Seismic Attribute Mapping of Structure

and Stratigraphy
Kurt J. Marfurt (University of Oklahoma)

Geometric Attributes

5-1
 Course Outline
Introduction
Complex Trace, Horizon, and Formation Attributes
Multiattribute Display
Spectral Decomposition

Geometric Attributes
Attribute Expression of Geology

Impact of Acquisition and Processing on Attributes

Attributes Applied to Offset- and Azimuth-Limited Volumes
Structure-Oriented Filtering and Image Enhancement
Inversion for Acoustic and Elastic Impedance

Multiattribute Analysis Tools

Reservoir Characterization Workflows
3D Texture Analysis

5-2
 Volumetric dip and azimuth

After this section you will be able to:

• Evaluate alternative algorithms to calculate volumetric

dip and azimuth in terms of accuracy and lateral resolution,

• Interpret shaded relief and apparent dip images to

delineate subtle structural features, and

• Apply composite dip/azimuth/seismic images to

determine how a given reflector dips in and out of the
plane of view.

5-3
 Definition of reflector dip
z

θ (dip magnitude)
φ (dip azimuth)
n

a
θy
θx (crossline dip)
(inline dip)

ψ y
x (strike)

5-4 (Marfurt, 2006)

 Alternative volumetric measures of
reflector dip

1. 3-D Complex trace analysis

2. Gradient Structure Tensor (GST)
3. Discrete scans for dip of most coherent reflector
• Cross correlation
• Semblance (variance)
• Eigenstructure (principal components)

5-5
 1. 3-D Complex Trace Analysis
(Instantaneous Dip/Azimuth)
Hilbert transform
−1 H
Instantaneous phase φ = tan (d /d)

∂H d ∂d H
d − d
∂φ ∂ ∂
Instantaneous frequency ω = 2π f = 2π = 2π t t
∂t d2 + dH
2
( )
∂H d ∂d H
d − d
Instantaneous kx =
∂φ
= ∂ x ∂ x
in line wavenumber ∂x d2 + dH
2
( )
∂H d ∂d H
Instantaneous d − d
∂φ ∂y ∂y
ky = =
cross line wavenumber ∂y d2 + d( )H 2

Instantaneous
kx ky
apparent dips p =
ω
;q =
ω

5-6
 Seismic data

7.5 km
1500 Amp
pos
Depth (m)

neg

4500
Vertical slice Depth slice

5-7 (Barnes, 2000)

 Instantaneous Dip Magnitude

7.5 km
1500 Dip
(deg)
high
Depth (m)

4500
Vertical slice Depth slice

5-8 (Barnes, 2000)

 The analytic trace
2 H 2 1/2
Envelope e(t) = {[d(t)] + [d (t)] }
component component)
(imaginary data (real
Original

d(t)
Quadrature

H
d (t)
)

+180
Phase

-1 H
0 φ(t) = tan [d (t)/d(t)]

-180
Weighted average
Frequency

frequency
f(t) = dφ(t) /dt

5-9 (Taner et al, 1979)

 Instantaneous Dip Magnitude
(sensitive to errors in ω, kx and ky!)
7.5 km
1500 Dip
(deg)
high
Depth (m)

4500
Vertical slice Depth slice

5-10 (Barnes, 2000)

 Weighted average dip
(5 crossline by 5 inline by 7 sample window)
7.5 km
1500 Dip
(deg)
high
Depth (m)

4500
Vertical slice Depth slice

5-11 (Barnes, 2000)

 Instantaneous Azimuth

7.5 km
1500
Azim
(deg)
360
Depth (m)

180

4500
Vertical slice Depth slice

5-12 (Barnes, 2000)

 Weighted average azimuth
(5 crossline by 5 inline by 7 sample window)
7.5 km
1500
Azim
(deg)
360
Depth (m)

180

4500
Vertical slice Depth slice

5-13 (Barnes, 2000)

 2. Gradient Structure Tensor (GST)
 ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u 
 
 ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂x ∂z ∂x 
 ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u 
TGS = 
 ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂y 
 ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u 
 ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂z 
 

