Improving seismic fault detection by super-attribute-based classification

Abstract:
Fault interpretation is one of the routine processes used for subsurface structure mapping and reservoir characterization from 3D seismic data. Various techniques have been developed for computer-aided fault imaging in the past few decades; for example, the conventional methods of edge detection, curvature analysis, redgreen-blue rendering, and the popular machine-learning methods such as the support vector machine (SVM), the multilayer perceptron (MLP), and the convolutional neural network (CNN). However, most of the conventional methods are performed at the sample level with the local reflection pattern ignored and are correspondingly sensitive to the coherent noises/processing artifacts present in seismic signals. The CNN has proven its efficiency in utilizing such local seismic patterns to assist seismic fault interpretation, but it is quite computationally intensive and often demands higher hardware configuration (e.g., graphics processing unit). We have developed an innovative scheme for improving seismic fault detection by integrating the computationally efficient SVM/MLP classification algorithms with local seismic attribute patterns, here denoted as the super-attribute-based classification. Its added values are verified through applications to the 3D seismic data set over the Great South Basin (GSB) in New Zealand, where the subsurface structure is dominated by polygonal faults. A good match is observed between the original seismic images and the detected lineaments, and the generated fault volume is tested usable to the existing advanced fault interpretation tools/modules, such as seeded picking and automatic extraction. It is concluded that the improved performance of our scheme results from its two components. First, the SVM/MLP classifier is computationally efficient in parsing as many seismic attributes as specified by interpreters and maximizing the contributions from each attribute, which helps minimize the negative effects from using a less useful or “wrong” attribute. Second, the use of super attributes incorporates local seismic patterns into training a fault classifier, which helps exclude the random noises and/or artifacts of distinct reflection patterns. Introduction Faults and fractures are important subsurface structures of significant geologic implications for hydrocarbon accumulation and migration in a petroleum reservoir, and the presence of a fault can be visually recognized as a lineament/plane of abrupt variations of the reflection signals in a 3D seismic data set. However, fault interpretation is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process, especially for an exploration area of a large number of faults and complicated faulting histories and distributions. In the past few decades, great efforts have been devoted into computer-aided fault interpretation by developing new attributes and methods/algorithms to help detect, depict, and extract the faults of interpretational interest from the surrounding nonfaulting features. Specifically, from the perspective of seismic attribute analysis, edge detection and reflector geometry estimation are applicable to the problem of fault mapping from 3D seismic data, owing to the lateral changes in seismic signals across a fault, including reflection waveform/amplitude and depth/two-way traveltime. Geoscientists have devoted substantial efforts for quantifying such changes and improving the resolution and noise robustness of fault detection (e.g., Bahorich and Farmer, 1995; Luo et al., 1996; Marfurt et al., 1998; Gersztenkorn and Marfurt, 1999; van Bemmel and Pepper, 2000; Cohen and Coifman, 2002; Tingdahl and de Rooij, 2005; Di and Gao, 2014a; Wang et al., 2016). For example, Bahorich and Farmer (1995) present the coherence attribute by estimating the crosscorrelation of two adjacent seismic traces to highlight the faults and stratigraphic features from a seismic cube. Marfurt et al. (1998) present the semblance attribute by estimating the amplitude variations in a horizontal window. Gersztenkorn and Marfurt (1999) perform principal component analysis on a local coherence cube for Formerly Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Center for Energy and Geo Processing (CeGP), Atlanta, Georgia 30308, USA; presently Schlumberger, Houston, Texas 77056, USA. E-mail: hdi7@gatech.edu. Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Center for Energy and Geo Processing (CeGP), Atlanta, Georgia 30308, USA. E-mail: amirshafiq@gatech.edu; zwang313@gatech.edu; alregib@gatech.edu. Manuscript received by the Editor 18 October 2018; revised manuscript received 4 February 2019; published ahead of production 03 June 2019; published online 7 August 2019. This paper appears in Interpretation, Vol. 7, No. 3 (August 2019); p. SE251–SE267, 18 FIGS., 13 TABLES. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/INT-2018-0188.1. © 2019 Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. t Special section: Machine learning in seismic data analysis Interpretation / August 2019 SE251 D ow nl oa de d 08 /2 0/ 19 to 1 36 .2 52 .1 29 .6 7. R ed is tr ib ut io n su bj ec t t o SE G li ce ns e or c op yr ig ht ; s ee T er m s of U se a t h ttp :// lib ra ry .s eg .o rg / improved coherence analysis. Cohen and Coifman (2002) propose using the local structural entropy for fault mapping. Tingdahl and de Rooij (2005) develop the similarity operator for measuring the differences between two seismic trace segments. Di and Gao (2014a) compare the performance of the common edge detectors, including the popular Canny detector, on seismic fault detection. A comprehensive summary of the edge-detection attributes can be found in Chopra (2002), Kington (2015), and Di and Gao (2017a). However, the conventional seismic edge detection is limited in its detection resolution for small-scale faults and fractures beyond the seismic scale and offers no physical link for predicting the fundamental fracture properties (e.g., intensity, orientation, and sense of displacement) either quantitatively or qualitatively (Gao, 2013). Then, the seismic geometric attributes are developed for more robust fault detection and fracture characterization by quantifying the lateral variations of the geometry of seismic reflectors, including the first-order dip, the second-order curvature, and the third-order flexure attributes. Specifically, the dip describes the local dipping of a reflector, and a fault is highlighted as a lineament of large dipping angle. The curvature describes the bending of a reflector, and a fault is highlighted as a juxtaposition of positive and negative curvatures (Roberts, 2001; Al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006). The flexure describes the shearing of a reflector, and a fault is highlighted as a local peak accompanied with two subtle side lobes (Gao, 2013; Di and Gao, 2014b, 2016a, 2016b; Yu, 2014; Gao and Di, 2015; Qi and Marfurt, 2018). Comprehensive summaries of the curvature and flexure analysis can be found in Roberts (2001) and Di and Gao (2017b), respectively. From the perspective of fault-interpretation methods, manual picking is considered most reliable if performed by an experienced interpreter. However, it is limited by the interpretation efficiency especially for a large seismic data set with a complicated deformation history (e.g., folding and faulting). Correspondingly, computer-aided fault interpretation becomes the research focus with the progress in computer graphics and image processing since 2000, and various methods/algorithms have been developed for refining the edge-detection attributes and interpreting fault surfaces (e.g., Crawford and Medwedeff, 1999; Pedersen et al., 2002; Admasu et al., 2006; Barnes, 2006; Lavialle et al., 2007; Hale, 2013; Zhang et al., 2014; Machado et al., 2016; Wu and Hale, 2016; Wu and Fomel, 2018; Di and AlRegib, 2019). For example, Pedersen et al. (2002) introduce the concept of ant colony optimization from computer science and develop an ant-tracking algorithm for sharpening the lineaments in a variance volume. AlBinHassan and Marfurt (2003) apply the 2D Hough transform for enhancing the fault lines on time slices; later, Wang and AlRegib (2014) extend it to 3D space for fault surface extraction from a semblance volume. Barnes (2006) performs eigenvector analysis to a coherence volume and designs a discontinuity filter of three components for imaging the steeply dipping faults. Admasu et al. (2006) propose an autotracking method of fault line propagation from one vertical section to another throughout a seismic volume for extracting an individual fault patch. Lavialle et al. (2007) present a nonlinear filtering approach for noise suppression and fault enhancement based on 3D gradient structure tensor analysis. Hale (2013) proposes scanning over all possible fault orientations for computing fault likelihood (faultoriented semblance), strikes, and dips, constructing fault surfaces as quadmeshes from the three fault images, and further applying a dynamic time warping algorithm to estimate fault throws on the each fault surface. Zhang et al. (2014) first apply a biometric algorithm to the coherence attribute for fault skeletonization and then group discrete fault points into one fault patch under local planar constraints (Gibson et al., 2005). Wang et al. (2014a) borrow the ideas of motion vectors in video coding and processing to assist seismic fault extraction. Machado et al. (2016) perform volumetric fault imaging (VFI) by applying the directional Laplacian of a Gaussian filter to coherence anomalies along reflector dip and azimuth. Wu and Hale (2016) propose using the fault skin, a simple linked-data structure, to construct fault surfaces and fill holes. Wu and Fomel (2018) present an optimal surface voting algorithm to enhance a fault attribute image, estimate fault orientations, and construct complete fault surfaces. Di and AlRegib (2019) pro
Author Listing: Haibin Di;Mohammod Amir Shafiq;Zhen Wang;Ghassan AlRegib
Volume: 7
Pages: None
DOI: 10.1190/INT-2018-0188.1
Language: English
Journal: Interpretation

