Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/ GEOPHYSICS, VOL.

L. 44, NO. I I (NOVEMBER 1979); P. 1813-1829, 23 FIGS.

The effect of subsurface sampling on one-dimensional

synthetic seismograms

M. Schoenberger* and F. K. Levin*

In generating one-dimensional (I-D) synthetic seismograms from sonic and density logs. the actual sub-
surface is replaced by a sequence of beds so constructed that the time required to traverse each bed is the
same. Since Wuenschel (1960) devised the method, geophysicists have assumed that as long as the beds
were thin, i.e., subsurface time sampling was fine enough to avoid aliasing in the source waveform,
the synthetic seismograms would be independent of the sampling rate. We have found this assumption to
be unjustified. Even when the subsurface is sampled more than twice per period at the maximum source
frequency, the traces generated by a synthetic seismogram program may change as the sampling changes.
For the wells that were analyzed, the reflections were delayed by an increasing amount as the sampling
became finer. The delay appeared to approach a constant value; but for the most cyclic of the logs, even
a OS-msec sample interval apparently was not small enough. However, when instead of computing the
velocity for a sample interval by simply summing transit times we turned to a method suggestedby Sher-
wood (1962), the total reflection time delay became less dependent on the sampling rate. Attenuation over
the seismic band increased as the sampling became finer, regardless of the method used to obtain velocity
from transit times. Although the time delays found in this study are greatly reduced when the method of
computing velocity from sonic log transit times is modified from that of simply summing sample values, it
is not clear that this more complicated procedure is free of problems due to correction of sonic log inte-
grated times to check-shots times. Part of the difficulty in tying check-shot traveltimes to seismic reflection
times may originate in the phenomena discussedhere.

INTRODUCTION
In two previous papers (Schoenberger and Levin,
1974, 1978), we examined with one-dimensional
(1-D) synthetic seismogramsthe apparentattenuation
due to intrabed multiple reflections. Intrabed multi-
ples-reflections bouncing between nearby interfaces
-delay and elongate reflections by transferring
energy from the beginning of a seismic pulse to later
times. Quantification of this filtering phenomenon
was the purpose of our previous papers. However, in
thosepapers, we also noted that 1-D synthetic seismo-
gram programs may distort the effect of multiple re-
flections by requiring them to arrive precisely at time
samples. Unlike a real subsurfacewith beds varying
in thickness from centimeters to meters, the subsur-
face used to generate a synthetic seismogramconsists
of beds of equal time thickness (Wuenschel, 1960).
Seismograms from real subsurfacesconsist of over-
lapping primary and multiple reflections from thou-
sands of interfaces, whereas synthetic seismograms
consist of primary and multiple reflections from
fewer interfaces at equal time intervals.
An important parameter which must be selected to
genera&ea synthetic seismogram is the time thickness
of each interval. The time thickness also determines
the sample rate of the source waveform (c.f., Ap-
pendix A). Users of synthetic seismogramstypically
choose a sample interval AT such that the maximum
source frequency is less than the Nyquist frequency
(1/2AT). Although this avoids aliasing of the source

Presented at the 48th Annual International SEG Meeting November 1, 1978 in San Francisco. Manuscript received by
the Editor November 22, 1978; revised manuscript received May 3, 1979.
*Exxon Production Research Company, Box 2 189, Houston, TX 7700 1.
0016.8033/79/ 1IOI-1813$03.00. @ 1979 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved
1813
 Schoenberger and Levin

time - SECONDS
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,OW
DEPTH - FEET

FIG. I. Velocity and density logs for well 2 (Schoenbergerand Levin, 1978). The valuesof velocity and density
were obtained by averaging within I-msec equal two-way traveltime intervals.

waveform, it does not necessarily avoid aliasing-
type problems due to use of equal time thicknessesin
the derivation of synthetic seismograms. A synthetic
seismogram can be viewed as resulting from a pro-
cessfor which a sonic and a density log are the input,
and reflections, both primary and multiple, are the
output. If this processwere linear, it would be neces-
sary to sample such that the maximum frequency of
the earths impulse responsewas less than the Nyquist
frequency. In fact, the process of generating a syn-
thetic seismogram is nonlinear. If the input density
logs are scaled, i.e., each density is multiplied by
the same constant, the output is invariant: the time
scale and reflection coefficients are unchanged. (The
reflection coefficients are independent of velocity
scaling also.) Furthermore, if the log is divided into
an upper and lower half and a synthetic seismogram
is formed by feeding the output signal from the upper
half into the lower half, the resulting seismogram
differs from that formed from the undivided log. In
splitting the log, the possibility of multiple reflections
between beds in the upper half and those in the lower
half has been removed.
Investigating the effect of subsurface sampling
rates on I-D synthetic seismograms is difficult. Ex-
cept for subsurfaces too simple to be instructive,
theory is of little help and computer studies, i.e.,
empirical investigations, are required. With little the-
oretical guidance to indicate that the sampling rate
might be important, geophysicists have been disin-
clined to search for sampling phenomena. We were
so disinclined. However, our earlier work had left a
worrisome problem: for the same subsurfacesampled
at 2-msec and 4-msec intervals, attenuation of sig-
nals at frequencies below 60 Hz differed by about
25 percent (Schoenberger and Levin, 1978, Figure
14). Since attenuation constants were computed di-
rectly from the synthetic seismograms, changing the
sampling interval must have changedthe seismograms
in a nontrivial manner.
Ideally, an earth model with unequal bed travel-
times could be approximated arbitrarily closely by
 Effect of Subsurface Sampling 1815

time - SECONDS
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

DEPTH - FEET

FIG. 2. Velocity and density logs for well 18 (Schoenberger and Levin, 1978). The values of velocity and
density were obtained by averaging within 1-msec equal two-way traveltime intervals.

