SEISMIC PHASE UNWRAPPING: METHODS, RESULTS, PROBLEMS

Six known methods of seismic phase unwrapping (or phase restoration) are compared. All the methods tested unwrap the phase satisfactorily if the initial function is a simple theoretical wavelet. None of the methods restore the phase of a synthetic trace exactly. An initial validity test of the phase-unwrapping method is that the sum of the restored wavelet phase spectrum and the restored pulse-trace phase spectrum (assuming the convolutional model for the seismic trace) must be equal to the restored phase spectrum of the synthetic trace. Results show that none of the tested methods satisfy this test. Quantitative estimation of the phase-unwrapping accuracy by correlation analysis of the phase deconvolution results separated these methods, according to their efficiency, into three groups. The first group consists of methods using a priori wavelet information. These methods make the wavelet phase estimation more effective than the minimum-phase approach, if the wavelet is non-minimum-phase. The second group consists of methods using the phase increment Δo(Δω) between two adjacent frequencies. These methods help to decrease the time shift of the initial synthetic trace relative to the model of the medium. At the same time they degrade the trace correlation with the medium model. The third group consists of methods using an integration of the phase derivative. These methods do not lead to any improvement of the initial seismic trace. The main problem in the phase unwrapping of a seismic trace is the random character of the pulse trace. For this reason methods based on an analysis of the value of Δo(Δω) only, or using an adaptive approach (i.e. as Δω decreases) are not effective. In addition, methods based on integration of the phase derivative are unreliable, due to errors in numerical integration and differentiation.