GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 42, NO. 7 (DECEMBER 1977); P. 1321-1338, 14 FIGS.
, 4 TABLES
BEAM FORMING WITH VIBRATOR ARRAYS
M. E. ARNOLD*
Seismic field tests conducted near Tulsa, Okla-
homa, and the Handy area in north-central Texas used
linear arrays of vibrators to concentrate sound waves
into a beam, which is directed vertically when all
vibrators operate in-phase or at an angle from the
vertical when relative time delays are introduced to
each vibrator.
The soundwave directivity was verified in the Tulsa
area by recordings from subsurface seismometers,
and at the same time reflection enhancementby wave
INTRODUCTION
The use of source arrays to achieve concentrated
and directed beams is not new. Multiple and extended
antennas have been used for concentration and di-
rection of electromagnetic radiation. Arrays of
sources have been used in underwater sound and
sonar applications for similar purposes. Arrays of
seismic sources described in the patent literature
endeavor to concentrate sound waves into a beam
and to a lesser extent attempt to achieve directivity
of the beam (Bodine, 1956; Poulter, 195I; Swift,
1955; and Born et al, 1955). Needless to say, the
achievement of seismic wave beams and, in particu-
lar, directivity of these beams requires a high level
of coherence and precise phasing of the sources.
/ Tulsa test area
In an area near Tulsa, seismic field tests were con-
ducted that used linear arrays of vibrators to concen-
trate sound waves into a beam. Objectives of these
field testswere to establish (1) the directivity of sound
wave beams for various time delays, and (2) the ef-
fect of the beam direction on shallow reflections.
Manuscript received by the Editor April 20, 1976; revised manuscript received March 30, 1977.
*Amoco Production Co., Tulsa, OK 74102.
0 1977 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
1321
beaming was exhibited from surface seismometers.
Visual inspection and statistical analysis of re-
flection continuity indicated that it makes no differ-
ence in the Handy area whether beam-forming tech-
niques are used in the field or are applied later in
processing. This result was anticipated, since pre-
vious seismic work in the Handy area indicated that
the random noise level was low enough to minimize
the theoretical advantage of field summing.
CONCEPT OF EXPERIMENTS
The term “beam forming”, as usedhere, describes
the process of introducing relative time delays be-
tween vibrators in an array so that the waves from
the vibrators are made to arrive simultaneously at a
distant seismometer group. For instance, seismic ray
paths from each of nine sources to a common seis-
mometer group are shown in Figure 1. If the reflection
from each of the sourcesis to arrive at seismometer
group 8 in-phase, then the initiation of signals from
sources 1 to 9 must be delayed progressively. The
appropriate delay values depend on the depth, dip
angle, and medium velocity.
The field configuration of seismometer spreads
for determining the effectiveness of beam forming is
shown in Figure 2. Essentially, subsurfaceseismom-
eters in each vertical plane were positioned along
the quarter-circle of radius 300 ft about the center
of the vibrator array and a 12-group surface spread
was placed east of the vibrator array.
The vibrators were arranged in east-west linear
arrays. One array consisted of five vibrators and the
other of nine vibrators, both with units spaced at
1322 Arnold

FIG. I. Vertical section showing raypathsfrom sources I to 9 to a reflector and thence to seismometergroup 8.

25ft intervals. For each array, monofrequency sig-
nals driving each vibrator were in-phase so that the
beam was directed vertically. For the nine-vibrator
array, another experiment had the driving signals
between adjacent vibrators delayed successively
1.5 msec easterly and westerly and finally, successive
delays of 3.0 msec easterly. There were 15 mono-
frequency driving signals from 33 to 100.5 Hz at
4.5Hz intervals. Each monofrequcncy signal was
generated ten times, the recordings of which were
summed to obtain intermediate seismograms. The
15 intermediate seismogramsthus obtained were then
summed to obtain the final seismogram.
We w’ere concernedwith the reduction and analyses