The eigenvector of the TGS matrix

points in the direction of the
maximum amplitude gradient

5-14 (Bakker et al, 2003)

 3. Discrete scans for dip of most
coherent reflector
Minimum dip tested (-200)

Dip with
maximum
coherence
(+50)

Analysis Point Maximum dip tested (+200)

Instantaneous dip = dip with highest coherence

5-15 (Marfurt et al, 1998)
 3-D estimate of coherence and dip/azimuth

5-16 (Marfurt et al, 1998)

 Searching for dip in the presence of faults

Amp
pos
Time (s)

0
L R
C
neg

Single window Multi-window

search search

5-17 (Marfurt, 2006)

 Search for the most coherent window
containing the analysis point

inline

crossline
5-18 (Marfurt, 2006)
 Search for the most coherent window
containing the analysis point

crossline
Time (s)

5-19 (Marfurt, 2006)

 0 A A′ A A′
Comparison
2 km 1 of dip
estimates
Time (s) on vertical
2 slice

seismic inst. Inline dip

4
0
dip
1 (µs/m)
Time (s)

+.2
2
0
3
smoothed inst. multi-window -.2
Inline dip inline dip scan
5-20 4 (Marfurt, 2006)
 2 km

Comparison
of dip
estimates on
time slice
(t=1.0 s)
A A′′

seismic inst.dip
dip
(µs/m)
+.2

-.2

smoothed inst. multi-window

5-21
dip dip scan (Marfurt, 2006)
 Vertical Slice through Seismic
5 km
B B′′
0.25 Amp
neg

0.50
0

0.75
pos
Caddo
Time (s)

1.00

1.25
Ellenburger

1.50
Basement?
1.75
5-22
 Time/structure of Caddo horizon
5 km B′′
Time (s)

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

B
5-23
 Dip magnitude from picked horizon
5 km B′′

Dip
(s/km)
0.00

0.06

5-24
B
 5 km
NS dip from picked horizon
B′′

Dip
(s/km)
+0.06

0.00

-0.06

5-25
B
 NS dip from multi-window scan
5 km B′′

Dip
(deg)
+2

-2

5-26
B
 5 km
EW dip from picked horizon
B′′

Dip
(s/km)
+0.06

0.00

-0.06

5-27
B
 EW dip from multi-window scan
5 km B′′

Dip
(deg)
+2

-2

5-28
B
 Shaded illumination

on a surface on a time slice through

dip and azimuth volumes

5-29 (after Barnes, 2002)

 Time slices through apparent dip
(t=0.8s)

Dip (deg)
+2

-2

=0000
ϕ=150
=30
=60
=90
=120
5-30
 Time slices through apparent dip
(t=1.2s)

Dip (deg)
+2

-2

0 0 00
ϕϕ=150
=30
=60
=90
=0
=120
5-31
 Volumetric visualization of
reflector dip and azimuth
Dip Azimuth
Hue
0 180 360
High

Dip Magnitude
Saturation
N

1.2
e (s)

W E
Tim

1.4

(c)

5-32
 Volumetric visualization of
reflector dip and azimuth
Dip Azimuth
Hue
0 180 360
High

Dip Magnitude
1 .2

Saturation
s)
Time (

1. 4

Transparent
0

W Transparent E

5-33
 0.0

Towards 3-D
divergent
seismic
stratigraphy…

t (s)
convergent

divergent
1.5

convergent

5-34 (Barnes, 2002)

 Volumetric Dip and Azimuth

In Summary:
• Dip and azimuth cubes only show relative changes in dip and azimuth,
since we do not in general have an accurate time to depth conversion

• Dip and azimuth estimated using a vertical window in general provide more
robust estimates than those based on picked horizons

• Dip and azimuth volumes form the basis for volumetric curvature,
coherence, amplitude gradients, seismic textures, and structurally-oriented
filtering

• Dip and azimuth will be one of the key components for future computer-
aided 3-D seismic stratigraphy

5-35
 Coherence

After this section you will be able to:

• Summarize the physical and mathematical basis of

currently available seismic coherence algorithms,

• Evaluate the impact of spatial and temporal analysis

window size on the resolution of geologic features,

• Recognize artifacts due to structural leakage and

seismic zero crossings, and

• Apply best practices for structural and stratigraphic

interpretation.