forming a finely spaced equal-traveltime model. By EXPERIMENTALPROCEDURE

sampling the logs at successively smaller intervals,
we would hope that at some sample interval AT, the
filtering effects would stabilize; and that for sample
intervals less than AT,, the synthetic seismogram
would be invariant. This stabilized seismogram
should be the correct 1-D synthetic seismogram-
the seismogram we would get if we could form one
for the continuous, unsampled subsurface. To de-
termine the extent to which stabilization could be
achieved with practical sampling intervals, we re-
turned to three wells that are the typical examples in
Schoenberger and Levi, (1978). We selected from
the three wells the two with significant transmission
filtering and sampled the sonic and density logs at
intervals of OS-, l-, 2-, and 4-msec two-way travel-
times. We emphasize these were two wells with
significant transmission filtering; we believe that
for many of the other wells in our previous paper the
phenomena we discuss would be insignificant.
Figures 1 and 2 are the sonic and density logs for the
wells used in this study. To conform with our pre-
vious notation (Schoenberger and Levin, 1978), we
have numbered the wells 2 and 18. The logs of well 2
(Figure 1) show large variations over small depth
intervals, while the logs of well 18 (Figure 2) are
smoother. Attenuation constantspreviously reported
for a 2-msec sample interval were 0.41 dB/Hz (0.21
dB/wavelength) for well 2 and 0.15 dB/Hz (0.06
dB/wavelength) for well 18.
In our earlier work, we computed the earth trans-
mission filter by inserting an isolated reflector below
the well and then generating a synthetic reflection
seismogram. For the sample intervals in the work dis-
cussed here, we were unable to use this technique;
our synthetic seismogram program allows too few
multiple reflections to let us apply our original method
with 0.5msec and l.O-msec sample intervals. In-
stead, we computed the complete down-traveling
 1816 Schoenberger and Levin

Hms

/
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

0 lms

o-

+ io 40 00 00 D
time - MILLISECONDS time - MILLISECONDS

WC. 3. Two-way earth transmissionfilter impulse re-
sponsesfor well 2, sampled at 4.0-, 2.0-, l.O-, and
0.5msec equal two-way traveltimes. Zero time corre-
spondsto arrival of the first energy, and each impulse
responsehas been normalized to have the same peak
amplitude.
FIG. 4. Two-way earth transmission filter impulse
responsesfor well 18, sampled at 4.0.) 2.0-, 1.O-, and
0.5-msec equal two-way traveltimes. Zero time corre-
spondsto arrival of the first energy. and each impulse
responsehas been normalized to have the same peak
amplitude.

wavetrain at a point below the well. This wavetrain
convolved with itself is equivalent, to within a scale
factor, to the reflection from an isolated, deep inter-
face. Our input was a spike at the surface.
RESULTS
The synthetic seismograms resulting from these
simulations are displayed in Figures 3 and 4 for wells
2 and 18, respectively. Since a spike was input, these
are the impulse responsesof the two-way earth trans-
mission filters. In each case, the time delay of the
wavetrain increases as the sampling becomes finer;
in addition, the shape of the impulse response varies
slightly as the sample interval changes. Note that the
responsesfor well 18 develop a high-frequency oscil-
lation for sampling intervals of I .O msec and 0.5
msec. We believe this behavior is a consequenceof
the relatively smooth impedance log for well 18 com-

SOURCE
WAVEFORM AMPLITUDE SPECTRUM

2b 40
time - MILLISECONDS FREQUENCY - Hz

FIG. 5. The waveform and amplitude spectrum of a source to be used as an input to the earth models charac-
terized by the logs of Figures 1 and 2.
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/ Effect of Subsurface Sampling 1817

I I
0 20 40 60 60
time - MkUSECONDS

FIG. 6. Transmission seismograms for well 2 for
sample intervals of 4.0-, 2.0-, 1.O-, and 0.5-msec
two-way traveltimes. Inputs were appropriately
sampled versions of the waveform of Figure 5. Each
seismogram has been normalized to have the same
peak value.
FIG. 7. Transmission seismograms for well 18 for
sample intervals of 4.0-, 2.0-, l.O-, and 0.5.msec
two-way traveltimes. Inputs were appropriately
sampled versions of the waveform of Figure 5. Each
seismogram has been normalized to have the same
peak value.

24..

