Comparisons of Four Methods Used for Seismic Quality Factors Estimation
Senlin Yang,Jinghuai Gao,Wenchao Chen,Daxing Wang,Bin Weng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3255358
2009-01-01
Abstract:PreviousNext No AccessSEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2009Comparisons of four methods used for seismic quality factors estimationAuthors: Senlin YangJinghuai GaoWenchao ChenDaxing WangBin WengSenlin YangInst. Wave & Information, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaSearch for more papers by this author, Jinghuai GaoInst. Wave & Information, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaSearch for more papers by this author, Wenchao ChenInst. Wave & Information, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaSearch for more papers by this author, Daxing WangResearch Inst. E &D, Chang‐Qing Oil‐Field Company of CNPC, Xi'an, ChinaSearch for more papers by this author, and Bin WengCNOOC Research Center, Beijing, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorhttps://doi.org/10.1190/1.3255358 SectionsSupplemental MaterialAboutPDF/ePub ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Abstract We compare four Q‐factor estimation methods, including logarithmic spectral ratio (LSR), centroid frequency shifting (CFS), peak frequency shifting (PFS), and wavelet envelope peak instantaneous frequency (WEPIF) methods. First of all, principals of these four methods for Q‐factor estimation are described briefly. Then some performances are compared for them with wavelet independence, noise resistance, and resolution of thin beds. For different source wavelets, LSR method works well; WEPIF method has slight wavelet dependence; CFS and PFS methods have strong wavelet dependence. For random noise, Q‐factors estimated by CFS and PFS methods show bigger errors and instability, and Q‐factors estimated by LSR and WEPIF methods give small relative error and good stability for seismic data of high signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR). The synthetic test of a wedge model indicates that CFS method produces the lowest resolution, LSR and PFS methods demonstrate a moderate high resolution, and WEPIF method provides the highest resolution. Taking aspects compared above into consideration, the WEPIF method is relatively better than other three methods in some extent.Permalink: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3255358FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited bySeismic quality factor estimation using prestack seismic gathers: A simulated annealing approachShengjun Li, Bo Zhang, Xueshan Yong, and Wang Shangxu2 April 2020 | Interpretation, Vol. 8, No. 2Hydrocarbon accumulation conditions and key exploration and development technologies for PL 19–3 oilfieldPetroleum Research, Vol. 4, No. 1Q estimation using stretch compensated prestack gathersNaihao Liu and Bo Zhang17 August 2017Ray‐based tomography for Q estimation and Q compensation in complex mediaMaud Cavalca, Ian Moore, Ling Zhang, Swee Leng Ng, Robin Fletcher, and Martin Bayly8 August 2011Seismic attenuation estimation using S transform with regularized inversionJing Du, Songhui Lin, Weiguo Sun, Shengli Oilfield, and Guochang Liu21 October 2010 SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2009ISSN (print):1052-3812 ISSN (online):1949-4645Copyright: 2009 Pages: 4338 publication data© 2009 Copyright © 2009 Society of Exploration GeophysicistsPublisher:Society of Exploration Geophysicists HistoryPublished Online: 14 Oct 2009 CITATION INFORMATION Senlin Yang, Jinghuai Gao, Wenchao Chen, Daxing Wang, and Bin Weng, (2009), "Comparisons of four methods used for seismic quality factors estimation," SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts : 2472-2476. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3255358 Plain-Language Summary PDF DownloadLoading ...