Main Menu

Application of the OBC dual-sensor processing technique to a tide developed area in shallow water:
a case study from Jinzhou, China
He Zhaoquan *, Zhang Baoqing, Zheng shifa, Zeng Tianjiu , Zuo Huangjin and Zhao zhiqiang, BGP, CNPC,
This kind of influence more heavily affects the geophone
than the hydrophone.

Summary
The Jinzhou prospecting region, located in Bohai Gulf,
belongs to a shallow water tidal growth belt, where the
water depth is strongly influenced by the tides. The initial
method of simple scale summation and the conventional
dual-sensor processing method based on a fixed water
depth are no longer suitable, making dual-sensor processing
extremely challenging. This paper addresses complex
dual-sensor processing of a shallow water tidal growth belt
in the Jinzhou prospecting region through study of the
propagation dynamics of longitudinal waves as well as the
different wave field response characteristics of
hydrophones and geophones. We summarize a suitable
dual-sensor processing method for an area with changing
water-depth. This method has removed the downgoing
ghosts through the computation of the water-depth of the
detector and the corresponding scale operator. We then
calculate the bottom reflection coefficient, allowing for the
elimination of the upgoing peg-legs. This method has
successfully solved the complex and difficult problem of
dual-sensor processing in the Jinzhou prospecting region.
Introduction
The ocean bottom cable technique (Timothy et al, 1987) is
used for seismic data acquisition along the seabed.
Inevitably, seawater reverberations will appear in data
collected with this method (Quan and Han, 2005). These
kinds of multiples are very difficult to remove using only
the hydrophone. However, by using the hydrophone (i.e.
pressure detector) along with the geophone (i.e. velocity
detector) it may be possible to suppress the reverberation.
The initial dual-sensor (Barr et al, 1990) processing
technique using the hydrophone and geophone, in which
the response to reverberation is mutually reversed, utilizes
the simple scale summation (Barr and Sanders, 1989) of
two kinds of detector data to achieve the goal of suppressed
reverberations: ( s (t )
where,

= p (t ) +

(1 + kr )
v(t )
cos p (1 kr )

s (t ) is the seismic signal,

p (t ) is the

hydrophone, v (t ) is the geophone, kr is the reflection

coefficient,

p is

the angle of refraction of a p-wave in

water, and is the impedance of water.) This method

does not consider the influence of the coupling factor
between the detector and the seabed on the seismic signal.

The Jinzhou prospecting region is located in Bohai Gulf,

and belongs to a shallow water tidal growth belt. The water
depth changes between 5 and 15 meters, the changes being
relatively large in the transverse direction due to the tidal
influence. The water depth of the same detector in different
shooting stages differs greatly from the observed value
because of the effect of the tides, and thus the observed
value cannot be used to determine the real water depth. The
detector and seabed couple poorly due to the influence of
the tide. The detector-seabed coupling influences the scale
factor, therefore we cannot use the same detector scale
factor to the same detector in different shooting stages. The
conventional dual-sensor processing method based on fixed
water depth is no longer suitable, which creates a much
greater challenge to dual-sensor processing.
Fundament
Theoretically, the hydrophone responds to changing
pressure in the water. A negative pulse is produced when
pressed and a positive pulse is produced when swelled. The
geophone responds to the movement of a particle. A
negative polarity is produced when a particle moves
upward and a positive polarity is produced when a particle

Figure 1: Sketch map of detector multiples in water

moves downward. Figure 1 shows a sketch map of detector

multiples in water. After the primary signal arrives at the
detector it continues upward in the water. It propagates to
the water surface and is then reflected back; the
reverberation forms by the signal making this round trip
many times. In figure 1, the black arrow indicates the
direction of seismic wave propagation and the red arrow
indicates the direction of particle movement. Multiples of

2011 SEG

SEG San Antonio 2011 Annual Meeting

3668

Main Menu

The OBC dual-sensor processing technique

downgoing signals in the diagram are ghosts and upgoing

multiples are peg-legs. The hydrophones and geophones
have opposite responses to the ghosts but consistent
responses to the peg-legs. The theory of dual-sensor
processing is used such that the responses of the
hydrophone and geophone to the ghost are reversed to
remove the ghost by scaling the hydrophone and geophone,
as shown in Figure 2, and then, by further calculating the

hydrophone multiples always exist and the hydrophone

always has the notch point. Otherwise, the direction of
ghost and peg-leg of the geophone (B) are reversed and
partially eliminated in the position of the first-order
multiples. This is why most of the hydrophone multiples
are strong, notch points are obvious; most of the geophone
multiples are not strong, notch points are not obvious. Most
of the time, the geophone is closer to the primary signal.
This is why most results of dual-sensor processing free of
ghosts and peg-legs are more like the geophone but differ
more from the hydrophone (A).
Method
From figure 1 we can get the hydrophone response formula:

X (t )hyd = X (t )pri X (t )gho X (t )peg

(1)

(t )hyd is the hydrophone response, X (t )pri is the

primary response, X (t )gho is a ghost, and X (t ) peg is the
Where, X

Figure 2: Sketch map of dual-sensor processing

bottom reflection coefficients to eliminate the peg-leg. As

shown in Figure 2 the right panel (D) is free of ghosts and
peg-legs. After removing the ghosts only (C), it also is still
affected by peg-legs, and this effect is the same as the
multiples in the hydrophone (A). The results of removing

peg-leg. The response formula of the scaled geophone is:

X (t )geo = X (t ) pri + X (t )gho X (t )peg

(2)

(t )geo is the response of the scaled geophone. It

is the result of the field signal of geophone, X (t )g scaled
Where, X

by C .

X (t )geo = X (t )g C

(3)

Assuming the bottom reflection coefficient is r , then

X (t )peg = rX (t )gho

(4)

If the depth of the water is h , then the Z translation of the

two-way time of the water-depth is:

Z =e

iw

2h
v

(5)

Then the relationship between ghost and primary is:

X (t )gho = ZX (t ) pri

Figure 3: Theoretical amplitude spectra of notch points

the ghosts not only in the profile but also in the spectrum
are similar to the original hydrophone. (Figure 3, the blue
curve represents the amplitude spectrum of the signal with
first order ghost and peg-leg; the red curve represents the
amplitude spectra of signal with second order ghost and
peg-leg; the yellow curve represents the amplitude spectra
of the signal with third order ghost and peg-leg. From top to
bottom are the spectrum of geophone (A), hydrophone (B)
and the de-ghosted spectrum (C).) It can also be seen from
Figure 2, the direction of ghost and peg-leg of the
hydrophone are consistent in the position of the first-order
multiples, and are mutually reinforcing, such that the

(6)

We can determine the water bottom reflection coefficient r ,

the real water-depth of shooting and the scaled operator C ,
derived from the above equation. By further derivation one
can get the following formula:

X(t)geo + X(t)hyd +r X(t)geo X(t)hyd = 2X(t) pri

(7)

Substituting the reflection coefficient in it then we can get

the response of the primary X

(t )pri . Through this method,

both the ghost and the peg-leg can be removed, and the
dual-sensor processing can be realized. In the usual
situation, because the bottom reflection coefficient is
relatively stable, it is enough to get the primary X

(t )pri . If

the bottom reflection coefficient changed greatly, then

coefficient of (1 + r ) must be divided to get the primary
from underground.

2011 SEG

SEG San Antonio 2011 Annual Meeting

3669

Main Menu

The OBC dual-sensor processing technique

Example
We apply the new dual-sensor processing method, which is
well suited for water-depth changes to real OBC data from
Jinzhou. Compared to the conventional methods, we get
good results. The Jinzhou prospecting region is situated in
the Bohai Gulf, where the water depth is between 5 to 15
meters, with relatively large changes in the transverse
direction, and large tidal influences on water depth; it
belongs to the shallow water tidal growth belt. Figure 4
shows the two-way acquisition process. It is a forward
acquisition, producing an odd CDP. The reverse acquisition
results in an even number of CDP. The tidal effects result in
a depth change at the same location between the two
acquisitions. The first arrival has one tidal time difference
between two acquisitions, but the ghost and peg-leg have
three tidal time differences between the two acquisitions.

Figure 4: Sketch of data acquisition in Jinzhou.