RUST TROUGH

0;s 1.0 2.0 4.0

0- SAMPLE
0.5 1.0
INTERVAL
2.0 4.0
- MILLISECONDS
SAMPLE INTERVAL - MILLISECONDS

FIG. 8b. time delays of synthetic transmission seis-

FIG. 8a. Variation in time delay of synthetic trans- mograms (displayed in Figures 6 and 7) as a function
mission seismogramsfor well 2, using as criteria the of sample interval. The time delays are measured by
delay of the first peak, the first zero crossing,the first the delay of the first trough of the seismogramrelative
trough, and the second zero crossing. to that of the source waveform.
 1818 Schoenberger
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
0
time -
T T+12
MILLISECONDS
FIG. 9. Window function by which the transmission
seismogram impulse responsesof Figures 3 and 4 are
multiplied prior to spectral analysis.
pared to that of well 2, and we will discuss the sub-
ject in greater detail later in the paper and in Ap-
pendix A.
Since we are concerned with the effects of trans-
mission filtering at frequencies in the seismic band,
phenomena such as the high-frequency oscillation
of the seismograms from well 18 (Figure 4) are ir-
relevant. To examine filtering effects over the seis-
mic band, we generated synthetic seismogramsusing
as input appropriately sampled versions of the
wavelet displayed in Figure 5. This pulse is a
minimum-phase version of a 35Hz Ricker wavelet
with half-power points at 20 and 50 Hz. The two-
way transmission seismograms for wells 2 and 18,
shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively, were ob-
tained by convolving the input wavelet of Figure 5
with impulse responsesof Figures 3 and 4.
As is obvious from Figures 6 and 7, the transmitted
pulses are delayed relative to the direct arrival. To
determine the magnitude of these delays, we com-
pared each transmitted pulse to the source pulse
used to generate it. Since pulse shaping occurred as
well as time delay, there was some arbitrariness in-
volved in measuring time delay. In Figure 8a, the
delays of characteristic parts of the waveform are
plotted versussample interval. Note that later parts of
the waveforms are delayed more than the earlier
parts, or, alternatively, transmissions through the
synthetic earth model elongates the waveform. Of
more importance is the similarity of the various
curves. The similarity permits us to choose as our
time delay measure the time shift of the first trough;
this was chosen, since it is the pulses most promi-
nent feature.
and Levin
30
45
WELL 2
2 A8
B
35 --\
1
s 30
3
5 25
x
20
.15
0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0
SAMPLE INTERVAL - MILLISECONDS
FIG. 10. Attenuation coefficients (dB/Hz) versus
sample interval for wells 2 and 18.
For both wells 2 and 18, the time delay of the trans-
mitted waveforms first trough is plotted versus sam-
ple interval in Figure 8b. As the sampling becomes
finer, more transmission loss occurs; more multiples
are generated; and more energy is shifted to later
times. However, our motivation for sampling with
smaller intervals was to find a value below which
the results were independentof sampling interval. By
this measure, the seismogram from well 18 appears
to be stabilizing at a 9.0-msec delay for a sample
interval of 1.0 msec and at a lO.O-msec delay for a
sample interval of 0.5 msec. On the other hand, the
seismogram from well 2 still exhibits increasing
delay with decreasing sample interval even at 0.5
msec, the smallest interval used. Overall, changing
the sample interval from 4 to 0.5 msec changes the
time delay on the well 2 seismogram from 8 to 24.5
msec.
If our synthetic seismogram program had been
more flexible, we would have sampled the subsur-
face more finely than at a 0.5-msec two-way travel-
time interval. Presumably, the time delay of the trans-
mitted wavelet associated with well 2 would even-
tually have saturated at a value greater than 24.5
 Effect of Subsurface
msec for a sample interval less than 0.5 msec. Figure
8 implies that a synthetic seismogramgeneratedfrom
logs sampled at a 4-msec two-way traveltime inter-
val would yield time delays significantly smaller than
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
the correct delays. An even poorer seismogramwould
result from a primary-reflection-only model. Since
primary-reflection-only seismograms produce no
time delay, the correct time delay would be under-
estimated by more than 24.5 msec. In addition, time
delays become progressively larger as more earth sec-
tion is encountered. Often, tying seismic data to wells
with synthetic seismograms is difficult, usually re-
quiring time-variable time shifts to align the two types
of data. Perhaps underestimation of time delays due
to intrabed multiple reflections has been a factor in
this problem.
In addition to creating a time delay, redistribution
of energy by the generation of multiple reflections
converts a pulse reflected from a deep, isolated inter-
face into a reflection wavetrain. In fact, the change in
apparent attenuation with changing sample interval
caused by this mechanism motivated our investiga-
tion. Splitting a reflection wavetrain into intrabed
and interbed reflections is an arbitrary procedure, and
the time following the arrival of a primary reflection
at which the split is made varies from one investiga-
tion to another. In our previous papers (Schoenberger
and Levitt, 1974, 1978), we classified as intrabed
reflections the first 40 msec of the wavetrains. We
maintain that classificationhere. However, the change
in time delay with changing sample interval apparent
on Figures 6 and 7 forced us to separateshaping- and
time-delay effects of multiple reflections somewhat
differently. We multiplied the wavetrains (transmis-
sion seismograms) by the time-window function
a I
I
.lG-
I
E
L -19
2 - - - SMOOTHEOWGS
a-
2%
o.ms O.GlG GmG 0.Y 0.06 0.10
GPKnAL FRE(1ENCY - Fr -
FIG. 11. The amplitude responseof a zero-phase filter
used to smooth the well logs of Figures 1 and 2.
Sampling 1919
displayed in Figure 9. In Figure 9, T is 40 msec for
a wavetrain sampled at a 4-msec interval; the window
partially eliminates multiple reflections delayed by
40 to 52 msec and completely eliminates multiple
reflections arriving after 52 msec. For smaller sample
intervals, T was increased by the incremental delays
obtained from Figure 8b in order that, to the eye at
least, the windowed wavetrains for different sample
intervals differed mainly by their delay relative to one
another. Smaller sample intervals corresponded to
larger time delays and, therefore, required longer
windows.
The amplitude spectrum for each of these win-
dowed wavetrains was calculated and the cumulative
attenuation was obtained from the slope of a least-
squares line fitted to values of the log amplitude
spectrum between 0 and 65 Hz. This procedure as-
sumes the attenuation is of the form Kernorwhere f is
frequency, a is an attenuation coefficient, and K is a
constant. The values of the attenuation coefficient a,
expressed in dB/Hz, are displayed as a function of
sample interval in Figure 10. As before, the attenua-
tion produced by well 2 logs far exceeds that of well
18 logs. Furthermore, the attenuation coefficient at
55
50
.45
P
p 40
I
E 38
s I WELL 2
[ 30
25
.mI-.
-ORIGINAL WGS
WELL 18
.15,-
0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0
SAMPLE INTERVAL - MILLISECONDS
G.M
FIG. 12. Attenuation coefficients (dB/Hz) versus
sample interval for wells 2 and 18, from both
smoothed (filtered) and original logs.
 1820 Schoenberger and Levin

28 each well has nearly stabilized at the l.O-msec sam-

ple interval.
24
Using attenuationcoefficient and time delay as cri-
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

teria for characterizingtransmissionfiltering, we con-

8
clude that sampling the sonic and density logs of well
gm
18 at a 0.5msec interval was adequate to ensure an
0 accurate synthetic seismogram. For well 2, at a 0.5
I
msec sample interval, the attenuation coefficient had
316
I stabilized, but the time delay had not. Hence, at well
I 2, the synthetic seismogramgeneratedfrom the small-
l 12 est sample interval available (0.5 msec) is of ques-
9
x
tionable validity.

c5 LOG PREPARATION FOR MODELING

With a sufficiently small sample interval, present
4 methods of synthetic seismogram generation seem
----sMmwwGs i able to produce stable transmission filters. We pre-
-0NGNAl WCS
viously observed (Schoenberger and Levitt, 1974,
0
0.5 1.0 20 4.0 1978) that large values of attenuation and large time
SAMPLE INTERVAL - MILLISECONDS delays result from large and rapid variation in acous-
tic impedance. Based upon the two wells analyzed
FIG. 13. time delays (measured at the first trough)
of transmissionseismogramsfor wells 2 and 18, from here, this type of variation also appears to require
both smoothed (filtered) and original logs. finer sampling to achieve stable transmission filter-
ing. It seemsreasonableto interpret this phenomenon
as a type of aliasing; i.e., the high-frequency compo-
nents of the acoustic impedance log appear to be low
frequencies when the sampling is too coarse. Such a
philosophy suggests smoothing the logs (antialias