5-36
 Seismic Time Slice

5 km

5-37 (Bahorich and Farmer, 1995)

 Coherence Time Slice

5 km
salt

5-38 (Bahorich and Farmer, 1995)

 Coherence compares the waveforms of
neighboring traces

e
lin

e
lin
s
os

s
os
cr

cr
inline inline

5-39
 Cross correlation of 2 traces
Shifted windows
Trace #1 of Trace #2
Cross
lag: -4 -2 0 +2 +4 correlation

40 ms

Maximum
coherence

5-40
 AAA

high

Time slice through

average absolute
amplitude

coh
high

Time slice through

coherence
(early algorithm)

low

5-41 (Bahorich and Farmer, 1995)

 A A′′
amp
pos

Vertical slice through

seismic 0

neg

A
coh
high

Time slice through

coherence
(later algorithm)

low

5-42 A′′ (Haskell et al. 1995)

 Appearance faults perpendicular and parallel to strike

3 km

5-43
coherence seismic
 Alternative measures of waveform
similarity
• cross correlation
• semblance, variance, and Manhattan distance
• eigenstructure
• Gradient Structural Tensors (GST)

5-44
 Semblance estimate of coherence
energy of average traces
≡
5. coherence≡
energy of input traces
1. Calculate energy of input traces
2. Calculate the average
wavelet within the
analysis window.
Analysis
window

t-K∆t

dip

3. Estimate coherent traces by their average t+K∆t

4. Calculate energy of average traces
5-45
 The ‘Manhattan Distance’: r=|x-x0|+|y-y0|

The ‘as the crow flies’ (or Pythagorian) distance’

r=[(x-x0)2+(y-y0)2]/1/2
5-46 New York City Archives
 Pitfall: Banding artifacts near zero crossings

8 ms

5-47
 Solution: calculate coherence on the analytic
trace

Coherence of real trace Coherence of analytic trace

5-48
 Eigenstructure estimate of coherence
energy of coherent compt
5. coherence ≡
energy of input traces
2. Calculate the wavelet that
1. Calculate energy of input traces
best fits the data within the
analysis window.
Analysis
window

t-K∆t

dip

3. Estimate coherent compt of traces t+K∆t

4. Calculate energy of coherent compt of traces
5-49
 Eigenstructure coherence:
Time slice through seismic

5-50
 Eigenstructure coherence:
Time slice through total energy in 9 trace, 40 ms window

scour

salt

5-51
 Eigenstructure coherence:
Time slice through coherent energy in 9 trace, 40 ms window

scour

salt

5-52
 Eigenstructure coherence:
Time slice through ratio of coherent to total energy

faults
scour

salt

5-53
 Coherence
algorithm
evolution

Seismic Crosscorrelation

Canyon

Salt

Channels

Semblance Eigenstructure
5-54 (Gersztenkorn and Marfurt, 1999)
 GST dip scan
seismic coherence coherence

inline
slice
Comparison of
Gradient
Structure Tensor
and dip scan

crossline
eigenstructure

slice
coherence

slice
time
5-55 (Bakker, 2003)
 Coherence artifacts due to an ‘efficient’
calculation without search for structure

