EFFECT OF DIFFERENT MUTING PATTERN

ON THE MULTIPLE MODELS ON THE

SHALLOW WATER DEMULTIPLE RESULT

Mohamad Juwaidi Hasanal Basari

Bachelor of Technology (Hons)
Universiti Teknologi Petronas
Tronoh, Perak Darul Ridzuan
Email: mohamadjuwaidi@gmail.com

Abstract— Shallow water demultiple is applied in almost every
shallow marine environment for removing the existence of delayed
signal in parallel to the primary signal. In conventional method,
multiples are eliminated because it was considered as disturbance
which contains unwanted information. Thus, to cope with this
short-period multiple which cause inaccurate display for the
seismic traces, SWD step is necessary to be carried out during the
data processing. Different approach is conducted by using various
parameters during this step. The pattern of the multiple models
with respect to different variables are compared and observed to
obtain the most accurate model for primary signal. Results of
testing to the multiples model by using different pattern leads to
better options in choosing the right and precise subsurface
reflector. The final primary model being generated after the SWD
gives better display for interpretation purposes. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the subsurface model is crucial to be generated
from a correct multiples model as it will impact the seismic section.
Inaccurate multiples model can affect the outcome and produce a
bad interpretation.
Keywords- Shallow water demultiple, multiple model, primary
signal.
INTRODUCTION
The challenges of using the muting method as geophysical
knowledge is different type will have various impact towards
the seismic sections. As an example, in the output data after top
mute has been applied successfully some parts of the signal was
removed even though it carried the significant information. It
happened due to sparse picking of the top mute polygons on the
shot gathers. Next, the shallow water demultiple (SWD) is
another alternative aside of surface-related multiple elimination
(SRME) for cleaning the primary from any multiples. Where
SWD advanced than the conventional SRME when dealing
with shallow water environment. That is the factor of why SWD
was applied together with SRME due to its functionality. Thus,
mute process can be applied in SWD to further understand its
effects to the multiples model and final output. Therefore, in
this project, the problem encountered was studied to achieve the
best output after muting application without causing any defects
towards the processing result. Different pattern of muting is run
to the single study area and the effects is discussed. Multiples
model for Shallow-Water Demultiple (SWD) generated will be
observed and compared in getting the right primary signal.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