0 20
time -
40
MILLISECONDS
a
0
II
I
0
I
lo
,
4ms

40 (10
time- MILLISECONDS
A

FIG. 14. Transmissionfilter impulse responsesfor the FtG. 15. Transmissionfilter impulse responsesfor the
smoothed logs of well 2. Each response has been smoothed logs of well 18. Each response has been
normalized to have the same peak amplitude. Zero normalized to have the same peak amplitude. Zero
time correspondsto arrival of the first energy. time correspondsto arrival of the first energy.
 Effect of Subsurface
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
FIG. 16. Transmission seismograms at well 2 for
smoothed logs. Inputs were appropriately sampled
versions of the waveform of Figure 5. Each seismo-
gram has been normalized to have the same peak
value.
filtering) prior to computing synthetic seismograms.
We would hope, by using such a procedure, to attain
the same stabilized transmission filter as with the
original log, but with a coarser sampling.
These conjecturesseem reasonablebut are not cor-
rect. The logs were smoothed by applying a zero-
phasespatialfilter with the amplitude spectrumshown
in Figure 11. Note that this is a very gentle low-pass
filter with the half-power point (-3 dB) at O.O4/ft,
correspondingto a frequency greater than 200 Hz for
a velocity greater than 5000 ft/sec. (The sonic and
density logs had been digitized every foot.) In Figure
12, we have superimposedon the plots of Figure 10
the attenuation coefficient values from synthetic
seismogramscomputedfrom filtered (smoothed) logs.
Filtering of the logs has little effect for well 18. How-
ever, for well 2-the well with large and rapid varia-
tions in transit times and density-values did not
stabilize even for a OS-msec sample interval. Since
the attenuation coefficient from the original well 2
logs stabilized at 0.5 msec, smoothing the logs had
a deleterious effect. The resultant time delays (Figure
13) are more predictable. For both wells, time delays
are more stable for the smoothed than for the original
logs, but the values are significantly smaller. At a
0.5-msec sample interval, smoothing decreased the
time delay by 1.5 msec at well 18 and by 4.5 msec at
well 2. Assuming that the correct time delay is larger
than that for the original logs at a 0.5-msec sample
interval, smoothing the logs increased the errors at
Sampling
i 2il io oil do
llME - MILUSECONOS
FIG. 17. Transmission seismograms at well 18 for
smoothed logs. Inputs were appropriately sampled
versions of the waveform of Figure 5. Each seis-
mogram has been normalized to have the same peak
value.
both 0.5- and l.O-msec sampling. Based upon ob-
servations of attenuation and time delays, we must
conclude that smoothing the logs is an undesirable
practice.
We became painfully aware that smoothing the
logs can have unanticipated effects on synthetic
seismograms when we plotted the transmitted wave-
trains resulting from a spike input (Figures 14 and
15). Oscillations that are noticeable but small for the
unsmoothed logs grew when the logs were filtered
until, for a 0.5-msec sample interval, the underlying
behavior was hidden. Again convolution with the
35-Hz wavelet (Figure 5) removed the oscillation
(Figures 16 and 17).
A DIFFERENT METHOD OF COMPUTING
VELOCITIES FOR EQUAL-TIME INTERVALS
In all of our simulations, we used a method for
obtaining an equal-time interval subsurface model
from sonic log transit times that preserves the time
of the first arrival across layers; i.e., we simply
summed the transit times until the sample interval
selected had been attained and computed velocity
by dividing the depth interval needed to attain that
time interval by the time interval (time-average
method). An alternative, more complicated proce-
dure that accountsfor the multiple reflections within
the time interval has been given by Sherwood (1962)
and dErceville and Kunetz (1963); it is equivalent
to the long-wavelength approximation used to obtain
 1822 Schoenberger and Levin

elastic constants for anisotropic solids (Backus,

1962). The method, which we shall call the stress-
strain method, is described in detail in Appendix B.
With this method, we generated another set of syn-
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

thetic seismogramsfor wells 2 and 18 with the four

sample intervals. time delays computed from these
seismograms are plotted, along with those from the
time average seismograms, in Figure 18. The time
delays obtained from the two techniquesappear to be
comparable for these two wells. However, it should
be noted that these time delays are measured relative
to the direct arrival (or first arrival of energy).
Sherwood (1962) and dErceville and Kunetz
(1963) observed that the traveltime across a layer
obtained from this stress-strain technique is greater -THE AVERAGE METHOO 18

than the computed traveltime (summation of sonic O-

0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0
log sampled times). Sherwood noted that the extra
SAMPLE INTERVAL - MILLISECONDS
traveltime is the delay we would find if we could
compute the effect of energy multiply reflected among FIG. 18. time delay of first trough as a function of
the interfaces of all the beds being combined into one sample interval for wells 2 and 18. The upper curve
equal-time sample interval. For example, if we chose in each set was computedfrom synthetic seismograms
generated with the stress-strainmethod of Sherwood
to sample at a 2-msec interval (two-way time) and the (1962) and dErceville and Kunetz (1963); the lower
interval velocities of one-ft thick beds for a region of curves were taken from Figure 8b.
the subsurface were about 8000 ft/sec, a 2-msec
sample interval would include eight beds. Among the
nine interfaces, numerous intrabed multiple reflec-
tions would be possible. The time-average method
ignores the time delay due to these invisible multiple
32 ,
reflections; the stress-strain technique accounts for
them. As the size of the sample interval is reduced,
the number of beds combined into one interval de-
creasesand, hence, the possible number of reflections
from concealed interfaces also decreases. Under the
same conditions, the total number of intervals of the
equal-time sampled subsurface increases; conse-
quently, the number of reflections among the inter-
faces also increases. It is not obvious that reduced
WELL 2
time delays due to fewer reflections within each inter-
val and the increasedtime delays resulting from more
reflections between a greater number of intervals
should compensate for one another but, while not
complete, the compensation is considerable. The
increasedtraveltime of the first arrival due to multiple WELL 18
reflections within each layer was computed for each
4-- - - - STRESS-STRAIN MET00
of the stress-strain seismograms. These times were - time AVERAGE HEW00
added to the delay shown in Figure 18 due to multi-
o- :
ples among the layers. The resultant total time delays 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0
are displayed in Figure 19. Since the effects of multi- SAMPLE INTERVAL - MILLISECONDS
ple reflections among the interfaces and within indi-
FIG. 19. Total time delay of first trough as a function
vidual equal-time beds have opposite trends, they of sample interval for wells 2 and 18. The data from
tend to compensatefor one another, and the variation Figure 18 were added to the delay of the first arrival
in total time delay with sample interval, for the stress- to obtain the total delay.
 Effect of Subsurface Sampling 1823