FIG. 2. Configuration of vertical seismometerspreadsand surface seismometer spread (only two seismometer
groups shown) employed to determine the effectiveness of beam forming using vibrator arrays.
 Beam Forming with Vibrator Arrays 1323

of signals recorded by the vertical seismometer Table 1. Boundary distance between near- and far-field
as a function of specified frequency for vibrator
spreads. To reduce the processing required, only
arrays tested in the Tulsa area.
signalsof frequencies 37.5,55.5, 82.5, and 100.5 Hz
were used. Inspection of these signals indicated a Radius
high value of harmonic distortion. For this reason,
the signals were filtered with a frequency response Frequency 9 x 25 Array 5 x 25 Array
which was maximum at the driving signal fre_quenLy
37.5 Hz 375 ft 94 ft
and had a half-power bandwidth of approximately 55.5 Hz 555 ft 139 ft
3 Hz. 82.5 Hz 825 ft 206 ft
100.5 Hz 1005 ft 252 ft
The first-arrival amplitude on the filtered seismo-
grams is considered to be the maximum amplitude
of the wavelet envelope which occurs near the center
of the wavelet at a time approximately equal to the far-field is tabulated in Table I for the 9 x 25 and
duration of the signal, i.e., 222 msec after the onset 5 x 25 arrays at frequencies of 37.5, 55.5, 82.5, and
of the wavelet. The maximum amplitude of each 100.5 Hz (Kraus, 1950). A velocity of 8000 ftisec
wavelet envelope was measured in decibels and was used. Table 1 indicates that, for the vertical seis-
corrected to a reference recording gain level. The mometer spreads, seismometers were far-field only
adjusted amplitudes of signals recorded by vertical for the 5 x 25 array.
and in-line horizontal components of the three- The far-field radiation distribution R, given by
component seismometers were summed vectorially Wolff and Maker (1930) for arra! s with uniformly
to obtain the amplitude and incidence angle of the spaced sourcesof equal power and with signals uni-
transmitted signal at the seismometer position in formly delayed is
the vertical plane.
sin Nz’
R,=
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS N sinz’ ’
The radiation distribution of linear arrays usually where
is determined by measurementsin the “far” field, or
Fraunhofer region, on the assumption that the z’=z+--,
$
incident wave is plane. In the “near” field, or Fresnel 2
region, a spherical or curved wavefront is used. For
md
our experiment, the boundary between near-field and
z=h s’na

I
3 - COMPONENT’
SEISMOMETERS

FIG. 3. Graph of interval velocity to a depth of 300 ft derived from velocities measured in previous tests and
configuration of east-west vertical seismometer spread relative to a 9 x 25 vibrator array.
1324 Arnold
cy= angle between the array normal and the radial
line from array center to seismometer(vertical
angle),
N = number of sources= nine- and five-vibrator
arrays,
d = distance between sources= 25 ft,
A = v/f(v = 8000 ftisec),
+ = 2wf7, and
7 = time delay between sources= 0.0 set, 0.0015
set, or 0.003 sec.
The vertical angle of maximum radiation (y) is
y = sin-’ -&
( >
Equation (1) was used to calculate the radiation
distribution R,, and this was called the antenna
theory. Equations (1) and (2) were employed for
both the 9 x 25 and 5 x 25 arrays, although these
equations are less applicable to the former. This far-
field approximation may be minor when compared
to other discrepanciesbetween the theoretical model
and the physical properties of the subsurface;speci-
fically, the subsurfaceis not an isotropic and homo-
geneous medium. Thus, the radiation distribution
values computed from equation (I) may be expected
to only roughly approximate amplitudes measured
from recorded signals.
In addition, an amplitude comparison was made
of signals derived from a mathematical model based
on geometric optics. This mathematical model uses
the measured interval velocities of the near subsur-
face. A graph of these velocities is shown in Figure
3, together with a cross-section showing a nine-
vibrator array, and seismometers in the east-west
vertical plane.
The traveltime and amplitude decay (geometric
divergence and reflection-transmission losses) for
each vibrator-seismometer raypath were computed
from the horizontally layered model. The simulated
signal recorded by each seismometerthen is the sum
of the sinusoidal wavelets from all vibrators in an
array, each suchwavelet being appropriately reduced
in amplitude and adjusted in time for traveltime and
delay time differences. The simulated signal thus
derived was filtered and the maximum envelope
amplitudes measured in a manner identical to that
used for the field-recorded signals. For each com-
bination of vibrator array and time delay, the wavelet
envelope amplitudes were normalized to the highest
value.
The least-time raypath for all but the two shallow-
est seismometersin the vertical seismometer spreads
are direct paths, whereas least-time raypaths to the
two shallowest seismometers (seismometers E-5, E6,
N5, and N6 in Figure 2) involve reflection.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNAL AMPLITUDES
In Figures 4 through 8, normalized signal amph-
tudes for the antenna theory, the mathematical model
and field recordings in the vertical planes are plotted
in polar coordinates. Figures 4 through 8 are, re-
spectively, for arrays of one vibrator; a 9 X 25
array with a time delay of 0 msec between adjacent
vibrators;a 9 x 25 array with a time delay of 1.5 msec
between adjacent vibrators, both in an easterly and
in a westerly direction; a 9 x 25 at-ray with a time
delay of 3.0 msec between adjacent vibrators in an
easterly direction; and finally, a 5 x 25 army with a
time delay of 0 msec between adjacent vibrators.
In Figure 4 the radiation distribution for a single
vibrator from antennatheory is circular in both verti-
cal planes, i.e., signal amplitudes are equal at a
constant distance from the vibrator in all directions.
The amplitudes computed from the mathematical
model are also identical in the east-west and north-
south plots but due to layering, the maximum values
(1 .O) occur at +45 degrees and -45 degrees and a
relative minimum value (0.83) occurs vertically
beneath the vibrator (origin). The observed ampli-
tudes from the single vibrator should also be identical
in the east-west and north-south plots but, unfor-
tunately, were near the level of ambient noise. The
dissimilarity of the field-recorded 37.5 Hz signal
amplitudes suggeststhat the reliability of these mea-
surements is extremely low. The 37.5-Hz signals
could not be extracted from noise for angles from
-30 degrees to +30 degrees. The 55.5-Hz signals
on the east-west array were recorded improperly
and are not shown in Figure 4. The 82.5- and
100.5-Hz signals are similar on the east-west and
north-south plots; however, shallow lobes (maxima
at +75 degrees and -75 degrees) on the east-west
plots are absent on the north-south plots. It should
be noted that for a single vibrator the theoretical
radiation distribution is independentof driving-signal
frequency.
In Figure 5 the radiation distributions are shown
for a 9 x 25 array with a time delay of 0 msec. The
antenna theory amplitude is maximum at 0 degrees
in the east-west plane and the width of the vertically
directed beam decreases (beam concentration in-
creases) with increasing frequency. In the north-
south plane, the contour from antenna theory has a
constant value of 1.0. The signal amplitudes com-
puted from the mathematical model are similar to
 Beam Forming with Vibrator Arrays 1325

