baseplate provide trolling system: U.S. pat. 3,208,550.

Lerwill. W. E., 1981, The amplitude and phase response of a seismic

direct measure of the force applied to the earth. A weighted sum vibrator: Geophys. Prosp., v. 29, p. 5033528.

of these sensor outputs provides an independent measure of the Miller. G. F., and Pursey, H., 1954, The field and radiation pattern of

total force applied to the earth by the vibrator. This direct mechanical radiators on the free surface of a semi-infinite isotropic

solid: Proc. Roy. Sot. (London), Ser A, v. 223, p, 521-541.

measurement may then be compared with the estimated O’Doherty, R. F., and Anstey, N. A., 1971, Reflection on amplitudes:

ground force and the effectiveness of the approximation may be Geophys. Prosp.. v. 19, p. 45&458.

Papoulis, A.. 1975, A new algorithm in spectral analysis and band-

evaluated.

limited extrapolation: Inst. Electr. and Electron. Eng. Trans., Cir-

cuits and Systems, v. 22, p. 735-742.

Rickenbacker, J. E., 1980, Measurement and control of the output force

Closing remarks ofa seismic vibrator: U.S. pat. 4,184,144.

Sallas. J. J.. and Weber. R. M., 1982, Comments on “The amplitude

Vibrators are naturally limited in their output by their hold- and phase of a seismic vibrator” by W. E. Lerwill: Geophys. Prosp.,

v. 30, p. 935-938.

down weight. In order to get the maximum useful output from Sung, T. Y., 1953, Vibrations in semi-infinite solids due to periodic

a seismic vibrator, ground force amplitude control is necessary. loadings: D.Sc. thesis, Harvard.

- Aspden - The Physics of Creation (2003)Uploaded byizoldo
- WaveletUploaded bystimoceiver
- Class VIII FOUNDATION & OLYMPIADUploaded byResonance Dlpd
- Dinamycs (english)Uploaded byRenato Cossarini
- Chapter_6_03.pdfUploaded byShoshAlmazroeui
- Chapter_6_03.pdfUploaded byShoshAlmazroeui
- 2001 Jun QP M1 edexcelUploaded byLalith77
- M1 Statics - Equilibrium ProblemsUploaded byDarla Fenn
- On the Application of the Law of Gravitation to the Atomic Theory-English-Gustasv Theodor Fechner.Uploaded bygabriel brias buendia
- Ch04_Newton's Laws of MotionUploaded bySara Vega
- AssessedLabReport-SimonSeligChuteUploaded bySimon Chute
- Static Equilibrium.docxUploaded byBrandon Sookdeo
- Lec07.pdfUploaded byNasrullah Yusup
- science dropping racesUploaded byapi-397897173
- 249160001 9th Class Physics Paper Pattern 2013Uploaded byAnita Kumari
- PhysicsLabI_exp3Uploaded byJessica Ross
- physicslabwriteupUploaded byapi-245070267
- 09Jun-M2Uploaded byAhmed Nurul
- 06Jan-M2Uploaded byAhmed Nurul
- Deney 2Uploaded byhelin
- science-3-forcemotion-pcktUploaded byapi-314526138
- PETE321_CHAPTER2Uploaded byAhmed Arafa
- EES3report Abhay KumarUploaded byAbhay Kumar Gupta
- General EducationUploaded byVincentAlejandro
- Early History of the PhysicsUploaded byneox015
- paper 8 AAUploaded byMayank Singh
- basiliki.pdfUploaded byElfrid BAEL
- AplicacionMatlab5Uploaded byhousemark
- Newton's Second LawUploaded byimanuelsukarno
- UNIT 1-PhysicsUploaded byAra Paguio

- Diffraction (Revision)Uploaded byMaruf Hassan
- MIT8_04S16_LecNotes8Uploaded byBeenishMuazzam
- JAMC2012-379724Uploaded byAaron Jrz Ramsey
- Stabilization of ProteinsUploaded byVejerla Priyanka
- Thom Structural Stability and Morphogenesis.compressedUploaded byOcélotl Cuauhxicalli
- Electrostatic LevitationUploaded byShivananda Patra
- 20 Beam EquationUploaded byYuliza Carolina Capuñay Siesquen
- C-IUM_ed01-2011_rev00_GB_150211Uploaded byДмитрий Русских
- CIVE1129 Revision 2013 Part 2Uploaded byJoe Tang
- Saudi Electricity Company.pdfUploaded byDiana Dudebabe
- Field Application Comparison Paper (Orifice Plate & Cone Meter) Mark W Davis & Philip A Lawrence - CEESI - FMS Alaska -2009Uploaded byPhilip A Lawrence C.Eng. F. Inst M.C.
- Mesh HandbookUploaded byKhaled Ammar
- bentoniteUploaded bySyarief Nahdi
- Explosion resistant designUploaded byKumaraavel Viswanathan
- DTAandHeat-flux DSC Measurements of Alloy Melting and FreezingUploaded byapi-3723333
- Mechanics of Deformable Bodies.pdfUploaded byEmmanuel Del Rosario
- James G. Gilson and Ross McPherson- Quantization of Boltzmann's Gas ConstantUploaded byAzmerzr
- Atomic Theory of Quantum MechanicsUploaded byUkhti Nabesan
- HW 2 Based on Chapter-3 Modeling in Time Domain State Space MethodsUploaded byjameelahmad
- slip-system cal.pdfUploaded byVanaja Jadapalli
- Tatarchuk Parallax Occlusion Mapping Sketch PrintUploaded byShadownrun Shadown
- Test EquipmentUploaded byطه اللوذعي
- EE 577 Lecture 9Uploaded bySreejith Vadakkeppat
- Overview of Wave to Wire ModelsUploaded byRyan Smith
- Lorentz Ps4000Uploaded bySINES France
- Industrial TribologyUploaded bySurya Pratap Singh Parmar
- NMO Stretch in Survey Design and Processing_VermeerUploaded byrenatogeo14
- Sulfamethoxazole.docUploaded byTeresa Carter
- Mechanics of SolidUploaded byasghar
- SuleymanzadeAziza_MasterThesisUploaded byTienTran