time delay on sample interval, it had little effect on

the dependence of attenuation on sample interval
(Figure 20). Regardless of how we handled transit
times, the attenuation increased as sample interval
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

decreased. It may be noted that the attenuation for a

1-msec sample interval exceeds that for the 0.5-msec
interval for the stress-straintechnique applied to well
2. However, also included in Figure 20 are error
bars which indicate the deviation from linearity of
the log amplitude spectra. These are intended to be
WELL 2
50 percent confidence intervals basedupon a Gaussian
distribution of values about a straight line (Bennett
and Franklin, 1954). Certainly, even within this large
confidence interval, the values for the I-msec and
0.5-msec intervals are not significantly different.
Furthermore, the 40-msec window chosen to separate
intrabed and interbed multiple reflections was arbi-
trary. Increasing this time by 4 msec has the effect of
making the attenuation values for all four cases de-
picted in Figure 20 monotonically increase with de-
creasing sample interval. One final point should be
made concerning the effect of windowing the wave-
train prior to attenuation estimation. Increasing the
0. 5 1.0 2.0 4.0
SAMPLE INTERVAL - MILLISECONDS window length by 4 msec, in addition to making the
curves of Figure 20 monotonic, increasesattenuation
FIG. 20. Attenuation coefficient as a function of in well 2 for the OS-msec sample interval by I3 per-
sample interval for wells 2 and 18. The coefficients
cent for the time-average method and by 8.3 percent
from synthetic seismogramsgeneratedwith the stress-
strain method of Sherwood (1962) and of dErceville for the stress-strainmethod. There was a lesser effect
and Kunetz (1963) are plotted along with those from for the 1.O-msec interval, and in none of these cases
Figure 10 (time-average method). were attenuation values for well 18 affected.
In view of the decreased sensitivity of time delay
for the stress-strain method, the reader reasonably
might ask why this method is not used universally in
strain method, is greatly reduced. For both wells, the the computation of I-D synthetic seismograms. In
delay still increasesas the sample interval decreases spite of its obvious attractiveness, the method has
from 4 to 0.5 msec. However, for well 2, the increase associateddifficulties that are discussed later.
of 6 msec over that range contrasts with the more-
than- 18-msec increase found for the time-average DISCUSSION
method; for well 18, the stress-strainmethod reduces Because of the complex nature of the phenomena
the change in delay from 9.5 msec (time-average we are considering, we are unable to offer quantitative
method) to 5.5 msec. As the sample intervals de- explanations for the behavior illustrated by Figures
crease to zero, we pass to the continuous case, and 3-17. Our remarks in this section of the paper are
the two methods for finding velocity become equiva- qualitative. That attenuation and time delays in the
lent. Hence, for a given well, the curves of Figure 19 transmission seismogram should depend on the size
must coincide for sufficiently fine sampling. It is and rapidity of changes in impedance is certainly
interesting that although for both wells the change reasonable, since intrabed multiple reflections depend
of delay with sample interval seems to be approach- on those changes (ODoherty and Anstey, 1971;
ing a constantvalue, even for a 0.5-msec interval the Schoenberger and Levin, 1974). Sampling logs at
delay for the time-average method is less than the ever smaller intervals should eventually result in a
delay for the stress-strainmethod. seismogram that is both stable and identical to the
Although use of the alternative stress-strainmethod seismogram we would obtain from the continuous
of finding velocity greatly reduced the dependenceof subsurface-if we knew how to form a synthetic
 1824 Schoenberger
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
10-@(
,., 1 I
0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0
SAMPLE INTERVAL - MILLISECONDS
FIG. 2 I. Transmissioncoefficients associatedwith the
acousticimpedancemodels for wells 2 and 18. Values
were computed for sample intervals of 0.5, 1.O, 2.0,
and 4.0 msec, for both the original and smoothedlogs.
seismogram for such a subsurface. Sampling at a de-
creased interval increases the number of reflection
coefficients but, provided the log values vary at a rate
slow compared with the sampling rate, decreasesthe
magnitudeof individual coefficients. We can say little
more. As we have seen, there does seem to be a limit-
ing sampling rate for both attenuationand time delay.
The behavior of synthetic seismogramsfrom con-
tinuous subsurfaces was explored in an important
paper by Foster (1975). Foster proved that, for a con-
tinuous 1-D subsurface, two-way transmission ef-
fects of the type we are considering vanish. Since in
Fosters formulation properties of the subsurfaceand
derivatives of those properties are continuous, a dis-
crete approximation to the subsurfaces would nec-
essarily require sample intervals that were small
compared to any interval over which subsurfaceprop-
erties changed. It is because our sample intervals
were not small in this sense that we encounteredthe
phenomena discussedhere.
If the logs were sampled sufficiently finely, we
should eventuall_y approach the sondnuous case.
That our logs did not vary slowly compared with con-
ventional sample rates can be verified by examining
the transmission coefficient as a function of sample
interval (Figure 21). Our definition of transmission
end Levin
coefficient is the one of our previous work (Schoen-
berger and Levin, 1974): the transmission coef-
ficient is
fi (1 - R;),
i=l
where R, , Rz, , are the reflection coefficients
above a deep, isolated reflecting surface. Note that
this is a two-way transmissioncoefficient, i.e., each
interface of the subsurface is traversed once from
above and once from below. By using a two-way
transmission coefficient, we avoid the necessity for
normalization by the quotient of acousticimpedances
of the initial and final media. For the unfiltered (orig-
inal) logs, the transmission coefficient plotted in
Figure 21 decreases rapidly with decreasing sample
I interval. For sample intervals that are fine compared
to the intervals over which subsurface velocity and
density change, reflection coefficients should de-
crease with decreasing sample interval, and the
transmission coefficient should either not decrease
or increase. In the limit of continuoussampling, the
transmission coefficient would be unity (Foster,
1975).
If the reflection coefficients do not change in mag-
nitude but simply double in number as the sample
interval is halved, the transmissioncoefficient should
square. In Figure 21, the transmission coefficient
does follow a square-law curve for the unfiltered
logs for sample intervals between I .O and 4.0 msec.
We conclude that, on the average, reflection coeffi-
cient magnitudesdid not decrease until the 0.5msec
sample interval was reached. This observation co-
incides with our earlier conclusions concerning the
increase in both attenuation and time delay as the
sample interval decreasedfrom 4.0 to 1.O msec. Note
also that smoothing the logs increased the transmis-
sion coefficient and reduced its variation with sam-
ple interval. The reflection coefficients for smoothed
well 2 logs decreased significantly when the sample
interval changed from 1.0 to 0.5 msec; however,
under the same condition, the attenuation (Figure
12) increased. This behavior illustratesthe point that
multiple reflections are functions of both magni-
tude and spacing of reflection coefficients. Although
smoothing the logs did reduce the extremely short-
period log variations, it had a different (and unclear)
effect on the longer period variations (Figures I6
and 17) which contributed the multiple reflections
being analyzed here.
Another way of looking at the comparison be-
tween sampling and log variation is by way of a linear
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/ Effect of Subsurface
0
0 250 500 750 1000
FREQUENCY - Hz
FIG. 22. Amplitude spectra of the 0.5msec sampled reflection coefficient logs associatedwith smoothed and
unsmoothed(original) logs from wells 2 and 18. Each spectrum has been smoothed with a rectangular 50-Hz
wide window.
system analogy; i.e., we can speak of spectra and
a Nyquist sampling frequency. Since, as mentioned
earlier, our system is nonlinear, this is not rigorously
valid; but it does provide some insight. We said the
reflection coefficients decreasewith finer sampling if
the log values vary at a rate slow compared with that
sample interval. For wells 2 and 18, the logs values
did not vary slowly. Figure 22 is a plot of the ampli-
tude spectra of the reflection coefficient sequences
for the smoothed and unsmoothed (original) logs of
wells 2 and 18 sampled at OS-msec two-way time
intervals. Even at the Nyquist frequency of 1000Hz,
the spectra of the unsmoothed logs have appreciable
amplitude. We needed finer sampling to avoid alias-
ing. As a practical matter, we could not sample at a
faster rate, for the logs were digitized every foot;
finer time sampling would have required interpolation
procedures we did not have, nor, considering the
resolving power of logging sondes, could justify.
Filtering the logs reduced the high-frequency content
relative to the lower-frequency content but did not
result in negligible values at the Nyquist frequency.
Oscillations corresponding to the sample interval
are obvious in Figures 14 and 15. This phenomenon
had been observed whenever the sample interval was
small relative to the log variations. Some insight can
be gained into the causes of the oscillations by ex-
amining a very slowly varying subsurface-one with
acoustic impedance increasing(or decreasing) mono-
tonically with depth. In this case, first-order intrabed
multiples are opposite in sign from primary reflec-
tions; however, equations describing higher-order
intrabed multiples are too complicated to be illuminat-
Sampling 1825
0250500 750 1000
FREQUENCY - Hz
ing (see Appendix A). We resorted to numerical ex-
periments because we saw no theoretical way to
explain what we had found previously (Schoenberger
and Levin, 1978). We still have no theory to guide
us. Whatever the source of the oscillations, they did
not interfere with transmissionof lower frequencies,
for convolution of the spike response with a 35-Hz
wavelet removed them.
As was pointed out to us by one of the referees of
this paper, a subsurface whose acoustic impedance
varies slowly with depth (or traveltime) transmits
high frequencies efficiently (ODoherty and Anstey,
1971). Hence, we might have expected synthetic
seismograms generated from smoothed logs to have
more apparent high frequencies than those generated
from unsmoothed logs. Even with that insight, it is
not clear why high frequencies should manifest them-
selves, as shown in Figures 14 and 15, as persistent
sinusoids or why the sinusoids should become
stronger as the sample interval decreased.
The work we have described was based on the
generation of 1-D synthetic seismograms from sub-
surfaces made up of beds all with the same time thick-
ness. As long as we are tied to computers, there is no
other obvious, practical method of including the intra-
bed multiples responsiblefor the phenomenawe have
discussed. Although it is easy to show equal-time
sampling gives seismograms that converge to those
from a continuous subsurface for simple systems
such as linearly increasing impedance over a depth
interval many wavelengths long (Berryman et al,
1958), practical convergence to the correct solution
is not so clear for realistic, rapidly changing systems.
 1626 Schoenberger
In view of Fosters (1975) work, we must conclude
that if subsurfaceproperties really were continuous,
synthetic seismograms from continuous subsurfaces
and from sampled subsurfaces would be identical.
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
However, real subsurfacesinclude numerous beds of
many thicknessesthat are separatedby distinct inter-
faces. Neither the continuity demanded by Fosters
theory nor the requirement of several samples within
each constant-property zone may be realizable in
practice. A completely independentmethod of manu-
facturing synthetic seismograms would be useful
for establishing the validity of the equal-time pro-
cedures. Analog models could furnish the needed
data (Levin, 1953; Sherwood, 1962; Woods, 1975).
CONCLUSIONS
It is not obvious how the sonic and density logs
from a well should be sampled in order that a syn-
thetic seismogram generated from the logs matches
a seismogram recorded on the surface at the well.
dErceville and Kunetz (1963) suggestedthe logs be
blocked as a function of the length of the signal rather
than as a function of the velocity (and density) varia-
tion of the logs. However, our investigation indicates
that for logs sampled to provide an equal-traveltime
model, the usual criterion of avoiding aliasing of the
source waveform is inappropriate, Intuitively we feel
the finest sampling that is practical provides the most
accurate results; Fosters (1975) work seems to lead
to the same conclusion. For one of the wells we
analyzed, neither attenuation nor time delay changed
significantly when we decreased the sample interval
from 1.O to 0.5 msec. For that well, we conclude 1.O
msec equal-traveltime (two-way) layers are suffi-
ciently fine. For the other well, time delay increased
when the sample interval was changed from 1.0 to
0.5 msec. We conclude that a 1.0 msec interval is
inadequate. For both of these wells, the procedure
of Sherwood (1962) and of dErceville and Kunetz
(1963) would have allowed coarser sampling for
equivalent timing errors; unfortunately, with the
coarser sampling, attenuation effects would still be
underestimated.
Since we know the more complex sampling
scheme of Sherwood and of dErceville and Kunetz
reduces sensitivity to the size of the sample interval,
why dont we proposethat scheme be used routinely?
The problem is the following: sonic-log transit times
as recorded in the field are not absolute. Sonic logs
are corrected by forcing the integrated sonic-log
transit times to match traveltimes from a source at
or near the surface, i.e., check-shot times, as recorded
and Levin
with a geophone in the well. If the first arrival time
of the check-shot could be picked accurately, this
procedure would be consistent with the time-average
method used to obtain the velocities for our model.
However, a check-shot time really comes from a pulse
that includes multiple reflections and, hence, is de-
scribed by the stress-strainmethod of Sherwood and
dErceville and Kunetz. If check-shot corrected sonic
logs (which already account for multiples) were to be
used in the stress-strainvelocity calculations, the de-
lay due to multiples would be introduced a second
time The resultant synthetic seismograms would
have reflections arrivingtoo late. It would not be im-
possible to change sonic-log transit times in such a
way that would be consistent with check-shot
times, but as far as we know, no one does. Further-
more, prorating a correction among the individual
transit times would be difficult. Thus, the procedure
presently used to correct integrated transit time is in-
consistent and needs examination.
An intuitive notion for decreasing sensitivity to
sample interval involves smoothing the logs to pro-
vide antialias filtering. For reasonsdiscussedearlier,
smoothing increased the high-frequency content of
the seismograms and resulted in poorer synthetic
seismograms than those from the unsmoothed log.
time delays seemed to stabilize at larger sample inter-
vals for a smoothedlog, but stabilization did not occur
at the same values as for the unsmoothed logs; in
addition, attenuation stabilized at larger sample
intervals for unsmoothed logs. Nonlinear problems
can causestrangephenomena. Indeed, low-pass filter-
ing of the well logs resulted in increased high-
frequency content of the transmission response.
Our analysis was confined to the first 40 msec of a
wavetrain that persistedfor much longer. The 40 msec
examined represented our arbitrary distinction be-
tween what we chose to view as intrabed multiple
reflections and what we assignedto interbed multiple
reflections. It is possible that if we had included as
intrabed multiple reflections more of the wavetrain,
the results we report would need minor modification.
What is the significance of our investigation? For
geophysicistsusing 1-D synthetic seismograms, there
is a clear warning: what you compute can depend on
the interval at which you sample the sonic and density
logs, and, if your logs vary rapidly over short inter-
vals, will depend on the sample interval. For one of
the wells we analyzed, changing the sample interval
from 4 to 0.5 msec increased attenuation by 35 per-
cent and the time delay by 16.5 msec. Furthermore,
with the primary-reflections-only synthetic seismo-
grams which are commonly used, there is neither
 Effect of Subsurface Sampling 1827