Coherence computed Coherence computed

along a time slice along structure
5-56
 0.4 s

Seismic 0.6 s

A A′′
0.4
0.6

t (s)
0.8
0.8 s
1.0
1.2
1.4

Seismic section

1.0 s

1.2 s

5-57 1.4 s
 0.4 s

Coherence 0.6 s

without dip A A′′

search 0.4
0.6

t (s)
0.8
0.8 s
1.0
1.2
1.4

Coherence section

1.0 s

1.2 s

5-58 1.4 s
 0.4 s

Coherence 0.6 s

with dip A A′′

search 0.4
0.6

t (s)
0.8
0.8 s
1.0
1.2
1.4

Coherence section

1.0 s

1.2 s

5-59 1.4 s
 Impact of
lateral analysis
window

radius = 12.5 m radius = 25 m

5-60 radius = 37.5 m radius = 50 m

 Impact of vertical analysis window
On a
stratigraphic
target

Temporal Temporal
aperture = 8 ms aperture = 32 ms

On a
structural
target

Temporal Temporal
5-61 aperture = 8 ms aperture = 40 ms
 Impact of vertical analysis window
(time slice at t = 1.586 s)

+/- 6
24ms
12 ms
5-62
 Impact of vertical analysis window
Fault on coherence green time slice is
shifted by a stronger, deeper event

0.5
Time (s)

1.0

1.5

Steeply dipping faults will not only be

smeared by long coherence windows,
but may appear more than once!
5-63
 Time
Coherence time
slices vs.
slice
horizon (better for fault
slices and salt analysis)

salt
Figure 3.45b
5 km

Coherence
horizon slice
(better for
stratigraphic
analysis)

5-64
 5 km

Figure 3.46 +32

+24

time (ms)
+16
Impact of +8 analysis
0
height of -8 window
-16
analysis -24
-32
window

5 km

+32
+24

time (ms)
+16
+8
0 analysis window
-8
-16
-24
-32

5-65
 Coherence

In summary, coherence:
• Is an excellent tool for delineating geological boundaries (faults, lateral
stratigraphic contacts, etc.),
• Allows accelerated evaluation of large data sets,
• Provides quantitative estimate of fault/fracture presence,
• Often enhances stratigraphic information that is otherwise difficult to
extract,
• Should always be calculated along dip – either through algorithm design or
by first flattening the seismic volume to be analyzed, and
• Algorithms are local - Faults that have drag, are poorly migrated, or separate
two similar reflectors, or otherwise do not appear locally to be discontinuous,
will not show up on coherence volumes.

In general:
• Stratigraphic features are best analyzed on horizon slices,
• Structural features are best analyzed on time slices, and
• Large vertical analysis windows can improve the resolution of vertical faults,
but smears dipping faults and mixes stratigraphic features.

5-66
 Volumetric curvature and reflector shape

After this section you will be able to:

• Use the most positive and negative curvature to map

structural lineaments,

• Choose the appropriate wavelength to examine rapidly

varying vs. smoothly varying features of interest,

• Identify domes, bowls, and other features on curvature

and shape volumes,

• Integrate curvature volumes with coherence and other

geometric attributes, and

• Choose appropriate curvature volumes for further

geostatistical analysis.

5-67
 Statistical measures based on vector dip
• Reflector divergence and/or parallelism
• angular unconformities
• stratigraphic terminations?
• Reflector curvature
• flexures and folds
• unresolved or poorly migrated faults
• differential compaction
• Reflector rotation
• data quality
• wrench faults
5-68
Sign convention for 3-D curvature attributes:
Anticlinal: k > 0
Planar: k=0
Synclinal: k < 0

5-69 (Roberts, 2001)

 3D Curvature and Topographic Mapping

5-70 (http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/bentcreek)
 3D Curvature and Molecular Docking

5-71 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_docking)
 3D Curvature
and Biometric
kneg < 0 Identification
kneg > 0
kpos < 0 of Suspicious
kpos > 0 Travelers
kpos > 0

kneg = 0

5-72
 Geometries of folded surfaces
kpos < 0 kpos = 0 kpos > 0
synform

kneg < 0
bowl saddle

antiform

kneg = 0
plane

kneg > 0
dome

5-73 (Bergbauer et al., 2003)

 A multiplicity of curvature attributes!

