INTERPRETERS CORNER

Coordinated by ALAN JACKSON

How thin is a thin bed? An alternative perspective

HONGLIU ZENG, Bureau of Economic Geology

he resolution limit of seismic data is a complex issue that

involves not only wavelet frequency, phase characters,
and data quality (S/N), but also criteria on how to measure
resolvability. In his classic 1973 paper How thin is a thin
bed?, Widess discussed the eect of bed thickness on reection character and timing using a symmetrical wavelet and
suggested that h/8 be the resolution limit, or the minimum
distance at which a composite waveform stabilized as the
derivative of the waveform from an individual reection.
However, this denition has more theoretical than practical
impact because of the diculties in judging waveform
stabilization. A more workable and widely accepted denition
of resolution limit corresponds to Rayleighs criterion of peakto-trough separation at h/4 (Kallweit and Wood, 1982). This
point is also a tuning point, at which composite amplitude
reaches a maximum if an opposite-polarity (at top and
bottom) thin bed is involved.
Currently, all denitions of resolution limit imply that
a resolvable feature has to be a single reection interface
(interface resolution is referred to as IR in this study). This
concept is useful in seismic interpretation, especially when
structural mapping is a primary concern. The concept is also
important in studies of unconformity, uid contact, etc., in
which accurate interpretation of physical interfaces is the key
to success. For many thin-bed reservoir studies, however, the
most critical issue is identication of the existence and lateral
extension of the thin beds themselves. In other cases, interface separation is often of less value than estimation of thickness and other reservoir properties for the whole unit. With
Rayleighs criterion, when a geologic prole thinner than h/4
contains more than one bed, interpreters can measure only
collective amplitude change in the form of a tuning curve for
total thickness estimation without pursuing thin-bed delineation.
This study proposes a new criterion for resolution limit,
in which a resolvable feature is a thin bed (bed resolution is
referred to as BR in this study). Discussion of resolution is restricted here to noise-free models constructed using a Ricker
wavelet and its 90-phase variety, followed by introduction of
tools for resolution analysis and a eld-data example.
Expansion of Rayleighs criterion
Rayleighs criterion was established by dening peak-totrough separation of diraction patterns from two pointsource objects (Jenkins and White, 1957). In seismic cases
(Kallweit and Wood, 1982), a similar situation occurs when
a symmetrical wavelet (Ricker wavelet in this case, Figure
1c) interacts with two interfaces of the same polarity (Figure
1b), which relate to a stepwise acoustic-impedance (AI) prole (Figure 1a). The two interfaces (s1 and s2) are said to be
resolved when the central peaks of individual reections are
separated by a trough (Figure 1d); at resolution limit (IR),
the trough almost disappears, but peaks are still visible (Figure 1e). When distance between the two interfaces continues
1192

The Leading Edge

October 2009

Figure 1. Rayleighs criterion for interface resolution (IR); s1 and s2

refer to interfaces to be resolved.

Figure 2. Expanded Rayleighs criterion for bed resolution (BR); b1

and b3 refer to thin beds to be resolved; b2 is a barrier bed inserted
between b1 and b3.

Figure 3. Expanded Rayleighs criterion with a symmetric wavelet.

Deteriorated bed resolution (BR) is observed.

to diminish, two central peaks merge, and the interfaces are

said to be unresolved (Figure 1f). The resolution limit corresponds to h/4 of the input wavelet (h is calculated using
predominant frequency). However, the stepwise AI prole
represents an uncommon situation for reservoir geophysics.
For a more typical, opposite-polarity AI prole, h/4 is the
tuning thickness that corresponds to the maximum composite amplitude (Kallweit and Wood, 1982).
Rayleighs criterion can be expanded to more realistic,
multiple-interface cases (Figure 2). For a normal thin-bed
prole, in which two acoustically similar thin beds are separated by another acoustically dissimilar thin bed (Figure 2a),
opposite reection polarities at the tops and bottoms of the
beds lead to more reection interferences (Figure 2b). Application of an antisymmetrical wavelet (90-phase Ricker
wavelet in this case, Figure 2c) creates a peak-to-trough separation scenario similar to that for Rayleighs criterion (Figure
1df ), which denes resolution limit of the thin bed (BR).
Two equally thick thin beds (b1 and b3sandstones, say),
separated by another thin bed (b2shale, say), are resolved
at the resolution limit when the two central peaks are separated by a weak trough without ambiguity (Figure 2e). When
b2 becomes thicker or thinner, b1 and b3 are either better
resolved or unresolved, respectively (Figure 2d, f ).
At the resolution limit (BR) in this synthetic model (Figure 2), both targeted thin beds (b1and b3) and the barrier
bed in between (b2) are signicantly thinner than h/4. That