attenuationnor time delay. These seismogramsdiffer
appreciably from finely sampled complete seismo-
grams.
The contribution of this paper may not be the trans-
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Benyman, L. H., Goupillaud,P. L., and Waters,K. H.,
1958, Reflectionsfrom multiple transition layers, I:
Geophysics, v. 23, p. 223-243.
dErceville, I., and Kunetz, G., 1%3, Sur linfluence dun
empilement de couches minces en sismique: Geophys.
Prosp., v. 11, p. 115-121.

mission phenomenaper se; we should not be surprised
if we have uncovered computationally interesting,
practically unimportant behavior. Of significance
may be our questioning of the validity of 1-D seismo-
grams of the type introduced by Wuenschel (1958,
1960) and Seriff (1958) more than twenty years ago.
They may not be as good a representation of field
data as we would like. The computations assume a
plane wave normally incident on plane, horizontal
interfaces separating beds of nonattenuating mate-
rials. None of these assumptionsis realized in prac-
tice. We have no feeling for how deviations from the
assumed system affect phenomena we have illus-
trated
REFERENCES
Backus,G. E., 1%2, Long-wave elastic anisotropy:J.
Geoph.Res., v. 67, p. 4427-4440.
Bennett,C. A., andFranklin,N. L., 1954,Statisticalanaly-
sis in chemistry and the chemical industry: New York,
JohnWiley and Sons,p. 228.
Foster, M., 1975, Transmission effects in the continuous
one-dimensional seismic model: Geophys. J. Roy. Astr.
Sot., v. 42, p. 519-527.
Levin, F. K., 1953, An analogue computer for studying
seismic reflection complexes: Proc., Geophys. Sot. of
Tulsa, v. 1, p. 70-71.
ODoherty, R. F., and Anstey, N. A., 1971, Reflections on
amplitudes: Geophys. Prosp., v. 19, p. 430-458.
Schoenberger, M., and Levin, F. K., 1974, Apparent at-
tenuation due to in&abed multiples: Geophysics, v. 39,
p. 278-291. U
- 1978, Apparent attenuation due to intrabed multi-
ples, II: Geophysics, v. 43, p. 730-737.
Seriff, A. J., 1958, Multiple reflections in many-layered
systems: Geophysics, v. 23, p. 1073.
Sherwood, J. W. C., 1%2, The Seismoline, an analog
computer of theoretical seismograms:Geophysics, v. 27,
p. 19-34.
Woods, J. P., 1975, A seismic model using sound waves
in air: Geophysics, v. 40, p. 593-607.
Wuenschel, P. C., 1958, Seismogram synthesiswith multi-
ples and transmission coefficients: Geophysics, v. 23,
p. 1073.
- 1960, Seismogram synthesis including multiples
and transmission coefficients: Geophysics, v. 25, p.
106-129.

