F029

Semi-automatic Determination of the Number of

Seismic Facies in Waveform Classification
W. Xiong* (CNPC-BGP), Z.H. Wan (CNPC-BGP), M.S. Chen (CNPC-BGP) & H.
Y. Zhang (CNPC-BGP)

SUMMARY
Waveform classification is a popular method in seismic facies analysis. It has been successfully applied to
oil and gas reservoir prediction. However, the decision of the number of seismically-determined facies in
field applications is not straightforward. Generally the task is performed by trial and error of a subjective
user, which consequently increases the workload of the interpreter and the uncertainty of reservoir facies
prediction. This problem is addressed here by proposing a self-organizing neural network in which the
structure of the output layer is one-dimensional. Using this technique, the number of seismic facies can be
semi-automatically determined. This method is applied to a synthetic example and a field example. It is
shown that the proposed method is capable of estimating the number of classes effectively and enhancing
the discrimination of seismic facies in an efficient way.

72nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2010

Barcelona, Spain, 14 - 17 June 2010

Introduction
In waveform classification, seismic waveforms are classified using clustering analysis technology. In
this method, the number of classes is a key parameter. Choosing this parameter is difficult as the
geological characters vary from field to field. In fact, a good understanding of geology and seismic
data is required to correctly determine the number of seismic facies. In field application, the number
of classes usually varies 5 to 15 depending on the complexity of the seismic signal and the time
thickness of the reservoir. The result of classification would be too smooth if the number of classes is
very small. On the contrary, the result would be too detailed to be interpreted if the number of classes
is too great.
Stratimagic is one of the most commonly used software packages for waveform classification. In this
software, the user should try at least three times to determine the number of seismic facies, where (1)
the number of classes is equal to the target thickness divided by six, (2) the number of classes is the
previously calculated value divided by two, and (3) the number of classes is the first calculated value
multiplied by 1.5 (Stratimagic training manual, 2002). This is the routine approach to obtaining the
number of classes using commercial software at present. It is a trial and error task by the user, which
consequently increases the workload of the interpreter and the uncertainty of reservoir facies
prediction. This problem is addressed here by adopting a self-organizing neural network in which the
output layer is one-dimensional. The number of seismic facies can be semi-automatically determined
using this technique.
Method
Kohnens Self-Organizing Map (SOM) is one of the most promising techniques for waveform
classification. It was initially proposed by Finnish professor T. Kohonen in 1984. It is an unsupervised
and self-leaning network containing two layers. It is composed of many input nodes and output nodes.
Each input node is connected with all the output nodes by the weights, and each output node is
connected with the local output nodes (the neighbourhood) by the weights as well. Normally, there are
many nodes in the input layer and the structure of the output layer is two-dimensional.
The convergence of the Kohonen method is very slow and it is sensitive to the initial input condition
and the sequence of the input samples. Chen Z.D. (1997) and Luo L.M. et al. (1997) improved this
method by setting initial weights and adjusting the learning rate, the convergence criterion and the
adjustment of classification patterns. The improved algorithm converges faster and provides enhanced
accuracy in the result of seismic facies. Based on this method, we propose two improvements aimed
to find a more efficient way to determine the number of classes.
Kohonens one-dimensional SOM
The 2D output nodes need to be further interpreted before the result of Kohonens SOM can be finally
used. For example, Matos et al. (2007) proposed a method to estimate the number of classes by
combining 2D SOM and the K-mean method, i.e. the number of classes is calculated by the K-mean
method based on the 2D U-matrix from the SOM. For Kohonens SOM, in which the output layer is
2D, the same seismic facies is often mapped by multiple neurons, which makes the network so large
that it is difficult to interpret the final result. Actually, the neural network in which the output layer is
one-dimensional (Figure 1) can meet the requirements for seismic facies classification. In this
network, there are less neurons in the output space than in 2D. The structure of the 1D output layer is
different from the 2D output layer. It is a linear topology and the number of nodes in the output layer
is equal to the number of classes. This network is still capable of adjusting the weights of the neurons
in the output layer within the neighborhood according to their response to the neurons in the input
layer. Because of our improvement to the network structure of the output layer, the following equation
can be used to determine the number of classes.

72nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2010

Barcelona, Spain, 14 - 17 June 2010

The formula of estimating the number of classes

Regardless of pattern recognition or neural network, the result is better if the distances between
clusters are larger and the distances between samples in each cluster are smaller. This criterion is used
to determine the number of classes in our method. Suppose the number of classes varies from 2 to M,
the sum of the distances (ERRK) between the samples in each cluster is expressed by the following
equations when the number of classes is equal to K:

ERRK
(i)

n(i)

i 1

j 1

( ( x (ji ) w(i)) 2 )

th

j 1,...,n(i ) and

n(i) N
i 1

th

th

Where xj is the j sample in the i cluster, w(i) is the weight for the i cluster, n(i) is the number of

samples of the ith cluster and N is the total numbers of samples. The EER is minimized when the
number of classes is correct.
Nc
Y1

Y2

...