1. Mean Curvature
2. Gaussian Curvature Measures validity of
3. Rotation quadratic surface
4. Maximum curvature Mathematical Basis
Established use in
5. Minimum curvature fracture prediction
6. Most positive curvature Most useful for structural
7. Most negative Curvature interpretation
8. Dip curvature
9. Strike curvature
10. Shape index Established use in biometric
11. Curvedness ID and molecular docking
12. Shape index modulated by curvedness

See Roberts (2001) for definitions!

5-74
 Curvature of picked horizons

5-75
 kx-ky transform of time picks

Seismic horizon kx-ky spectrum

Long -0.02 high

+2
00 wavelength
z (m)

0
-2

ky (cycles/m)
00

power
0.00
0

Short
wavelength 50 Footprint!
00

00
50

x y
(m +0.02
) -0.02 +0.00 +0.02 0
0 0 kx (cycles/m)
0 00
1

The horizon exhibits different scale structures such as domes and basins
on the broad-scale, faults on the intermediate-scale, and smaller scale
undulations.

5-76 (Bergbauer et al, 2003)

 kx-ky transform of time picks after bandpass filter
-0.02 high
Short wavelength Short wavelength
ky (cycles/m)

Power
Long
0.00 wavelength

+0.02 Short wavelength Short wavelength

0
-0.02 +0.00 +0.02
5-77 kx (cycles/m) (Bergbauer et al, 2003)
Maximum curvature after kx-ky bandpass filter
kmax
+5
Fa
ul
ts

5000
y (m)

Contours

0 -5
0 5000 10000
x (m)
5-78 (Bergbauer et al, 2003)
 Typical workflow for curvature
calculated along picked horizons

1. pick horizon
2. smooth horizon
3. calculate curvature on tight grid for short
wavelength estimates
4. smooth horizon some more
5. calculate curvature on coarse grid for
long wavelength estimates

5-79
 Multispectral estimates of volumetric
curvature
Motivation:
• Structural Geology models relate curvature to fractures

• Geologic features have different spectral lengths – short wavelength faults,

moderate wavelength compaction over channels, longer wavelength domes
and sags

• Seismic artifacts have different spectral lengths – short wavelength

footprint, moderate wavelength migration smears about faults

• Current horizon-based curvature calculations are both tedious to generate

and overly sensitive to picking errors

• We have very accurate dip and azimuth volumes – can we use them to
generate more robust curvature volumes?

• Can we design x-y operators to produce results similar to Bergbauer et al.’s

(2003) kx-ky transforms to avoid slicing the dip and azimuth volumes?

5-80
 Radius of Curvature
3 km

1.0
Time (s)

1.2

5-81
 Thermal imagery with sun-shading

5-82 (Cooper and Cowan, 2003)

 Fractional derivatives with sun-shading

Red=0.75
Green=1.00
Blue=1.25

5-83 (Cooper and Cowan, 2003)

 2D curvature estimates from inline dip, p:

1st derivative

dp/dx = F-1[ ikx F(p) ]

fractional derivative
(or 1st derivative followed by a low pass filter)

dαp/dxα ≈ F-1[i(kx )α F(p) ]

5-84 (al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)

 “Fractional” derivatives

+1.0 α=1.25 0.5 α=1.25

α=1.00 α=1.00
α=0.75 α=0.75
α=0.50 α=0.50
α=0.25 α=0.25
α=0.01 α=0.01

amp
amp

0.0

-1.0 0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50
-20 0 +20
distance in grid points kx wavenumber (cycles/grid point)

convolutional operator in operator wavenumber

space spectrum
5-85 (al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 Interpretation of ‘fractional derivative’ as a filter

ive
Filter applied to 1st derivative

t
4 0.25
riva
t de
s
fir
d
3 lize
dea
I
2 0.80
1.00

0 Wavelength, λ
infinite 0

8∆x

4∆x

2∆x
32∆x π/16∆x
16∆x

Wavenumber, k

π/∆x
π/8∆x

π/4∆x

π/2∆x

5-86 (Chopra and Marfurt, 2007b)