East North
-

f = 55.5 cps

z = 55.5 :ps
Field-reccrded signal
mplitudes not measurable

f = 32.5 cpa

f = 100.5 cps

----- Antenna theory

- Mathematical model
---w___ Field recclrdings
FIG. 4. Radiation distribution of a single vibrator with frequencies of 37.5, 55.5, 82.5. and 100.5 Hz

those determined from antenna theory in the east-
west piers; but amplitude valuesare considerabiy less
than 1.O, since the normalization value occurs on the
north-south plot. Contours obtained from the mathe-
matical model in the north-south plane are nearly
coincident with the contours from antenna theory
between +45 to +90 degrees and from -45 to -90
degrees; however, due to the iayering, contours for
the mathematical model are characterized,by a pro-
nounced minimum at 0 degrees. Maximum values
for field-recorded amplitudes occur on the north-
south plots, with the exception of the plots for
1326 Arnold

100.5Hz signals, which is believed to be unreliable
due to noise. The contours for field-recorded ampli-
tudes on the east-west plots indicate that, due to mea-
surement error, the beam increases slightly in width
as the driving-signal frequency increases, rather
than to concentrate as expected from theory. On the
north-south plots, the field-recorded amplitudes are
similar to the mathematical model’s for angles from
approximately -45 to f45 degrees, with the ex-
ception of the polar plot for 100.5Hz signals. Outside
of this range, the contours for field-recorded ampli-
tudes decrease in value so that two distinctive lobes

f = 55.5 cps

f = 82.5 cp~

LEGEKD
----- Antenna theory

- Mathematical model
------- Field recordings
FIG. 5. Radiation distributionfor a 9 X 25 vibrator array with a time delay of 0 msec between adjacent vibrators,
frequencies of 37.5, 55.0, 82.5, and 100.5 Hz.
 Beam Forming with Vibrator Arrays 1327

are formed that beam at anglesof approximately +45
degrees and -45 degrees, respectively. The width
of these lobes increases as the frequency increases
from 37.5 to 82.5 Hz.
In Figure 6 we show the radiation distribution for
a 9 x 25 array with time delays of I .5 msec in an
easterly direction and also 1.5 nlsec in a westerly
direction. Field-recorded amplitudes for these two
time delays complement each other in the east-west
plane and thereby provide measurementsfrom -90

0’
----- Antenrz. :kecry

------- Field recordings, 1.5 ms west

-.-I'..-. Field re:Drdings, 1.5 ms enst
FIG. 6. Radiation distributionfor a 9 X 25 vibrator array with a time delay of I .5 msec in an easterly and also in a
westerly direction, and frequencies of 37.5, 55.5, 82.5, and 100.5 Hz.
1328 Arnold