Interpretation-A Journal of Subsurface Characterization

INTERPRETATION-J SUB

影响因子:1.1 是否综述期刊:否 是否OA:否 是否预警:不在预警名单内 发行时间:- ISSN:2324-8858 发刊频率:- 收录数据库:SCIE/Scopus收录 出版国家/地区:UNITED STATES 出版社:Society of Exploration Geophysicists

期刊介绍

***Jointly published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG)***Interpretation is a new, peer-reviewed journal for advancing the practice of subsurface interpretation.

*** 由美国石油地质学家协会(AAPG)和勘探地球物理学家协会(SEG)联合出版 ***《解释》是一本新的同行评审期刊,旨在促进地下解释实践。

年发文量 81
国人发稿量 50
国人发文占比 61.73%
自引率 9.1%
平均录取率 -
平均审稿周期 -
版面费 -
偏重研究方向 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS-
期刊官网 -
投稿链接 -

质量指标占比

研究类文章占比 OA被引用占比 撤稿占比 出版后修正文章占比
98.77% 2.37% 0.00% 0.98%

相关指数

{{ relationActiveLabel }}
{{ item.label }}

期刊预警不是论文评价,更不是否定预警期刊发表的每项成果。《国际期刊预警名单(试行)》旨在提醒科研人员审慎选择成果发表平台、提示出版机构强化期刊质量管理。

预警期刊的识别采用定性与定量相结合的方法。通过专家咨询确立分析维度及评价指标,而后基于指标客观数据产生具体名单。

具体而言,就是通过综合评判期刊载文量、作者国际化程度、拒稿率、论文处理费(APC)、期刊超越指数、自引率、撤稿信息等,找出那些具备风险特征、具有潜在质量问题的学术期刊。最后,依据各刊数据差异,将预警级别分为高、中、低三档,风险指数依次减弱。

《国际期刊预警名单(试行)》确定原则是客观、审慎、开放。期刊分区表团队期待与科研界、学术出版机构一起,夯实科学精神,打造气正风清的学术诚信环境!真诚欢迎各界就预警名单的分析维度、使用方案、值得关切的期刊等提出建议!

预警情况 查看说明

时间 预警情况
2024年02月发布的2024版 不在预警名单中
2023年01月发布的2023版 不在预警名单中
2021年12月发布的2021版 不在预警名单中
2020年12月发布的2020版 不在预警名单中

JCR分区 WOS分区等级:Q3区

版本 按学科 分区
WOS期刊SCI分区
WOS期刊SCI分区是指SCI官方(Web of Science)为每个学科内的期刊按照IF数值排 序,将期刊按照四等分的方法划分的Q1-Q4等级,Q1代表质量最高,即常说的1区期刊。
(2021-2022年最新版)
GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS Q3

关于2019年中科院分区升级版(试行)

分区表升级版(试行)旨在解决期刊学科体系划分与学科发展以及融合趋势的不相容问题。由于学科交叉在当代科研活动的趋势愈发显著,学科体系构建容易引发争议。为了打破学科体系给期刊评价带来的桎梏,“升级版方案”首先构建了论文层级的主题体系,然后分别计算每篇论文在所属主题的影响力,最后汇总各期刊每篇论文分值,得到“期刊超越指数”,作为分区依据。

分区表升级版(试行)的优势:一是论文层级的主题体系既能体现学科交叉特点,又可以精准揭示期刊载文的多学科性;二是采用“期刊超越指数”替代影响因子指标,解决了影响因子数学性质缺陷对评价结果的干扰。整体而言,分区表升级版(试行)突破了期刊评价中学科体系构建、评价指标选择等瓶颈问题,能够更为全面地揭示学术期刊的影响力,为科研评价“去四唯”提供解决思路。相关研究成果经过国际同行的认可,已经发表在科学计量学领域国际重要期刊。

《2019年中国科学院文献情报中心期刊分区表升级版(试行)》首次将社会科学引文数据库(SSCI)期刊纳入到分区评估中。升级版分区表(试行)设置了包括自然科学和社会科学在内的18个大类学科。基础版和升级版(试行)将过渡共存三年时间,推测在此期间各大高校和科研院所仍可能会以基础版为考核参考标准。 提示:中科院分区官方微信公众号“fenqubiao”仅提供基础版数据查询,暂无升级版数据,请注意区分。

中科院分区 查看说明

版本 大类学科 小类学科 Top期刊 综述期刊
地球科学
4区
GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS
地球化学与地球物理
4区
2021年12月
基础版
地学
4区
GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS
地球化学与地球物理
4区
2021年12月
升级版
地球科学
4区
GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS
地球化学与地球物理
4区
2020年12月
旧的升级版
地球科学
4区
GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS
地球化学与地球物理
4区
2022年12月
最新升级版
地球科学
4区
GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS
地球化学与地球物理
4区