1.1 BACKGROUND
Muting is the process where removal of certain unwanted
signal and noise was done. It also can be described as to discard
the contribution of selected seismic traces in a stack to
minimize any disturbances such as air waves, ground roll and
other early-arriving noise. Some example of common or typical
targets for muting are low-frequency traces and long-offset
traces. In seismic data processing, muting is one of the steps
because of its function which is to erase unnecessary
information and keep only the priority. Muting is applied
according to its pattern like the top mute which is done at the
early phase for eliminates the direct arrival signal. There are
many type of muting that was widely used in processing such
as the surgical mute, horizon mute and NMO stretch mute.
The acquired raw seismic data which is use for processing
exists in a very complex shape and carries vital information of
the subsurface. In the seismic section, the signal includes the
important amplitudes and unwanted noise. Method for
eliminating the undesired noises as well as the direct arrival is
termed as noise elimination and demultiple. The main idea of
this project is about the testing of using mute process in seismic
data processing for shallow water multiples. Shorter range of
depth between geophones and seabed in the shallow water
environments will create multiples in the seismic data which
was known as the shallow water multiples. By applying muting
in the processing step will produced different output. The
generated multiples model will be used in subtraction step
between the input and output to get result.
 The things that need to be aware and handled cautiously is
different muting pattern to the workflow will produce a
different multiples model. Meaning is by applying muting
before or after generating the multiple model will lead to
different outcome. Therefore, this project which focused on the
multiples model for shallow water environment aims to
determine the most accurate multiple model that will produce
primary signal after the subtraction process.
1.3 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to remove the short
period multiple acquired in shallow water environment from the
seismic dataset. Besides, is to produce the most accurate
multiple model for subtraction step using shallow water
demultiple. This project also aims to develop and propose the
best testing patterns on shallow water demultiple.
1.4 SCOPE OF STUDY
In this project, the fundamental of geoscience is crucial for
understanding the significant of doing this topic. Geology for
the study area was initially studied in determining the
geological structures that exists in the subsurface. Its included
the depositional environment, basin development and
petroleum system. Besides, knowledge in geophysics such as
the data acquisition and data processing are important for this
project as the topic itself was focusing on applying muting for
the multiples model. Then, the basic knowledge for seismic
data processing in performing the procedures by using the
related geophysical software available. Main components in
this project is to deal with the software for processing the
seismic section especially by implementing the muting steps in
shallow water environment. All procedures are followed
starting with data loading until the migration.
The scope of study will involve the data loading from the
raw seismic traces, processes of removing the noise signals,
enhancing and improvise the seismic amplitude, generating
multiples model with application of suitable steps, subtraction
to get the primary signal. Focused point is to test and develop
the best workflow pattern for shallow water demultiple (SWD).
Proposed study area for this project is the Penyu Basin which
was explored and developed by the PETRONAS national oil
company. Information about this basin are available for study
purpose and was well studied for research and development
(R&D). Software that will be used throughout completing this
project is the Omega and CGG’s own copyright software.
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 SHALLOW WATER DEMULTIPLE
Common data acquired from the field with shallow
environment normally will have indistinct waterbottom. This
condition causing the conventional method being used for
removing multiples are less effective such as the surface-related
multiple elimination (SRME). To counter with this problem in
seismic processing, method of shallow water demultiple
(SWD) was built to solve the issues of waterbottom in shallow
water domain.
Besides, SWD technique uses multiples model which exists
in the data section generated from the primary’s waterbottom.
Reflection of the waterbottom is defined and use as reference
to create the multiple model. High order multiples that occurs
together with the primary signal next were modelled to the best
that fits well in shape and size to the waterbottom. Then
subtraction of these multiples model from the input containing
both primary and multiples will produce a multiple-cleaned
output.
Effectiveness of eliminating multiples from the
contaminated data using SWD for shallow water environment
was conveyed by observing the difference between input and
output. SRME can be conducted but it will not remove the short
period multiples better than when SWD was applied. Having an
unclear reflection due to not well-defined waterbottom is a
factor for processing to be defected and less enhanced.
Figure 1. The magnified section showing (a) Input. (b) Difference stack for SWD+SRME. (c) Difference
stack for SRME only.
2.2 MUTING METHOD
In geophysical knowledge, the process of multiplying the
amplitudes in undesired areas by zero is known as muting.
Seismic data processing required the signal which existed as
noise to be removed for getting the true information from
seismic data. Dondurur (2018) explained muting as to remove
the amplitudes of some noisy areas in the seismic data.
There are different types of muting which are useful in data
processing. First is the Top Mute, where the early signal that