INTERPRETERS CORNER
is, with the new criterion, h/4 is not
necessarily the minimum thickness of
reservoir units for stratigraphic or owunit correlation.
90- or zero-phase wavelet?
Use of a 90-phase wavelet in expanding Rayleighs criterion (Figure 2) leads
to an interpreter-friendly composite
waveform for BR. This observation
is based on the fact that a composite
waveform from one thin bed resembles
the derivative, or 90-phase equivalent,
of the input wavelet. As a result, the interference pattern for a two-bed model
has a waveform similar to that of the
two-interface model in Rayleighs criterion (Figure 1).
For comparison, if a zero-phase
Ricker wavelet is applied to the two-bed
model in Figure 2, the synthetic trace
demonstrates a far more complex interference pattern (Figure 3). Interpreters
must be able to recognize a peak-trough
couplet for each bed for fair resolution
of the thin beds. At the resolution limit
achieved using the 90-phase Ricker
wavelet (Figure 2e), only one peak and
one trough are apparent, and the thin
beds cannot be considered resolved
(Figure 3e). Consequently, a zero-phase
wavelet has less thin-bed resolving
power than its 90-phase equivalent.
The resolution limit (BR) for the zerophase wavelet cannot be dened until a
thicker barrier (b2) is inserted (Figure Figure 4. Idealized amplitude versus frequency (AVF) plot for a randomly generated thin-bed
AI prole (yellow line). Seismic traces are results of the RC series of the AI prole convolving
3f ). Besides, in practice, to carry out with 90-phase Ricker wavelets of varying predominant frequencies. In the thin-bed range,
correlation of thin beds by tracking one sandstones tie to trough (red) events. BR=bed resolution picked at the point where the sandstone
peak-trough couplet for each bed is con- event is about to merge with other events; IR=interface resolution interpreted at the tuning
siderably more dicult than the simple point with maximum amplitude.
peak-to-peak (or trough-to-trough, depending on AI prole) tracking required for thin-bed correla- mic display for this purpose is called amplitude versus frequency (AVF). AVF was rst proposed for studying dependence of
tion in 90-phase data (Zeng and Backus, 2005).
seismic facies on data frequency (Zeng et al., 2000). An ideal
Amplitude versus frequency analysis
AVF prole would be one illustrating seismic responses of a
Selection of tools for resolution analysis depends on the pur- given AI prole to a group of wavelets that are characterized
poses of a study. To test the resolution power of a wavelet, by the same (or at least similar) phase and band ratio but
seismic modeling of an interbedded wedge model that al- vary in predominant frequencies. In a synthetic example (Figlows the thickness of one or more beds to vary with distance ure 4), a reection coecient series of a random, multiple,
would be ideal. Results in Figures 13 are from convolution thin-bed prole is convolved with a series of 90-phase Ricker
models using this method. Noise and modeling/processing wavelets whose predominant frequencies range from 8 to 80
Hz. In this more realistic model, it is observed that, when
eects can be added if desired.
If the goal is to determine resolution limits (BR and IR) frequency is high, all thin beds are resolved in IR. When freof individual reservoir units in a geologic section, either in quency decreases, pairs of the closest two thin beds start to
synthetic or eld-data cases, the wedge model-based approach merge (BR); then merged ones continue to interfere with one
is inecient, and a site-specic analysis of amplitude interfer- another, leading to more merging, and so forth. For any bed of
ence patterns in time versus frequency is necessary. The seis- interest (a sandstone in Figure 4), the predominant frequency
October 2009