Ksrth
1.0 10 1.0 50 0 50 1.0
93' 90' 90. 90.

f = 37.5 irps

LSGEND
----- ,Ar.tenna thegry
- i,!:rthem&tical nodei
------- Field rzcor,jings
FIG. 7. Radiation distribution for a 9 x 25 vibrator array with a time delay of 3.0 msec inan easterly direction,
and frequencies of 37.5, 55.5, 82.5, and 100.5 Hz.

to +90 degrees. In the north-south plane, however,
field-recorded amplitudes for these two time delays
should be nearly identical. Departures between these
two contours are not large and are indicative of the
reliability of the field-recorded amplitudes. All three
radiation distributions in the east-west plane agree
closely in that the main lobe is directed at an angle
of +30 degrees. Significant departures in patterns
occur only on side lobes-most notably for 55.5.
and 100.5-Hz signals. On the east-west 37.5-Hz
plot, the antenna theory and the mathematical model
are similar; however, the maximum value on the
 Beam Forming with Vibrator Arrays 1329

main lobe for field-recorded amplitudes is reduced -East

appreciably, since the maximum field signal value
occurs in the north-southplane. Antenna theory con-
tours in the north-south plane again are circular but
vary erratically with increasing frequency. The con-
tours in the north-south plane determined from the
mathematical model are similar in shape at all fre-
quencies. Contours for field-recorded amplitudes on
the north-south plots, in general, exhibit two main
lobes between +30 to +45 degrees and from -30
to -45 degrees.
In Figure 7 we show the radiation distribution for
a 9 x 25 array with a time delay of 3.0 msec in an
easterly direction between adjacent vibrators. In
general, the mathematical model and field-recorded
contours exhibit a pronounced lobe in the east-west
plots. This lobe is between +60 and +75 degrees
for the mathematical model and at +45 degrees for
the field-recorded amplitudes at frequencies of 37.5,
55.5, and 82.5 Hz. At 100.5 Hz, the two lobes are
coincident at +75 degrees. The antenna theory is in
close agreement with the mathematical model at
anglesless than +75 degrees;however, the maximum
value for the antenna theory occurs at +90 degrees.
On the north-south plots the antenna theory contours
again are circular and are varying erratically with
increasing frequency. The shape of the mathematical
model on the north-south plots is similar in shape to
the north-south plots in Figure 6; however, contour
values are appreciably less. For 37.5-, 55.5-, and
to a lesser extent, 100.5-Hz signals, the field-
recorded contours on the north-south plots exhibit
pronounced lobes at +30 and -30 degrees, which
is similar to Figure 6.
In Figure 8, a 5 x 25 array with a time delay of
0 msec between adjacent vibrators on east-west plots
only is shown. Comparison of these plots with the
east-west plots for a 9 x 25 array in Figure 5 demon-
stratesthat shorter linear arrays result in appreciably
less concentration (increased width) of the vertically
directed beam. As for the 9 x 25 array, the vertical
beam defined by antenna~theoryand the mathematical
model tend to decrease in width as the frequency ----- Antenna thi,ory
increases. Also, as in Figure 5, the contour for the
- Mathematic.A model
mathematical model displays a minimum at an angle
_____e_ Field reccrdinns
of 0 degreesat frequenciesof 37.5 and 55.5 Hz; how-
ever, unlike correspondingcontours in Figure 5, this FIG. 8. Radiation distribution for a 5 x 25 array with
minimum persists as the frequency is increased to a time delay of 0 msec between adjacent vibrators,
and frequencies of 37.5, 55.5, 82.5, and 100.5 Hz.
82.5 and 100.5 Hz. The contours for field-recorded
amplitudes, in general indicate, with the exception
of 100.5-Hz signals, that the beam is lessconcentrated
in a vertical direction than is indicated by contours model. Notably, the contours for field-recorded
determined from antennatheory and the mathematical amplitudes for a frequency at 37.5 Hz exhibit two
1330 Arnold

0 ms

I I I I I I
1

2
lo5 ms
east
3
4

3.0 ms
east

1.5 ms
west

FIG. 9. Seismic signal traces from seismometergroups 1 through4 of the surfaceseismometerspread(Figure 2)

recorded in the experimental area. A 9 x 25 vibrator array with time delays between adjacent vibrators of
0 msec, 1.5 msec in theeasterly direction, 3.0 msec in an easterly direction, and 1.5 msec in a westerly direction
were employed.