arrived before in contact with the seabed (for the marine survey)
is muted. The reason is since the useful signals are the one that
reflected from seabed instead of the appearing arrivals which
occurred at water column and before seabed. Examples are
direct signal and refracted waves. In general, it was applied to
the filtered shot gathers.
Secondly, the Surgical Mute. In some cases, the signal
traces are too chaotic causing signal inaccuracy. Therefore, part
of the signals was enhanced by using surgical mute that remains
the desired trace. Meaning that the noisy area inside the dataset
is removed. Application of this type are for the filtered shots
and CDP gathers.
Normal Moveout or NMO Stretch Mute is the third class.
The frequency disruption zone happened at the beginning
arrivals of far offsets after NMO correction is muted out. In the
NMO correction, any traces that have been excessively
stretched out is neutralize by muting as it will zeros out the
signal traces. It is applied directly to CDP gathers after NMO
correction.
 2.3 CURRENT DEMULTIPLE TECHNIQUE
Advanced in technology for processing the seismic data
generally had led to difficulties in choosing the best and right
technique for demultiple process. As been proposed by
Brooymans, Majosky and Pham (n. d.), common techniques
which are available for use nowadays are the surface related
multiple elimination (SRME), de-aliased Radon transform,
deconvolution in tau-p domain, frequency discrimination and
pattern recognition.
Firstly, the surface related multiple elimination or also
called as SRME. It is a technique that derive advantages from
their unique characteristics and overall is data-dependent which
means no extra information need to be supplied. SRME are very
useful because it can target multiples with very little differential
moveout such as the peg-leg or multiple energy residing on the
near offset traces. Advantages of this technique is it requires a
regularized geometry and consideration of aliasing issues
which could be expensive.
Next is the de-aliasing Radon Transform. This technique
relied on residual moveout to discriminate multiples from
primary signal. Basic principle of using the Radon transform is
velocities must be picked with sufficient accuracy to
differentiate between the primary energy and slightly slower
multiple energy. Usually, this method will involve conversion
of common midpoint gathers into Radon domain, where the
multiple elimination is more efficient. Disadvantages in this
technique is smearing and aliasing can occur if the data
sampling is limited. The benefits of Radon are it provides a high
degree of attenuation, especially for long period multiples
which could be found in deep water environment.
Thirdly, tau-p deconvolution methods which dependent on
the periodicity of the multiple wavefield. The problem is, a
perfect periodicity in the time-space domain happens only for a
plane wave propagation or small apertures. Best option is to
compute the tau-p transform of common shot point or CMP
gathers which purpose is to stimulate the plane waves. First
order gap deconvolution is effective for short to medium period
multiples in areas where the water bottom is not structured or
too hard. For much harder water bottom, second order operators
are commonly applied. However, it requires more precise and
accurate water bottom estimates and limits will limit
themselves to water bottom multiples and peg-legs. Entirely, if
data is poorly sampled, the frequency content of the far offsets
can be adversely affected.
METHODOLOGY
The main method used for completing this project is muting
which is to zero out the unwanted amplitudes and noise in the
seismic section. There are few procedures involved in applying
mute for processing the seismic data. The flow chart to illustrate
the workflow are pictured as follows:
3.1 DATA UPLOADING AND REFORMATTING
The process of input the original field data into the
processing is known as data loading. The recorded raw seismic
data in a specific binary data formats that was defined by the
Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG). Its included the
necessary information related to data such as the shot number,
sampling rate and number of samples per trace. All data for
seismic in marine and land are commonly recorded in SEG-D
format which are the most preferable for data recording because
of huge header spaces to store the field data parameters.
3.2 NOISE REMOVAL AND MUTING
Noise originated from the signal wave that does not
reflected on the seabed which could be less useful in providing
subsurface information. In common, raw marine seismic data
contains both high frequency random noise and low frequency
swell noise embedded in the data. Hence, this type of unwanted
signal must be filtered when doing the processing steps such as
the band-pass filter and muting.
3.3 MULTIPLE ATTENUATION
Demultiple is applied in seismic data processing for
attenuating the multiples which occurred together with the
primary signal. The characteristics for multiples could be in
high order to the primaries. Commonly multiples will possess
same shape stating from waterbottom getting down the seismic
sections by multiple of two. Conventional method for removing
multiples is using the SRME but for shallow water
environment, it is important to use both SRME and SWD. The
reason is in SRME it cannot detect the reflection of
waterbottom due to short distance between both primary
waterbottom and multiples itself.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Batu Hitam field is in the Penyu Basin area which was
formed together with the Malay Basin. The data acquisition in
this location was done by using the combination of two guns
and 10 streamers been aligned to the vessel. The area covered
for the marine survey is the whole prospect. The information
for equipment used for acquired data is specified in the table
below. It includes the length and depth of the source and
receiver.
Table 1. Source-receiver information. Figure 3. NTG map with Sequence 3 highlighted.