The Leading Edge

1193

INTERPRETERS CORNER
at the resolution limit (BR frequency)
can be determined at the event merging
point if the seismic correlation is known
(negative or red events for sandstones in
Figure 4), which then can be converted
to a resolution limit in time or wavelength. Similarly, one can follow the
tuning trend for each event and interpret tuning frequency at the maximum
amplitude, which corresponds to IR
(Figure 4). BR and IR frequencies can
thus be picked for all thin beds where
resolution allows.
In practice, one has to work with
eld-data traces at well sites. With only
one trace for a well prole, frequencydriven signal decomposition must be
performed on the trace to nd the AVF
relationship. Relevant methods include
digital ltering (e.g., FFT), wavelet
transform, spectral decomposition, etc.
The challenge is to achieve enough temporal and frequency resolution without
signicantly distorting the interference
patterns. It is currently a subject of
research. A test using the digital ltering method produces an AVF plot of
a well-site eld trace from the Miocene, oshore Louisiana, Starfak Field
(Figure 5). Although the eld data are
not noise-free and wireline logs reveal
more complex bedding architecture, including transitional boundaries, generated AVF shows reasonable amplitudefrequency trends for most sandstones
that can be used to pick BR- and IRfrequency points.

Figure 5. Field seismic section and wireline logs (GR/RES), well-site seismic trace, and AVF in
Miocene Starfak Field, oshore Louisiana. The seismic trace is 90 phased, with troughs (red)
indicating low-AI sandstones. Seismic data are relatively low in predominant frequency (30
Hz in shallow and 20 Hz in deep sections). The nonlinear frequency scale is due to nonlinear
conversion from the lter panel to predominant frequency values. Arrow indicates tuning trend
for Sequence 2 sandstone.

Factors that control resolution limit

What controls resolution limit? The
interface resolution limit, h/4, is based
on the observation of a single-bed (wedge) model (Figure 1)
without interference from other beds. Although the denition of bed resolution limit involves inuences from a second
bed, the observation in Figure 2 is a special case. In addition
to wavelet phase character, also in play are factors such as
number of thin beds, thickness ratio and AI ratio of the beds,
and thickness of the barrier bed. To explain the most important variables in controlling BR and IR, a preliminary study
used a simple model (Figure 6a) of two thin beds (sandstones)
separated by a barrier bed (shale). Although sandstones and
shale are assumed to have a constant AI contrast between
them, their thicknesses vary laterally, with the limiting condition that sandstones are identical in thickness. An AVF
was created for each AI prole in the model with 90 Ricker
wavelets, and interpreted BR- (Figure 6b) and IR-frequency
points (Figure 6c) led to the following observations:
1194

The Leading Edge

October 2009

For a barrier shale of any xed thickness, BR is linearly

related to sandstone thickness in terms of predominant
period (Figure 6b). An increase of sandstone thickness
will result in a higher predominant period or lower frequency required for resolution. Increasing the thickness of
shale (from 2.5 to 5 and then to 10 ms) shifts the trend to
higher ranges of predominant period (or lower ranges of
frequency) without signicant changes in gradient.
In the model, sandstone/shale thickness ratio (H/h) increases with sandstone thickness (x axis) and decreases with
shale thickness (y axis). A decrease of H/h would improve
bed resolution (BR). In other words, thin sandstones are
easier to resolve (beyond h/32 toward the upper-left corner, Figure 6b) if they have been separated farther from
one another.

INTERPRETERS CORNER

Figure 7. Relationship between BRs and IRs of Sequence 2 sandstone,

Miocene Starfak Field, oshore Louisiana. It is assumed that sandstone
in all locations has exactly the same AI prole as in the well in Figure
5, except for sandstone thickness. BRs do better than IRs, with an
apparent limit smaller than /32.

terms of BR with 56-Hz (h=2.5 ms), 36-Hz (h=5 ms),

or 21-Hz (h=10 ms) data, and so on. As a result, seismic
data can be stretched to resolve thinner beds with BR than
with IR.