Due to the CDP intervals between the two acquisitions,

because of the tidal difference, the events have a
phenomenon similar to a saw tooth in the stack section.
Under normal circumstances, it is difficult to judge which
event is the primary in the stack sections and which event is
the ghost and peg-leg. In this special acquisition mode, due
to the tidal difference of the ghost and peg-leg are three
times of the primary between two acquisitions, the saw
tooth phenomenon in the ghost and peg-leg are stronger
than that in the primary. Based on this, we can use the saw
tooth phenomenon to easily differentiate between the
primary and the ghost and peg-leg. We can judge whether
the ghost and peg-leg have been removed by the
disappearance of the saw tooth. This is used to judge the
result of the dual-sensor processing.
Figure 5 shows a stack section from the Jinzhou
prospecting region after dual-sensor processing. Figure 5A
is the stack section of the hydrophone data. Figure 5B is the
stack section of the geophone data. Figure 5C is the stack
section of the de-ghosted data. Figure 5D is the stack
section of the dual-sensor processing result. We have
analyzed in theory that the de-ghosted data is similar to the
hydrophone data not only in the stack section but also in the
spectrum. From the picture, we can see this in the actual
data processing results. Comparing figure 5A with figure
5B, we can see that the two images look similar. From the

stack sections, we can see an obvious saw tooth behavior in

the stack section of hydrophone and the de-ghosted data.
The hydrophone saw tooth phenomenon is caused by the
ghost and the peg-leg together, because the ghost and the
peg-leg are in the same direction and mutually reinforce
each other. The saw tooth phenomenon in the de-ghosted
data is caused by the peg-leg. The geophone saw tooth
phenomenon is not obvious; this is because the direction of
the ghost and the peg-leg are reverse and mutually
eliminate one another. There is no obvious saw tooth
phenomenon after dual-sensor processing, because the
ghosts and the peg-leg were removed after dual-sensor
processing. We can see after dual-sensor processing that the
stack section features are better than the hydrophone,
geophone and deghosted data, and the signal to noise ratio
is greatly improved.
Figure 6 is the spectrum of Figure 5. The black curve in the
figure is the hydrophone spectrum (figure 5A), the red
curve is the geophone spectrum (figure 5B), the blue curve
is the spectrum that has been only de-ghosted (figure 5C),
the green curve is the spectrum after dual-sensor processing
(figure 5D), which has had both the down-going ghost
wave and the up-going peg-leg wave removed. From it we
can see that the de-ghosted spectrum (blue) and the
hydrophone spectrum (black) are very similar, this is
consistent with our conclusions, which was verified by the
real data. The final dual-sensor processing spectrum (green)
eliminated the effects of multiple water layers from
detection, and has eliminated the obvious notch point of the
spectrum; the spectrum is improved.
Figure 7 is the stack section comparing different methods to
dual-sensor processing. Figure 7A is the result of using a
conventional dual-sensor processing method; Figure 7B is
the result of the dual-sensor processing method from this
paper. It can be seen that the profile from our dual-sensor
processing, which is suited to regions with changing
water-depth, is significantly better than the stack section
from the conventional dual-sensor processing method.
Conclusions
The dual-sensor processing technique is the key step in
OBC data processing. It is difficult to remove the ghost and
peg-leg clearly using the hydrophone data or geophone data
only. Dual-sensor processing is a method that uses the
different seismic signal responses of the hydrophone and
geophone to suppress ghosts and peg-legs. The
conventional dual-sensor processing method is not optimal
for data from regions with changing water-depth. In order
to meet this challenge, we summarize the dual-sensor
processing method for a changing water-depth area. In a
real data processing example, with in depth study of the
dual-sensor processing method, good results have been
achieved.

2011 SEG

SEG San Antonio 2011 Annual Meeting

3670

Main Menu

The OBC dual-sensor processing technique

Figure 5: stack section of dual-sensor processing

Figure 6: spectrum of Figure 5

Figure 7: stack section of conventional(A) and new method of dual-sensor processing(B)

2011 SEG

SEG San Antonio 2011 Annual Meeting

3671

Main Menu

EDITED REFERENCES
Note: This reference list is a copy-edited version of the reference list submitted by the author. Reference lists for the 2011
SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts have been copy edited so that references provided with the online metadata for
each paper will achieve a high degree of linking to cited sources that appear on the Web.
REFERENCES

Barr, F., et al., 1990, A dual-sensor, bottom-cable 3D survey in Gulf of Mexico: 60th Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 855858.
Barr, F. J., and J. I. Sanders, 1989, Attenuation of water column reverberation using pressure and

velocity detector in an ocean bottom cable: 59th Annual International Meeting, SEG,
Expanded Abstracts, 653656.
Quan Haiyan and Han Liqiang, 2005, Using OBC dual receiver to suppress reverberation of water
column: Oil Geophysical Prospecting, 40, no. 1, 712.
Rigsby, T. B., W. J. Cafarelli, and D. ONeill, 1987, Bottom cable exploration in Gulf of Mexico: A new
approach: 57th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 181183.

2011 SEG

SEG San Antonio 2011 Annual Meeting

3672