Source Streamer
Number: 2 Number: 10 x 5100m 4.3 TESTING, PRODUCTION AND QUALITY
Depth: 5m ± 0.5m Depth: 6m ± 1m
CONTROL
Separation: 37.5m Separation: 75m
4.3.1 REFORMAT AND NAVIGATION
Interval: 18.75m Interval: 12.5m
MERGE

Table 2. Information on the instrument parameters.
Recording Instrument Parameters
Format SEG-D
Record Length 6.144 seconds @ 6144 milliseconds ()
Sample Rate 2 milliseconds
Recording Delay 58 milliseconds
Recording Filter Low Cut: 4.6 Hz, slope of 6dB/octave
High Cut: 206 Hz, slope of 276dB/octave
4.2 MAP OF THE STUDY AREA
4.2.1 BASE MAP
As been mentioned before, the field was in Penyu
Basin with two main production well managed to be developed.
The offshore basin shares similar geological settings as the
adjacent basin which make the data processing much easier by
having some references from other sources. From the figure
above, it shows information on managing the processed data to
be suited and reasonable with the regional geology. All the
workflow for this dataset of Batu Hitam is mainly acceptable
for comparison with surrounding field.
Raw data for this field is necessary to be reformat from
the SEG-D into SEG-Y for processing purposes. After it was
successfully upload into the server, then it will be accessible
through the processing software for all the conventional steps.
Reformat is important because we need to ensure the SEG-Y
format is use instead of the standard SEG-D format which is the
common format for all raw data. Next, is to apply the navigation
merging to correct the points of reflector with its actual
coordinated on the Earth surface. P190 is needed to be merged
with the raw data acquired from the survey. This two-different
type of information was then merged to get a proper data for
seismic processing using the software.
4.3.2 STATIC CORRECTION
Static correction is applied to correct the actual
position of the traces. Form the figure, the traces start to display
from time=0 after static correction was applied. If not, it may
be being displayed in wrong position which can affects the next
steps.

Figure 4. Static correction was applied to the dataset.

4.3.3 LOW-CUT FILTER

Figure 2. The base map of the study area.

4.2.2 NTG MAP

NTG or near trace gather map was used to show the

whole sequences that was present in this acquisition area of
Batu Hitam. The colour gradient represents the sequence in
Figure 5. Before low cut filter was applied.
order from Sequence 1 until Sequence 68. Also noticed in this
figure, some of the sequence are missing maybe due to external
factors which may interrupted the data acquisition process
during marine survey. The selected sequence for this project is
Sequence 3. In this sequence, it contains all the data which was
subdivided into shot records and channel. The information from
each shot records was important for process the data in later Figure 6. After low cut filter was applied.
steps.
 Figure 7. Difference of output between the before and after low cut filter.

Figure 10. Output after swell noise attenuation was applied.

Low cut filter is necessary to be applied for neglecting
the low frequency signal which present in the dataset. For
common case, anything that comes below 4 Hz is considered as
low frequency noise and was removed from being included in
the next processing steps. Figures above shows the data after
low cut filter has been applied; one is in colour and another one
is traces for comparison purposes. The amplitude spectrum
shows the notch that exist for this dataset which comes at 3 Hz. Figure 11. Difference between input and output for swell noise attenuation.
Thus, frequency value of 3 Hz was chosen for the low-cut filter.
4.3.6 LINEAR NOISE ATTENUATION
Next, is the removal of linear noise from the signal.
This attenuation was applied for getting a less contaminated
sections from the coherent linear noise. For this data the linear
noise is categorized as the side-scattered where the orientation
is diagonally existing. By doing the quality control, the
removed noises can be seen much clearer because it is
Figure 8. Amplitude spectrum showing the actual (green), 2 Hz (red) and 3 Hz (blue). accumulated at the bottom part of the sections.

4.3.4 SPHERICAL DIVERGENCE

Figure 12. Output after linear noise attenuation was applied.

Figure 9. After spherical divergence correction was applied.

Spherical divergence correction is applied in the next

processing steps to reappear the missing signal in the lower part
that was attenuated due to energy loss as wave travel deeper Figure 13. Difference between input and output for linear noise attenuation.

into the subsurface. Based on the fundamental knowledge, the

signal does exist in the seismic traces but was not displayed
4.3.7 DEBUBBLE
before being corrected unless certain steps are applied. As the
results of this spherical divergence correction, the seismic When the airgun was shot in the water, it produced
traces being displayed is much better for identifying the bubbling effects which affected the recorded data in the
existence of noise in the lower part such as the liner and swell receiver. This bubble that produced small scale of unwanted
noises. signal in the sections need to be removed entirely for a better
output. In this step, debubble was applied for cleaning the
4.3.5 SWELL NOISE ATTENUATION bubble effects which was caused by the airguns itself during the
data acquisition in for marine environment.
Swell noise can occur in every marine data which may
cause by the long-period changes in the ocean surface that
changes the hydrostatic pressure at the streamer. In this step,
the high amplitude noise was removed from the primary signal
to allow a better output with enhanced primary signal. For
quality control, stacking was done to see the difference between
input and output for this step. Figure 14. Output after debubble was applied.

Figure 15. Difference between the input and output for debubble.
4.3.8 RECEIVER DEGHOSTING
Objective of applying this step is to remove ghost
events which were generated at either receiver or source
positions, due to downward reflection from the sea surface.
From the figures, clear distinctions can be recognized to be
occurred at the data. After applying the receiver deghosting, the
main signal was less contaminated with ghost events by
focussing on the receiver positions.
Figure 16. Output after receiver deghosting was applied.
Figure 17. Amplitude spectrum graph showing the frequency change for the signal section.
From the amplitude spectrum graph, the blue line is
representing the receiver deghosting frequency whereas the red
line is for debubble process which is the previous step. Obvious
gap in frequency was showed where the receiver notch is
corrected after applying the receiver deghosting.
4.3.9 ZERO PHASE
Figure 18. In input, trace at the water bottom was not clearly aligned.
Figure 19. After applying zero phasing, all the trace was aligned correctly at the water bottom.
4.3.10 Q-COMPENSATION
Q-compensation was applied to compensate the
energy absorption and corrects wavelet distortion due to
velocity dispersion. The important of this step when correcting
the phase distortion will give the correct timings for lithological
identification of the seismic sections. It enhanced vertical
resolution of the data for making the interpretation process to
be much easier.
4.3.11 SHALLOW WATER DEMULTIPLE
Objective for applying demultiple in the shallow
water-depth multiple is to clean the primary signals from any
higher order multiples. These types of short period multiples
are commonly observed in seismic data acquired form the
marine environment. It required special treatment unlike
applying the surface-related multiple elimination (SRME)
because the recorded primary water-bottom reflection is often
indistinct in shallow water situations due to near offset gap.
To get the best final output using the shallow water
demultiple, four testing was conducted by applying different
muting pattern from the conventional procedure. Conventional
process for this demultiple involved three main steps which are
the input, multiple model and subtraction between input and
multiple model. The end results were then compared and
observed then differences between each testing. The tests
conducted are:
-Test 1: Apply mute before multiple modelling
-Test 2: Apply mute on both before and after multiple
-Test 3: Apply mute after multiple modelling
-Test 4: Apply no mute
The output for each testing was compared to get the
most enhanced result without partially or dominantly removing
the real signal from the data sections. Vast differences were
determined between test -1 and -2 with the test -3 and -4. The
main factor for this occurrence is the timing for applying the
mute to the processed data. However, when quality control was
done the water bottom being removed either at the input or at
the multiple model produce the display with minor difference
detected. No dominant difference was observed between these
four outputs from every testing pattern.
Figure 20. Input dataset before SWD was applied.