Figure 6. Seismic modeling for factors controlling seismic resolution

limit. (a) Model set up. Thicknesses of the two sandstones are equal
but may vary between 0 and 10 ms. Barrier shale is set to 2.5, 5,
and 10 ms. (b) With thickening sandstones, BR improves in terms
of predominant period or predominant frequency, but deteriorates in
terms of wavelength. For noise-free data, BR has no limit. An increase
of barrier shale thickness improves BR. (c) IR is also inuenced
by sandstone and shale thicknesses, although with a much smaller
magnitude. IR follows the /4 line closely.

Although smaller in magnitude, IR is also inuenced by

the thickness of barrier shale and H/h (Figure 6c). If sandstones are farther apart (h = 10 ms), the linear trend between IR and sandstone thickness will follow the h/4 line
closely; a thinning barrier shale will lead to a deviation
of the trend away from the h/4 line. That is, for tightly
spaced thin beds, IR will be worse than h/4.
In the model, BR is of consistently higher resolving power
than IR. For example, a 2-ms sandstone in the model will
be resolved in terms of IR with a 125-Hz signal, and in
October 2009

The Leading Edge

1195

INTERPRETERS CORNER

Figure 8. Relationship between BRs and IRs of Sequence 2 sandstone

in 27 wells, Miocene Starfak Field, oshore Louisiana. BRs and IRs
show linear trends in sandstone thickness similar to those in Figure
7, although with signicantly more scatter. BRs do consistently better
than IRs, with a best resolution close to /16.

More experiments made by adding more variables to the

model (e.g., variable thickness ratio of sandstones, an additional sandstone, etc.) have secondary eects that could
deteriorate the relationship, although linear trends between
resolution limits and thickness remain. Quantication of
these eects needs further study. As a guideline for practical
application, if a formation has some degree of stratigraphic
regularity (e.g., thickness of the shale barrier is constant or
predictable), BR can be useful in mapping reservoirs far thinner than h/4.
A Miocene sandstone example
Miocene sandstones in the oshore Louisiana Starfak Field
(refer to wireline-log prole in Figure 5) provide a real test
of whether BR is of value in predicting thin-bed thickness.
The high-frequency Sequence 2 sandstone in Figure 5 is an
incised-valley ll composed of coastal stream and shoreline
sand-dune sediments. In 27 wells, sandstone ranges from 10
to 90 ft in thickness. The sandstone sits in the middle of
a tightly spaced sandstone-shale section, with barrier shales
above and below ranging from 15 to 100 ft in thickness.
The situation is apparently more complex than the model
in Figure 6 in that more than two sandstones are involved and
all sandstone and shale beds vary in thickness. First, a simplied case was tested by assuming that all wells have exactly the
same AI prole, except for thickness of the target sandstone.
The Sequence 2 sandstone in the well in Figure 5 was articially removed from the wireline-derived AI log and replaced
by a blocky sandstone bed of increasing thickness. A synthetic
AVF created with 90 Ricker wavelets was interpreted for BR
and IR frequencies for each sandstone-thickness case. Results
(Figure 7) show that BR indeed responds to thin-bed thickness almost linearly. The apparent resolution limit dened by
1196