lobes directed at +45 degrees and -45
respectively.
REFLECTION ENHANCEMENT IN TULSA
TEST AREA
The purpose of applying time delays between
degrees, adjacent vibrators, of course, is to direct selectively
sound wave transmission and thereby enhance the
prominence of reflections from dipping subsurface
strata. In Figure 9 we show four seismic signal traces,
respectively, from seismometer groups I through 4
of the surface seismometer spread (Figure 2) for
 Beam Forming with Vibrator Arrays 1331

each of four time delays between adjacent vibrators.
These seismic signal traces result from summing
recordings of monofrequency signals from 33 to
100.5 Hz at 4.5.Hz intervals. Each monofrequency
signal was generated ten times, the recordings of
which were summed to obtain intermediate seismo-
grams. time delays employed were 0 msec, I .5 msec
in an easterly direction 3.0 mbcc in an easterly di-
rection, and I .5 msec in a westerly direction. At the
top of Figure 9 a synthetic trace ~primary reflection
only), derived from subsurfacevelocity data, is shown
for identification of principal reflcctions.
The effectiveness of beam forming may be gauged
by observing in Figure 9 the Oolagnh and Woodward
reflections as the time delay between adjacent vibra-
tors is varied. The Oolagah reflection. at a time of
0.210 set, appearsprominent on aI1 traces for a time
delay of 0 msec. For a time delay of 1.5 msec in an

AREA 0 F
VIBRATO R ARRAY

V IBR .ATOR
AR RAY

co LUMNS
6 5 4 3 2 1
0 0 . . . . .
7 . . . . . .
. . . l . .
3 . . . . . .
;: VIBRATOR
4 . . l l . z POINT
3 . . 0 . . .

2 . . . . . .-
100 FIEET
1 . . . . . .F \

1
I I
lOOFEET
N

SCALE
0 2000 FEET
1 1
FIG. IO. Location of the Handy area test site in the north-central Texas and layout of the vibrator array and
seismometer spread.
1332 Arnold

FIG. 11. A previously obtained seismogram section A from dynamite detonationsand a vibrator correlogram
section B exhibit interfering reflections from complicated subsurface structure. The sections are shown at
differing horizontal scales. The diagrams above the sections indicate the positions of source pattern and test
spreads for the signals analyzed in this report.

easterly direction, the Oolagah reflection at seismom-
eter group 4 is increased in amplitude relative to this
reflection at seismometer group 1. For a time delay
of 3.0 msec in an easterly direction and also 1.5 msec
in a westerly direction, the Oolagah reflection is
barely perceptible. Thus, it is concluded that the
Oolagah formation has a west component of dip. The
Woodward reflection at 0.322 set is perceptible on
the traces for a time delay of 0 msec and appearsmost
prominent on traces for a time delay of 1.5 msec in
the westerly direction. Thus, it is concluded that the
Woodward formation has an east component of dip.
Handy test area
A series of tests was conducted to further investi-
gate beam forming capabilities of linear arrays of
vibrators. The tests were performed at a site de-
signatedas the Handy area (Figure lo), located about
15 miles north of Whitesboro, Texas, where re-
flections from beds with opposing dips are known
to interfere.
TEST SCENARIO
A six-fold section displayed in Figure lla illu-
stratesthe seismic events which led to the implemen-
tation of this test program. This sectionwas assembled
from profiles recorded in the mid- 1960s using dy-
namite. The test line location, indicated above the
section, is at a position of maximum interference
between seismic events for recording times greater
 Beam Forming with Vibrator Arrays 1333

than I .9 sec. These events may be reflections from
beds dipping in opposite directions and/or diffrac-
tions from faults. The correlogram section in Fig-
ure 1lb covers a somewhat shorter length of the
same seismic line. The two sectionsare displayed in
different horizontal scales but do illustrate similarity.
The equipment used at the Handy area consistedof
eight Wabco Model Y-6OOB vibrator trucks and an
analog recording truck. Each vibrator had a delay-
line unit to provide the precise phasing of sources
required to accomplish beam forming. For these tests
the vibrators used 14- to 57-Hz signals of 7-set
duration.
A 24-group seismometer spread was located south
of the vibrator array. Each group consisted of 36
HS- 1, 14-Hz seismometersin a 6 x 6 pattern having
25-ft in-line and 20-ft crossline intervals.
CALCULATION OF DELAY time
The appropriatebeam forming delay values depend
upon the depth and dip angle of the reflector, the
offset distance, and the medium velocity. For the
simple straight-ray case, these parametersare related
as follows:
lOOOL(X * TOV sin 0)
(3)
‘= V[(TOV)2 + X2 k 2TOVX sin 01u2 ’
where
r = time delay in msec between consecutivevibra-
tor locations,
L = distance in ft between consecutive vibrator
locations,
X = offset distance in feet (range),
V = average velocity in ft/sec,
To = two-way normal incidence traveltime in set
from seismometer group to reflector,
0 = dip angle of reflector, and
where + or - is used when the source is located
down- or up-dip, respectively.
In Table 2, delay time T in msec between two ele-
ments (vibrator locations) in the in-line direction is
tabulated as a function of dip angle in range for
reflection at 2.45 set with an average velocity of
13,000 ft/sec. As noted in Table 2, negative delay
time r implies that moveout time decreaseswith in-
crease in range; consequently, delay of source initia-
tion along the source array should increase from
near-source to far-source.
FIELD SUMMING VERSUS COMPUTER
SUMMING
The test program objective was to investigate the
relative merit of introducing vibrator time delays in
the field versus the data processing introduction of
time delays.
By way of introductionto the problem, let the noise
N at some remote detector be random and not asso-
ciated with the signal S. Let S be a reflection from
one vibrator so that the signal-to-noise ratio at the
remote detector is 1.
Now, assumeindividual seismogramsare recorded
at the remote detector for each of nine vibrators of a
linear array and, subsequently, 9 common traces are
added during processingwith reflections in-phase. In
other words, the signal-to-noise ratio improves by
the factor fi or 3 (after numerous authors, e.g.,
Smith, 1956).
Now, consider insteadthat the nine vibrators of the
linear array are driven so that the reflections are
in-phase at the remote detector. For this condition
of maximum radiation, and assuming that mutual
coupling between vibrators is negligible, the signal
is improved nine-fold (Stratton, 1941), while noise
remains the same. Thus, S/N = 9 for this case.
This result indicates that a three-fold (or approxi-

Table 2. Delay time 7 in msecbetween tkvoelements of an in-line source array as a function of dip angle and range for
a reflection time of 2.45 set and average velocity of 13,000 ft/sec. When the source array is located up-dip
from the seismometer spread, the dip angle is positive.

Dip in degrees

Range, ft -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 +1.4 +0.1 -1.3* -2.6 -3.8 -4.9 -5.9 -6.6

1,000 +1.6 +0.3 -1.0 -2.4 -3.6 -4.8 -5.8 -6.6
2,500 +2.0 +0.7 -0.7 -2.4 -3.3 -4.5 -5.6 -6.5
4,000 +2.3 +1.0 -0.3 -1.7 -3.0 -4.3 -5.4 -6.4
8,000 +3.1 +1.9 +0.7 -0.7 -2.1 -3.4 -4.8 -5.9

*Negative delay time 7 implies that moveout time decreases with increase in range.
1334 Arnold

1 2
FlELb SUM (T=O) DPC SUM (T=O)