APPENDIX A
COMPUTATION OF SYNTHETIC SEISMOGRAMS

The major advantageof Wuenschels (1958, 1960)

technique for computing 1-D synthetic seismograms nMo= -Pm2 R, Ri-1. (A- 2)
was equal-time sampling of logs measured in depth, i=l

a procedure that resulted in multiple reflections being 2nd-order intrabed response:

automatically included in the output. (The same tech-
nique was developed about the same time by Seriff. nM = P, (nM, + nMz),
Seriffs results are available only as an abstract of a
talk presented at the 1958 Annual International nM, = 2 RiRf_l$ RjRj-1, (A- 3)
SEG meeting.) To see just how remarkable an inno- i=l j=l

vation equal-time sampling was, let us look at ex- and

pressionsfor a few intrabed multiple-reflection com-
putations. To keep the expressionsas simple as pos- nM, = -2 RIRi-, (1 - RF-,).
sible, we will not consider the intrabed multiple 1=2
contributionsto a reflection but the multiple-reflection
contributionsto the impulse responseat the bottom of 3rd-order intrabed response:
an n-layered system. nM = P, (nM, + nMz + nM3),
Primary response:
nM, = - 2 RiRi_, 2 RJR*_, * (A-4)
i=l J=l
P, = fi (1 - Ri). (A- 1)
i=O

lst-order intrabed response:

2 RkRk-1,
k=j
 1828 Schoenberger and Levin

GENERATION
OFSYNTHETIC
SEISMOGRAM
nM, = 2 R,R,_, (1 - RF-,) .
i=2

$ RkRk-I + 2 R,R,-,
1 ,
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

k=i-1 k=l
SAMPLE DEPTH-TIME
CONVERSION
INTERVAL
AT
A

nM, = -f: RiRi_,(l - Rf-.J(l - Rf_!_,). I Zi VSi AT

i=3
REFLECTION
COEFFICIENT
The steps involved in the construction of a syn-
thetic seismogramare illustrated by the flow chart of
Figure A- 1. The startingpoint or input to this system
is its set of velocity and density logs. Velocity logs
(recorded as transit time per foot) and density logs are TRANSMISSION
RESPONSE
digitized uniformly at 1- or 2-ft depth intervals. Next,
(step A) transit times are summed until integral multi-
ples of the selected sampling rate AT are achieved;
then the depth interval required for AT transit time is
divided by AT to obtain an average velocity. In turn, SOURCE
WAVEFORM
this is multiplied by the average density to obtain the
average impedance for that AT layer.
SYNTHETIC
TRANSMITTED
Step B, obtaining reflection coefficients at inter-
faces, is a straightforward application of the formula
nonlinear in Z,, the acoustic impedance of layer i, FIG. A- 1. Generation of time-average synthetic seis-
mogram.
zi+l - zi
Ri = (A- 5)
zi+l + Zi

The transmissionresponsecalculation (step C), as (1960). The final stage (step D) of synthetic seismo-
discussed in the text, is also a nonlinear operation. gram generation is convolution of the impulse re-
Details of its constructionare contained in Wuenschel sponse from step C with a source waveform.

APPENDIX B
COMPARISON OF TIME-AVERAGE AND STRESS-STRAIN METHODS
FOR COMPUTING INTERVAL VELOCITIES
Sherwood (1962) and dErceville and Kunetz The velocity V, of the equal-transit time layer in-
(1%3) proposed a method for computing an equal- volves both the velocity Vi and density pi of the thin
traveltime model which is different from that which layers; i.e.,
we used. The same procedure is inherent in Backus
1 PC
(1%2) discussion of anisotropic media. Instead of -=_ p.
(B-2)
preserving the first-arrival traveltimes when combin- v: d i=l PiVf

ing many thin layers into one equal-transit time layer,

they preserve the stress-strainrelationship. This pro-
ceditre yields a density pc for the layer of thickness
d which is simply the averagedensity of the layer; i.e.,
pc=1 n (B-1)
d zIpidi
(dErceville and Kunetz assumed pi = p for all i.)
Sherwood noted that
The traveltime acrossthe equivalent homogeneous
bed is greater than the traveltime of the first arrival
transmitted across the continuously varying bed.
This is due to the fact that in estimating the prop-
 Effect of Subsurface Sampling 1829

erties of the equivalent homogeneous bed, we and

have essentially made allowance for the multiple
reflections that delay energy transmission across v;_ 1+2a+aZ=1+2a.
--
the inhomogeneousbed. V::
Downloaded 12/28/15 to 132.239.1.230. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

dErceville and Kunetz made the same point. That Therefore,

the traveltime is indeed greater follows directly from
Schwartzs inequality. The extent of this difference is
not obvious. If there is no density variation (pi = p for
(B-5)
all i), then
n
n x 7:
v:,_
-- i=l
G-3)
dErceville and Kunetz gave an equation equivalent
to equation (B-5) but expressed in reflection coeffi-
v: (2 Ti)2
cients and ratio of transit times. An extreme subsur-
i=l face would be one in which half of the traveltimes
where VP is the velocity of the tktarrival and 7i is were T and the other half were 27. In this case, the
the traveltime across the ith thin layer. Using fractional error would be
algebraic manipulation,

c-1
n2T2

1 2
=--. 1
a
-zz-
i=l j=* i=l VC 18
and
Even in this extreme case, the error is less than 6
l/2 i 5 (Ti - Tj) percent.
i=l j=1
1+ 03 -4) For well 2, which has both velocity and density
2 Ti variations, sampling at a 4-msec interval using equa-
( i=l > tion (B-2) resulted in a 12-msec increase in travel-
time through the well. Since the overall traveltime
for the original well is 2.0 set, this was a 0.6 percent
If the error in using VP instead of V, is (Y,
average increase.The traveltime for well 18 increased
v, = V,(l + a), by only 8 msec, for an average increaseof 0.4 percent.