1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 63, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 63 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The nonlinearity of the seismic amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset response is investigated with physical modelling data. Nonlinearity in amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset becomes important in the presence of large relative changes in acoustic and elastic medium properties. A procedure for pre‐processing physical modelling reflection data is enacted on the reflection from a water‐plexiglas boundary. The resulting picked and processed amplitudes are compared with the exact solutions of the plane‐wave Zoeppritz equations, as well as approximations that are first, second, and third order in , , and . In the low angle range of 0°–20°, the third‐order plane‐wave approximation is sufficient to capture the nonlinearity of the amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset response of a liquid‐solid boundary with , , and ρ contrasts of 1485–2745 m/s, 0–1380 m/s, and 1.00–1.19 gm/cc respectively, to an accuracy value of roughly 1%. This is in contrast to the linear Aki–Richards approximation, which is in error by as much as 25% in the same angle range. Even‐order nonlinear corrective terms are observed to be primarily involved in correcting the angle dependence of , whereas the odd‐order nonlinear terms are involved in determining the absolute amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset magnitudes.

Copyright © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12169
2014-10-14
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12169
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.2002. Quantitative seismology. University Science Books, 2nd edn.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BulandA. and OmreH.2003. Bayesian linearized AVO inversion. Geophysics68, 185–198.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. CastagnaJ.P. and BackusM.1993. Offset‐dependent reflectivity: Theory and practice of AVO analysis. SEG.
  4. CooperJ.K., LawtonD.C. and MargraveG.F.2010. The wedge model revisited: a physical modelling experiment. Geophysics75, T15–T21.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. FosterD.J., KeysR.G. and LaneF.D.2010. Intepretation of AVO anomalies. Geophysics75, 75A3–75A13.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. InnanenK.A.2011. Inversion of the seismic AVF/AVA signatures of highly attenuative targets. Geophysics76, R1–R11.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. InnanenK.A.2013. Coupling in amplitude variation with offset and the Wiggins approximation. Geophysics78, N21–N33.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. KeysR.G.1989. Polarity reversals in reflections from layered media. Geophysics54, 900–905.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. MahmoudianF., WongJ. and MargraveG.F.2012. Azimuthal AVO over a simulated fractured medium: a physical modelling experiment. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts31, 1–5. doi: 10.1190/segam2012-0914.1
     [Google Scholar]
  10. RussellB.R., GrayD. and HampsonD.P.2011. Linearized AVO and poroelasticity. Geophysics76, C19–C29.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. SlopintsevaL., AyzenburgM., LandroM., NefedkinaT. and AizenbergA.M.2011. Long‐offset AVO inversion of PP reflections from plane interfaces using effective reflection coefficients. Geophysics76, C65–C79.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. SprattR.S., GoinsN.R. and FitchT.J.1993. Pseudo‐shear— The analysis of AVO. In: Offset dependent reflectivity Theory and practice of AVO analysis (eds J.P.Castagna and M.M.Backus ), SEG Geophysical Investigation in Geophysics Series.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. StovasA. and UrsinB.2001. Second‐order approximations of the reflection and transmission coefficients between two viscoelastic isotropic media. Journal of Seismic Exploration9, 223–233.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. WangY.1999. Approximations to the Zoeppritz equations and their use in AVO analysis. Geophysics64, 1920–1927.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. WongJ., HallK.W., GallantE.V., MaierR., BertramM. and LawtonD.C.2009. Seismic physical modelling at the University of Calgary. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2642–2646. doi: 10.1190/1.3255395
     [Google Scholar]
  16. ZhangH. and WegleinA.B.2009. Direct nonlinear inversion of multiparameter 1D elastic media using the inverse scattering series. Geophysics74, WCD15–WCD27.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12169
Loading
Characterizing the degree of amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset nonlinearity in seismic physical modelling reflection data
Geophysical Prospecting 63, 133 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12169
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12169
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12169
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error