Window 1

-
1

2 Window 2

3 Window 3

.d- -
FIG. 12. The signals on correlogram no. I (field sum) were obtained using eight vibrators in array column 1
driven simultaneously. The signals on correlogram no. 2 (DPC-sum) are the nondelayed composite of eight
individually recorded correlograms for each vibrator along array column 1.
 Beam Forming with Vibrator Arrays
Table 3. Average correlation coefficient (C,,) and standard error of the mean (a,,,) for three time windows of traces
l-24 of correlograms from vibrator columns l-6 as a function of field or DPC summation.
Window 1
Place of
summation c av ffM
Field 0.64 0.09
DPC 0.60 0.09
mately lo-dB) improvement in signal-to-noise ratio
is anticipated if beam forming is done in the field
rather than during subsequentprocessing. This im-
provement, however, assumesthat random noise is of
significant level; and in the Handy area random noise
is not much of a problem. Record quality shown by
seismogram sections in Figure II is good. Conse-
quently, one anticipates that it should make little
difference here whether beam forming is done in the
field or subsequentlyat the processing center.
As indicated by the map in Figure 10, six vibrator
array lines, spaced at lOO-ft intervals, were centered
at a point about 900 ft from the reflection spread.
Each of the vibrators was driven individually and
seismograms recorded. Each vibrator moved ap-
proximately 10 ft from one side to 10 ft on the other
side of the vibration point during the recording of
15 individual vibrations. Then. in the same in-line
array, all vibrators were driven simultaneously and
the seismogramsrecorded for delay times of 0, + 1,
+3, +5, and -3 msec. This procedure was repeated
at lines 2 through 6.
The correlograms displayed in Figure 12 permit
visual comparisonof correlogramsfrom array column
1 field-summed and summed in the Digital Pro-
cessing Center (DPC-summed). This similarity of
continuity and quality of reflections indicates that in
the Handy area it is immaterial whether beam form-
ing is done on-line or off-line.
A quantitative evaluation of trace-to-trace correla-
tability over three trace segmentson zero-time-delay
correlogramsfrom all six linear arrays was estimated
from correlation coefficients. Using calculated
maximum values of correlation coefficients, average
correlation coefficient C,, and standard error of the
means (T,~< were determined and listed in Table 3.’
Large values of average correlation coefficients
are assumed to imply better continuity of reflection
(perfect correlation is 1.OO). The standard error is
expected to vary inversely with the average correla-
‘Average standard deviation of the six sets of statistics is
assumed representative of all sets so that a,,, = o(n,)‘l’,
where n, = 6.
1335
Window 2 Window 7
c a” a.u c,, U.M
0.64 0.09 0.86 0.04
0.63 0.08 0.83 0.05
tion coefficient; that is, consistent values of correla-
tion (small standarderror) for reflection signals with
large values of signal-to-noise ratio and scattered
values of correlation (large standard error) for re-
flection signals with small values of signal-to-noise
ratio. The standard errors from these tests are about
equal in all comparisonsof field- and DPC-summed
correlograms. Average correlations, however. are
consistently higher for field-summed correlograms
than for DPC-summed correlograms, although the
differences are not statistically significant and
quantitatively support the similarity observed in the
visual comparisons.
In Figure 13, correlograms from column 3 source
array are shown. As before, visual comparison of
field- and DPC-summed correlograms indicates
that it makes very little difference in the Handy area
whether delay times are introduced in the field or in
the processing center.
The correlograms in Figure 13 do, however, illu-
strate important effects of beam forming with these
specified delays on the character of events on traces
l-12. Note, in particular, the effect of beaming on
the events in window 2 centered at 2.45 sec. When
delay times of +3 msec are used, the amplitude of
that flat dip reflection is enhanced and the high-
amplitude, right-hand (south) dipping event is nearly
absent. When delay times of -3 msec are used, then
the south-dippingreflection has high amplitude, while
flat or north-dipping reflections are severely at-
tenuated. When delay times of +5 msec are used.
then “overbeaming” occurs and the amplitudes are
very low for all reflections with times more than
1.5 sec.
A statistical study of trace-to-trace correlation of
events on traces 1-l 2 within windows 1, 2, and 3 for
field-summed correlograms for six adjacent arrays
and the five different delay times is summarized in
Table 4.
In window 1, trace-to-trace correlation for delays
of 0, +l, and -3 msec is 0.75, 0.74, and 0.72,
respectively. These values are expected since -1
msec delay is optimum for maximum reflection within
this window and beam-power loss is less than 50 per-
1336
 Beam Forming with Vibrator
Tablel~A_veragecnrrelation coefficient (C,) and standard error of the means (au) for three time windows of traces
1-12 of field-summed correlograms from vibrator columns l-6 as a Gnction of d@iagtime 7.
Delay time Window 1
in msec
(7) C,V U.M
0 0.75 0.10
+I 0.74 0.08
+3 0.55 0.07
+5 0.55 0.07
-3 0.72 0.09
cent for delays within 2 msec of optimum. However,
when delays are +3 and +5 msec, one anticipates a
reduction of amplitude of the south-dipping reflection
and, hence, a reduction in correlation coefficient
c a>. The 17 to 20 percent reduction of trace-to-trace
correlation to 0.55 is clear evidence of the power of
beam forming in discriminating against coherent
events.
In window 2, reflections from flat-to-north dipping
and south dipping beds interfere. The average corre-
lation coefficient has a small value of 0.47 for +5
msec delay becauseof “overbeaming,” but is nearly
constant at approximately 0.65 for delays of 0, + 1,
and +3, and is 0.79 for -3 msec delay. For 0 and
+l msec delays, the beam is not precisely focused
for either reflecting condition but broad enough to
result in about equal reflection from both reflecting
conditions and, consequently, similar values of
average correlation. However, flat-to-north dipping
reflection is selectively enhanced when +3 msec
delay is used and south dipping reflection is nearly
optimum when -3 msec delay is used. The value
of average correlation coefficient does not, of course,
indicate that discimination between the two reflected
events is visibly improved by beam forming. Evi-
dence that the correlation coefficients refer, in the
case of window 2, to continuity of different re-
flections is obtained from the statistics by analyzing
distribution of maximum correlation coefficients as
a function of correlation time shift. Such a distri-
bution is sh&wn in Figure 14 where the number of
occurrencesof maximum correlation coefficient as a
function of different times shifts from zero-time
correlation is plotted with dots if obtained from cor-
relograms with delays of +3 msec and with triangles
if obtained from correlograms with delays of -3
msec. Visual inspection of the distributions indicates
the coefficients from correlogramswith delays of -3
msec are located principally left of the distribution of
coefficients from correlograms with delays of +3
msec. Actually, the centers of the distributions are
3 msec apart.
Arrays 1337
Window 2 Window 3
C,V CM c a” fl.u
0.65 0.09 0.97 0.05
0.66 0.10 0.91 0.06
0.63 0.08 0.73 0.07
0.47 0.06 0.66 0.07
0.79 0.07 0.95 0.07
The time-shift offset relation of these distributions
supports the premise that the reflections enhanced
in the two casesare actually from different reflecting
conditions. This interpretation is, of course, sup-
ported by visual inspection of the seismograms
themselves.
In window 3 the gently south dipping multiple re-
flections have better than 0.91 correlation for time
delays of 0, fl, or -3 msec, but correlation is re-
duced to 0.73 with a delay of +3 msec and to 0.66
with a delay of +5 msec. This indicates that multiple
reflections can be attenuated by choosing the proper
beaming direction.
CONCLUSIONS
Field tests indicate that sound waves may be con-
centratedinto a beam which, in turn, may be directed
to enhancethe prominence of reflectionsfrom dipping
subsurfacestrata by utilizing a linear array of vibra-
tors. The directivity of sound wave transmission
is demonstrated by recordings from subsurface
seismometers. The enhancement of reflections by
appropriately directing the sound wave beam is dem-
onstrated by seismograms recorded from surface
seismometer spreads.
The configuration and direction of sound wave
beams are depicted by radiation distribution contours
on vertical polar plots in-line and cross-line to the
vibrator array. The radiation distribution contours
derived from field-recorded signal amplitudes, in
general, conform to radiation distributioncontoursfor
signal amplitudes derived from a mathematical
model of near-surface strata in the test area but are
not generally conformable to radiation distribution
contours derived from antenna theory, due in part to
erroneousassumptionsthat (1) the region of investiga-
tion is in the far-field, and (2) the region of investiga-
tion is in a homogeneousand isotropic medium.
Seismograms recorded from a surface spread in
the Tulsa test area demonstrate that the prominence
of shallow reflections on signal traces may be con-
trolled effectively by variation in driving-signal time
FIG. 14. The distribution of maximum correlation coefficients as a function of correlation time shift is shown
by plotting the number of occurrencesof different amountsof time shift each side of the zero correlation. Oc-
currencesfor coefficients from correlogramswith delays of +3 msec are plotted with dots, Mhile occurrences
for coefficients from correlograms with delays of -3 msec are plotted with triangles.

