Nonuniform optimal sampling (NOS)

Part 8, Compressed sensing & modern methods

Learning objectives

  • Explain why regular sub-Nyquist sampling aliases coherently
  • Contrast with jittered sampling’s incoherent alias spectrum
  • Quote typical jitter amplitude (40-60% of nominal spacing)
  • Recognise NOS as the acquisition-side prerequisite for CS processing

Compressed sensing (§8.1) only delivers its cost savings if the subsampling is INCOHERENT. A regular sub-Nyquist sampling pattern has sharp spectral peaks at 1/dx in wavenumber, aliased energy deposits onto coherent lines that an L1 solver cannot tell apart from true signal. A randomly jittered subsample has a broad white spectrum; aliased energy scatters as incoherent noise, which L1 treats as an outlier to be removed.

Nodal seabed acquisitionNOS: nodal ocean-bottom sensorsuntethered, ROV-deployed, recovered after weeksEach node records continuously, has its own clock + battery → no cabling

Sampling-operator spectrum

For a 1D station pattern x₁, x₂, …, x_M, the wavenumber spectrum |S(k)|² is the squared magnitude of ∑ e^(-ikx_j). A periodic set gives sharp delta-like peaks at k = 2πn/dx; a random set gives a flat pedestal with peaks only at k = 0. Jittering each station by ≈ 40-60% of the nominal spacing converts the first to the second.

Jitter amplitude sweet spot

Too little jitter (< 20% of spacing) and the spectrum still has coherent peaks, L1 recovery fails at the peak wavenumbers. Too much jitter (> 80%) and neighbouring samples overlap and add little new information. Industry rule of thumb: ≈50% jitter. The widget’s spectrum panel shows the transition visually.

Real-world NOS deployments

Mobil-Delaware NOS land survey (Mosher et al., 2014), 60% shot reduction with equal image quality. Shell marine nodal NOS (Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, multiple programmes 2015-2022), up to 75% shot reduction. BG Egypt offshore programmes also use NOS geometries. The common theme: crew-day savings dominate the extra processing cost by 5-10×.

References

  • Berkhout, A. J. (2008). Changing the mindset in seismic data acquisition. The Leading Edge, 27(7), 924-938.
  • Vermeer, G. J. O. (2012). 3D Seismic Survey Design (2nd ed.). SEG.
  • Mahdad, A., Doulgeris, P., Blacquière, G. (2011). Separation of blended data by iterative estimation and subtraction of blending interference noise. Geophysics, 76(3), Q9-Q17.

This page is prerendered for SEO and accessibility. The interactive widgets above hydrate on JavaScript load.