Figure 21. Output for SWD Test 1.
Figure 23. Output for SWD Test 3.
time constraint one can do migration for all the four testing to
see the difference much better. The migration if it is to be done
must follow the same processing steps except for SWD part
which needs to use all four patterns that being developed in this
project. Next recommendation, the pre-stack migration using
Figure 22. Output for SWD Test 2.
Kirchhoff was succeeding to run but having some defects most
probably due to faulty in the jobs’ command. However, as the
objectives was managed to be achieved, the migration section
shall carry less effect to this project. The migration could be
corrected in future by the next individual who wish to continue
exploring this interesting topic.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Figure 24. Output for SWD Test 4.

Alhamdulillah, after few months working on this project I

Figure 25. Input stack before applying SWD. Figure 26. Output stack after applying SWD.
Figure 27. Difference between input-output. Figure 28. Amplitude spectra for input and Test 2 SWD.
Significant suppression for multiples indicates as the higher amplitude at frequency range of 0-100 Hz
. Alái R., Verschuur D. J., Drummond J., Morris S. and
Figure 29. Stack (above) and autocorrelation (below) for input SWD. Figure 30. Stack (above) and
autocorrelation (below) for output SWD. Amplitude reduced showing the elimination of unwanted short
period multiples.
CONCLUSION
All objectives for this project was successfully achieved.
The short period multiples exist in this dataset had been
removed from the primary using the application of shallow
water demultiple. It was further enhanced after the surface-
related multiple elimination step. Four different testing were
developed and been applied to the dataset, and the output was
observed to get the best and accurate result. From these tests,
multiple model with better display was obtained from the Test
2. The observed difference between these four types of
workflow in SWD is defined to be in minor scale without
affecting vast comparison. Thus, the output with most better
display was chosen as the proposed processing pattern for this
area of study.
FURTHER STUDY
From this project, different pattern for applying muting in
SWD was studied accordingly. Having four types of workflow
for shallow water demultiple had enabled the observation on
output difference to be understand. For suggestion, with the less
was given the opportunity to finally complete my topic on the
shallow water demultiple processing. I believed all the hardship
and difficulties in conducting this project shall be thanked to
my supportive supervisor, Mr Hafiz Musa for helping and
guiding me and my teammates along the journey. For he has
done everything necessary to provide our placements in CGG
for doing this project. My gratitude goes to my teammate,
Teivar and Aton for helping me whenever I found obstructions.
Aligning to this, I would like to give my thankfulness to the
assigned mentor in CGG, Kak Dayah for her passion in
assisting me to get familiarize with the software and workflow
being installed to the CGG. My utmost gratitude to the
company for sponsoring with all the facilities which benefits
me in practicing and understand deeper about processing.
REFERENCES
Haughey G., 2002, Shallow water multiple prediction and
attenuation, case study on data from the Arabian Gulf: 72nd
Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2229-2232.
Brooymans, R., Mojesky, T., and Pham, L., (n. d.). A
Review of Current Demultiple Techniques with Examples from
the East Coast of Canada.
Dondurur, D. 2018. Acquisition and Processing of Marine
Seismic Data. Candice Janco
Hung, B., Yang, K., Zhou, J. and Xia, Q. L. Shallow Water
Demultiple. 2010
Hung, B., Yang, K.L., Zhou, J., Guo, Y.H. and Xia, Q.L.,
[2010] a. Surface multiple attenuation in seabeach-shallow
water, case study on data from the Bohai Sea technique: 80th
Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 3431-3435.
Khalid, N. 2000. Structural Framework of South-eastern
Malay Basin.
Martin, T., Brittan, J., Bekara, M. and Koch, K. 3D Shallow
Water Demultiple – Extending the Concept.
Mazlan, M., (1999). Chapter 9: Penyu Basin
Wang, P., Jin, H.Z., Xu, S. and Zhang, Y., 2011. Model-
based water-layer demultiple, SEG Expanded Abstracts 30,
3551;
Yang, K., and Hung, B. Shallow Water Demultiple with
seafloor reflection modelling using multichannel prediction
operator
Yilmaz, O. Seismic Data Processing. 2001