delays between adjacent vibrators in an in-line array, REFERENCES

and also that dip of the correspondingreflectors may
be inferred from variation in reflection prominence.
Visual inspection and statistical analysis of reflec-
tion continuity on correlograms employing beam
forming indicate that it is immaterial in the Handy
area whether beam-forming techniquesare usedin the
field or applied later during processing. This result
was anticipated. since in the Handy area the random
noise level relative to signal was low enough to
minimize the theoretical advantage of field summing
over process summing of individually recorded
correlograms, This conclusion assumessourceswith-
in a !ie!d+;ummed array are not mutually coupled.
Bodine, A. G., Jr., 19.56, Geophysical transducer: U.S.
Patent No. 2,735,507.
Born, W. T.. Faust, L. Y., and Wolf, A., 1955, Seismic
geophysical exploration: U.S. Patent No. 2,720,933.
Kraus. J. D.. 1950. Antennas: Nelc Y(vl\, McGraw-Hill
Book Co.. Inc.
Poulter, T. C., 1951, Seismic explorat~~~nusing elevated
charge: U.S. Patent No. 2,545,380.
Smith, M. K., 1956, Noise analysis and multiple seismom-
eter theory: Geophysics, v. 21, p. 357.
Stratton, J. A., 1941, Electromagnetic theory: New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.
Swift. L. M.. 1955. Refraction shooting: U.S. Patent No.
2,713,395.
Wolff, I.. and Malter, L., 1930, Dircctlonal radiation of
sound: J. Acoust. Sot. Am., v. 2, p. 232-233.