YM Output

W11

WNM

X1

X2

XN Input

Figure 1 One-dimensional SOM: X1, X2 ,, XN are the input nodes; Y1, Y2,, YN are the output
nodes; W11 is the weight connected with X1 and Y1. Nc is the neighbourhood.
A test on a synthetic data
A 3D synthetic model (Matos, 2007) was used to validate the introduced method. The velocity model
is shown in Figure 2a. The synthetic seismic signal generated with this velocity model is shown in
Figure 2b. The reservoir is represented by three different seismic facies characterized by the their
velocities of 3100m/s, 3200m/s, and 3300m/s. We use the seismic amplitudes within a 32-millisecond
window around the chosen seismic horizon (the blue dotted line), i.e., the marked area between red
dotted lines in Figure 2c. The use of the contiguous seismic trace amplitudes as input attributes is
equivalent to a waveform classification in the area of interest. The classified results with the proposed
algorithm are shown in Figure 3. In the example in Figure 3a, the ERR is constant when the number
of classes is greater than three. So the number of the classes is determined to be three. Figure 3b
shows the seismic facies map when the number of classes is three. From this map, we can easily know
that there are three facies in this example. With our method, the number of classes can be correctly
determined using the ERR curve and the seismic facies map matches the true model well.
Application to real data
Our method was applied to 3D observed seismic data. The seismic data along a crossline is shown in
Figure 4. In this figure, the yellow line is the seismic horizon. The waveforms near line 370 and line
580 are the zone of study. A 50-ms window along the seismic horizon (10 ms above and 40 ms below
the yellow line) is used to analyse the seismic facies. Figure 5a shows the ERR versus the number of
classes. The ERR decreases gradually as the number of classes increases. The change in ERR appears
to be less when the number of classes is greater than eight. Hence the number of classes is set to eight

72nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2010

Barcelona, Spain, 14 - 17 June 2010

for the waveform classification. Eight model traces used in this example are shown in Figure 5b.
Figure 5c is the result of the waveform classification (seismic facies) using the above parameters. The
white solid line is the location of the crossline shown in Figure 4. The fluvial channel can be clearly
seen from the map, which is delineated by a white dotted line. From the figures, we can see that the
fluvial facies in Figure 5c correspond to the first model trace in Figure 5b. Figure 5d is the seismic
facies map when the number of classes is equal to four. The fluvial channel in this figure is not as
obvious as in Figure 5c. It is more difficult to identify the channel, especially the part in the centre.
Therefore, the fluvial channel is better delineated when the number of classes is eight. This proves
that our method is an efficient approach for determining the number of facies and produces reliable
results.
Conclusions
We proposed a method by which the number of facies can be efficiently determined. Compared with
the traditional method that based on trial and error, our method reduces the users workload and the
uncertainty in the result caused by the subjective user.
The method introduced here determines the appropriate number of facies from the cross-plot of the
ERR versus the number of classes. Theoretically, the best number of classes corresponds to the point
where the ERR value is minimized. However, it might be difficult to find this point in practice. In
general, the number of classes corresponding to the point where the ERR curve becomes flat is best.
References
Chen, Z.D. [1997]. Reservoir seismic attribute optimization. Oil industry publishing house, China.
Luo, L.M. and Wang, Y.C. [1997]. Improvement of self-organizing mapping neural network and the
application in reservoir prediction. Oil Geophysical Prospecting, 32,237-245.
Matos, M.C. Osorio, P.L.M. and Johann, P.R.S. [2007]. Unsupervised seismic facies analysis using
wavelet transform and self-organizing maps. Geophysics, 72, 9-21.
Paradigm. [2002]. Stratimagic training manual. Paradigm geophysical corporation.

b)
TWT (ms)

Two-way time (s)

a)

Distance (m)

Trace Number (trace spacing is 50m)

TWT (ms)

c)

Trace number (trace spacing is 50m)

Figure 2 The synthetic model. a) The velocity model. b) The synthetic seismic. c) The picked horizon
(in blue dotted line) and the time window (between red dotted lines).

72nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2010

Barcelona, Spain, 14 - 17 June 2010

b)

10

ERR

Crossline

a)

20
30
40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Inline
The number of classes

Figure 3 The result of wavelet classification. a) The crossplot of ERR versus the number of classes. b)
The seismic facies map.

a)

c)

ERR

Crossline

Figure 4 The seismic profile along a crossline (displayed with wiggles and variable density colour).
The yellow line is picked seismic horizon. Colour bar is amplitude.
700

600

500

400
100

The number of classes

200

300

400

500

600

Inline

d)

Crossline

The number of samples

b)

The number of model trace

Inline

Figure 5 The result of waveform classification. a) The crossplot of the ERR versus the number of
classes. b) The model traces c) The seismic facies map when the number of classes is 8. d) The seismic
facies map when the number of classes is 4.

72nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2010

Barcelona, Spain, 14 - 17 June 2010