The Leading Edge

October 2009

BR is smaller than h/32 because 1-ms (4.2-ft) sandstone is

responsible for a detectable, 2.7-Hz BR frequency shift over
the zero-sandstone case (Figure 7). IR is also linearly related
to thickness, although in a signicantly higher frequency
range (or lower resolution power). Surprisingly, IRs for the
Sequence 2 sandstone follow the h/2, not the h/4 line, indicating a signicant deterioration of IR resolution in a multibed-interference situation.
Then, admitting that the AI prole (including Sequence
2 sandstone and surrounding sandstone and shale beds) actually varies from one well to another, eld-data-derived AVF
plots were generated and interpreted at all 27 well-site seismic
traces (e.g., Figure 5) to examine the real resolution power of
BR and IR (Figure 8). In comparison with the simplied case
(Figure 7), the linear relationship between BR frequencies
and thickness, and between IR frequencies and thickness, still
exists. Although a signicant scatter is introduced, relationships should nevertheless allow for qualitative prediction of
thickness in Sequence 2 sandstone in the area. In the 27 wells,
the best resolution of BR is close to h/16.
Discussion
Standard, tuning-curve-based, thin-bed interpretation was
developed from seismic modeling of a single wedge, making thin-bed prediction easy. However, its value is limited
because seismic interferences from surrounding beds have
been omitted and multiple wells are needed for constructing
the tuning curve. The alternative approach discussed herein
provides a way to incorporate and actually use multibed interference patterns to reduce these limiting conditions and to
improve seismic resolution. The new concepts of bed resolution, AVF analysis, and 90 phasing of seismic data are key
to successful application of the new procedure.
Preliminary seismic modeling in this study supports a
poorly documented but widespread belief by many interpreters that seismic resolution is not limited to h/4. Results
of seismic modeling in Figure 6 suggest that under certain
geologic/acoustic conditions, bed resolution has no limit for
noise-free synthetic data and presumably is limited only to
detection limits for eld data. Sheri set the detection limit
at h/25 in his Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Geophysics.
With recent improvements in data acquisition and processing, this number is outdated and is probably becoming smaller and smaller.
We still have far to go before we can predict a bed as thin
as h/25 or thinner using the method proposed in this paper.
More seismic modeling has to be done to better explain how
multibed interference, thickness and AI variations, and S/N
ratio can inuence BR interpretability. AVF analysis requires
tools that can provide excellent time and frequency resolution for accurate tuning-trend interpretation of very thin
beds. Although digital ltering, wavelet transform, and spectral decomposition may all provide sensible results, current
development of these techniques has been mostly for other
applications. They have to undergo reworking and redevelopment to become suitable for a new purpose.
Nevertheless, improvements in seismic resolution can

INTERPRETERS CORNER
hopefully in turn improve many aspects of geophysics, from
exploration and reservoir characterization to eld surveillance. Workows that integrate analyses of both IR and BR
should also improve reservoir prediction and correlation. Immediate applications include, but are not limited to:
Predicting reservoir thickness thinner than h/4 using BR
with a single seismic trace,
Improving reservoir thickness mapping up to h/4 using IR
with a single seismic trace,
Amplitude detuning of thin reservoirs for DHI with a
single seismic trace,
Optimal facies imaging by adjusting
predominant frequency of seismic facies to a thickness-dependent tuning
frequency,
Frequency-dependent high-resolution
seismic stratigraphy.

by Zeng et al. (SEG 2000 Expanded Abstracts).

Acknowledgments: Milo Backus, Bob Graebner, Sergey Fomel, and
Tracy Stark are thanked for their useful comments. Use of well and
seismic data was granted by Texaco (now Chevron). Figures were
prepared by John Ames. Lana Dieterich edited the text. Publication
authorized by the Director, Bureau of Economic Geology.
Corresponding author: hongliu.zeng@beg.utexas.edu

Conclusions
Better seismic resolution can be achieved
by shifting the focus of seismic interpretation from top and bottom interfaces
of a thin bed to the thin bed itself. Th is
task can be accomplished by rst dening bed resolution using an expanded
Rayleighs criterion and then conducting AVF analysis on the model and
eld-data examples. Bed resolution has
no limit for noise-free data and can be
as small as h/16 for eld data using current technology. For maximum benet,
seismic data must be adjusted to the 90
phase.
Suggested reading. For Rayleighs criterion please refer to Fundamentals of
Optics by Jenkins and White (McGraw
Hill, 1957). The classic discussion of the
seismic resolution limit was by Widess
in How thin is a thin bed? (Geophysics, 1973) and summarized in The limits
of resolution of zero-phase wavelets by
Kallweit and Wood (Geophysics, 1982).
For benets of 90-phase data in thin-bed
interpretation, read Interpretive advantages of 90-phase wavelets, Part I: Modeling and Part II: Seismic applications by
Zeng and Backus (Geophysics, 2005).
SEG published the fourth edition of Sheris Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied
Geophysics in 2002. Amplitude versus
frequencyapplications to seismic stratigraphy and reservoir characterization)

October 2009

The Leading Edge

1197