Attributes extracted along a geological horizon

5-87
 Vertical
B
Slice – Fort Worth Basin, USA
B′′

0.750

0.800

Caddo
t (s)

1.000

1.250
Ellenburger

5-88 (al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)

 kmean=1/2(d2T/dx2+d2T/dy2) – Caddo
(Horizon pick calculation)
B′′

s/m2

-.25

0.0

+.25

5 km

5-89 B
 kmean horizon slice – Caddo
(volumetric calculation)
B′′

s/m2

-.25

0.0

+.25

5 km

5-90 B
 Coherence horizon slice – Caddo
5 km
B′′

1.0

0.9

.08

5-91 B
 Attributes extracted along time slices

5-92
 Vertical slice through seismic
5 km
B B′′

0.750

0.800

Caddo
t (s)

1.000

1.250
Ellenberger

5-93 (al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)

 Time slice through coherence
5 km t=0.8 s B′′

1.0

0.9

0.8

B
5-94 (al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 Most negative curvature (α=1.00)
5 km
t=0.800 sB′′

s/m2

+.25

0.0

-.25

α=1.00
B
5-95 (al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 Spectral estimates of most negative
5 km curvatureB′′ t=0.8 s

s/m2

+.25

0.0

-.25

α=0.25
=2.00
=1.75
=1.50
=1.25
=1.00
=0.75
=0.50
B
5-96 (al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 Principal component coherence
5 km t=0.8 s B′′

1.0

0.9

0.8

B
5-97 (al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 Principal component coherence
5 km t=1.2 s B′′

1.0

0.9

0.8

B
5-98 (al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 Most negative curvature (α=0.25)
5 km t=1.2
B′′ s

s/m2
+.25

0.0

-.25
B
5-99
(al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 Most positive curvature (α=0.25)
5 km t=1.2B′′s

s/m2
-.25

0.0

+.25

B
5-100
(al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 Zero-crossings are less sensitive to
noise than peaks or troughs

noise
pick error

pick error
signal
pick error

pick error
signal+noise
pick error

5-101 (Blumentritt et al., 2005)

 Vertical slice through seismic volume
showing faults having small displacement
(Alberta, Canada)

A Neg Pos A’
1240 ms

Picked horizon

1520 ms

5-102 (Chopra and Marfurt, 2007a)

 Curvature computed from a picked, filtered horizon
A A

2.5 km

A’ A’
Most-positive Most-negative

5-103 Neg 0 Pos (Chopra and Marfurt, 2007a)

 Curvature computed from volumetric dip/azimuth
A A

2.5 km

A’ A’
Most-positive Most-negative

5-104 Neg 0 Pos (Chopra and Marfurt, 2007a)

 The shape index, s: s=-1.0
bowl

synform
2 k 2 + k1
s = − ATAN( ) s=-0.5
π k 2 − k1

k1 ≥ k 2 s=0.0
saddle

antiform
Principal curvatures
s=+0.5

s=+1.0
dome

5-105 (Bergbauer et al., 2003)

 Shape index and biometric identification
photographic image distance scan

Shape indices

5-106 (Woodward and Flynn, 2004)

 2D color table

saddle
valley

dome
ridge
bowl
0.2
curvedness

plane
0.0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 +0.5 +1.0
Shape index
5-107
(al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 Shape index modulated by curvedness
5 km (α=0.25)
5 km
B’

N
1 .2
)
e (s
Tim

1. 4
Saddle
Valley

Dome
Ridge
Bowl

0.2
Curvedness

0.0 Plane
-1.0

-0.5

+0.5

+1.0
0.0

5-108 Shape index (Guo et al., 2007)

 Shape index modulated by curvedness
5 km (α=0.25)
5 km
B’

N
1 .2
)
e (s
Tim

1. 4
Saddle
Valley

Dome
Ridge
Bowl

0.2
Curvedness

Transparent
0.0 Plane
-1.0

-0.5

+0.5

+1.0
0.0

5-109 Shape index (Guo et al., 2007)

Shape ‘components’ – an attempt to provide shape
information amenable to geostatistical analysis

