near surface geoscience conference 2014, athens - real-time or full‐precision crs - zeno heilmann
TRANSCRIPT
1
Real-time or full-precision CRS imaging using a cloud computing portal: multi-
offset GPR and SH-wave examples
Z. Heilmann*, H.P. Müller**, G. Satta* and G.P. Deidda****CRS4, Energy and Environment Sector
**ABE-geo, Burgdorf, Germany***University of Cagliari, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, and Architecture
2
Outline
Part 1: Cloud computing portalo Concept & Realizationo GPR example (Real-time imaging)
Part 2: CRS stack imagingo from CMP to CRS stacko 3x1 vs. 1x3 parameter searcho SH-wave data (Full-precision imaging)
Conclusions
3
PART 1:EIAGRID PORTAL
+ GPR-DATA EXAMPLE
Basic idea
4
EIAGRID Portal
5
EIAGRID Portal
Basic idea
1. Web-browser-based interface accessible from the field
2. Real-time processing using distant HPC resources3. Remote collaboration and acquisition controlling
Features
6
EIAGRID Portal
Basic idea
1. Web-browser-based interface accessible from the
field2. On-the-fly processing using a distant HPC resources
3. Remote collaboration and acquisition controlling
Features
1. Project, data and user management 2. Simplistic toolbox for data visualization and
manipulation3. Data-driven imaging method suited for parallel
computing
Components
7
8
Multi-offset GPR data:
9
Multi-offset GPR data:● Aim: monitoring of water content and water conductivity● Target depth: 0 - 5 m● Profile length: 55 m
Instrumentation:RAMAC/GPR CU II with MC4 + 4 unshielded 200 MHz antennas
Geometry:Number of sources: 546Source spacing: 0.1mNumber of receivers: 28Receiver spacing: 0.2 mMaximum offset: 6 m
CMP gather at 10 m
Data visualization tools
Data visualization tools
Data visualization tools
Data visualization tools
cm/µs
cm/µs
cm/µs
MHz
Data visualization tools
MHz
cm/µs
cm/µs
cm/µs
cm/µs
cm
cm
cm
cm
µs
CRS stacking result obtained after 4 minutes using 50 CPU
Time domain imaging
Published in: Perroud, H., and Tygel, M., 2005, Velocity estimation by the common-reflection-surface (CRS) method: Using ground-penetrating radar: Geophysics, 70, 1343–1352.
Results GPR data
20
GPR data
Comparison with published results:
Figure (a) CRS stack section and (b) time migrated section overlain with the migration velocity model obtained from stacking parameters after smoothing and regularization..
Figure taken from Perroud and Tygel 2005. (a) Final stack and (b) RMS velocity sections obtained by the classical NMO method; the black lines in (a) represent the limits of the CRS midpoint aperture for the first-order (inner curves) and second-order (outer curves) parameter searches.
21
PART 2:CRS STACK - REVISITED
+ SH-DATA EXAMPLE
From CMP to CRS stacking:
Figure taken from Perroud and Tygel 2005. NMO velocity analysis for the CMP at position x = 10 m.
22
Conventional CMP-by-CMP velocity analysis:
𝑡𝐶𝑀𝑃2 (h )=𝑡0
2+4h2
𝑣𝑁𝑀𝑂2
CRS stacking operator:Hyperbolic traveltime in CRS gather:
… in CMP gather:
Fig.: Mann et al. 2007
24
Stacking parameter search:
Pragmatic search: 3 x 1 parameter line search in specific
gathers (Mann et al. 1999)+ Cloud = Real-time imaging
One step search:1 x 3 parameter surface search in prestack data (Garabito et al. 2001)
+ Cloud = High-precision imaging
Figs: Mann et al. 2007
Algorithm: For every sample we maximize Coh(, ,) ● S
tacked ZO-S
ection
𝜶
𝑹𝑵𝑰𝑷
𝑹𝑵
Object function: Semblance (T&K 94)
26
Shallow SH-data:
27
Shallow SH-data:
28
Urban SH-wave data:● Aim: aquiclude survey for site remediation● Target depth: 0 - 15 m● 2D line: length 92 m
Source: mini-vibrator, dS=0.5 mReceiver: landstreamer with 47
geophones, dR=0.5 m
29
Some CMP gathers:
CMP 1171 CMP 1267CMP 1069
Offset [dm] Offset [dm] Offset [dm]
Tim
e [m
s]
Tim
e [m
s]
Tim
e [m
s]
30
Stacking results:
CMP stack after CVS analysis (a) versus 3x1 parameter CRS stack (b)
a)
b)
+ higher S/N
- unresolved events
31
Stacking results:
CMP stack after CVS analysis (a), 3x1 parameter search CRS stack (b)
a)
b)
32
Shear wave data
Stacking results:
CMP stack after CVS analysis (a), 1x3 parameter search CRS stack (b)
a)
b)
+ higher S/N
+ improved resolution
Computational cost:
3x1 Parameter
2-Parameter
3-Parameter
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
submission-time [min] on 30 CPU runtime [min] on 30 CPUs
34
1x3 versus 3x1 parameter search
High precision CRS (a) versus real-time CRS stack section (b)
a)
b)
35
Shear wave data
1x3 versus 3x1 parameter search
NMO velocities calculated using and : High precision CRS (a) versus real-time CRS stack section (b)
a)
b)
36
Outlook: Depth imaging
(a) Velocity model from inversion of and , (b) PostSDM
a)
b)
37
Outlook: Depth imaging
(a) Velocity model from inversion of and , (b) PreSDM
a)
b)
38
Outlook: Depth migration
(a) PreSDM (b) PostSDM using Dix inversion of CVS velocity
a)
b)
Top of Molasse
VSP
39
Conclusions:
• Real-time CRS imaging can be applied to optimize crutial acquisition parameters directly in the field: easier use of reflection methods in near-surface.
• Full-precision CRS imaging uses a spatial operator not only for stacking but also for velocity analysis: higher resolution and more stable velocities in case of low fold, strong noise & lateral inhomogeneity.
• A cloud computing portal provides optimum computing power in a location independent way: reduced hardware requirement facilitate the use of data driven methods in near-surface imaging.
Thank you for your attention!
40