1.0

bow l
Filter response

valle y
0.5 s addle
ridge
dom e

0.0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Shape index

Figure
5-110 3.68f (al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 Shape components (α=0.25)
5 km t=1.2 s

high

Ridge
Dome
Saddle
Valley
Bowl
5-111
(al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 ‘Lineament’ attribute – an attempt to use shapes to
accentuate linear features

valley
1.0
Filter response

0.5

dome
saddle
bowl

ridge
0.0
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00
Shape index

5-112 (Guo et al., 2007)

 2D color bar for lineament attribute
(strike=azimuth of minimum curvature)
Strike
-90 0 +90
strong
Lineament

weak
5-113
(al-Dossary and Marfurt, 2006)
 Strike
-90 -45 0 45 90
0.1
Curvature lineaments

Valley component
colored by azimuth

0.0

1.0
1.2
1.1
0.8sss
1.0
0.9 s

5-114
 Volumetric view of lineament attribute (α=0.25)
-90
Strike
0 +90

Lineament
transparent

5 km
N

0.8
Time (s)

1.0

1.2

5-115 (Guo et al., 2007)

 Example: Attribute time slices through
Vinton Dome, Louisiana, USA

5-116
 Coherence time slice at t=1.0 s
2km
Coh
A’ 1.0

0.9

0.8
A

5-117
 Most negative curvature time slice at t=1.0 s
2km

A’
+.25

0.0

A -.25

5-118
 Most positive curvature time slice at t=1.0 s
2km

A’
-.25

0.0

A +.25

5-119
 Reflector rotation time slice at t=1.0 s
2km

A’
1.0

0.0

A -1.0

5-120
 Vertical seismic slice
A A’
0.5
2km

Time (s)

1.0

1.5
5-121
 Computational vs. Interpretational curvature

Normal fault seen by Strike slip fault not seen

curvature by curvature
5-122
 Computational vs. Interpretational curvature

Channel not seen by

curvature

Channels seen by
curvature
5-123
 Curvature

In Summary:
• Volumetric curvature extends a suite of attributes previously limited to
interpreted horizons to the entire uninterpreted cube of seismic data.

• The most negative and most positive curvatures appear to be the most
unambiguous of the curvature images in illuminating folds and flexures.

• Curvature attributes are a good indicator of paleo rather than present-day

stress regimes.

• Open fractures are a function of the strike of curvature lineaments and the
azimuth of minimum horizontal stress.

• Channels appear in curvature images if there is differential compaction.

• Faults appear in curvature images if there is a change in reflector dip

across the fault, reflector drag, if the fault displacement is below seismic
resolution, or if the fault edge is over- or under-migrated.

5-124
 Lateral Changes in Amplitude and Pattern
Recognition

After this section you will be able to:

• Relate lateral changes in amplitude to thin bed tuning,

• Identify channels and other thin stratigraphic features on

amplitude gradient images,

• Predict which geologic features can be seen best by

amplitude gradients, textures, curvature, and coherence
attributes, and

• Apply best practices for stratigraphic interpretation.

5-125
 Thin bed tuning and the wedge model
0 thickness (ms) 50
0

Time (ms)
50
impedance 100

150

0
-0.1

Time (ms)
50

reflectivity +0.1 100

150

Time (ms)
50
seismic
100

150 env
2
0

Time (ms)
50
envelope 100

150
0

5-126 (Partyka, 2001)

 Thin bed tuning and the wedge model
Tuning Tuning
thickness thickness

50
Trough to peak thickness (ms)

-0.025

40 -0.020

amplitude of trough
30 -0.015

20 -0.010

10 -0.005

0 -0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Temporal thickness (ms) temporal thickness (ms)

5-127
 Sobel edge detector
(numerical approximation to first derivative)
∂u  u ( x + ∆x) − u ( x − ∆x) 
= lim  
∂x ∆x − >0  2∆x 

5-128
ERROR: stackunderflow
OFFENDING COMMAND: ~
STACK: