1887
Volume 49 Number 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

The seminal 1954 paper by J.G. Hagedoorn introduced a heuristic for seismic reflector imaging. That heuristic was a construction technique – a ‘string construction’ or ‘ruler and compass’ method – for finding reflectors as an envelope of equal traveltime curves defined by events on a seismic trace. Later, Kirchhoff migration was developed. This method is based on an integral representation of the solution of the wave equation. For decades Kirchhoff migration has been one of the most popular methods for imaging seismic data. Parallel with the development of Kirchhoff wave‐equation migration has been that of Kirchhoff inversion, which has as its objectives both structural imaging and the recovery of angle‐dependent reflection coefficients. The relationship between Kirchhoff migration/inversion and Hagedoorn's constructive technique has only recently been explored. This paper addresses this relationship, presenting the mathematical structure that the Kirchhoff approach adds to Hagedoorn's constructive method and showing the relationship between the two.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00290.x
2008-07-07
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BeylkinG.1985. Imaging of discontinuities in the inverse scattering problem by the inversion of a causal Radon transform. Journal of Mathematical Physics26, 99–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BleisteinN.1987a. On the imaging of reflectors in the earth. Geophysics52, 931–942.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BleisteinN.1987b. Kirchhoff inversion for reflector imaging and soundspeed and density variations. In: Proceedings of the First Joint EAEG/SEG Workshop on Deconvolution and Inversion . Rome, Italy, 1986. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
  4. BleisteinN.1999. Hagedoorn told us how to do Kirchhoff migration and inversion. The Leading Edge18, 918–927.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BleisteinN., CohenJ.K., StockwellJ.W., Jr.2001. Mathematics of Multidimensional Seismic Imaging, Migration and Inversion . Springer‐Verlag, Inc.
  6. BleisteinN. & JaramilloH.2000. A platform for data mapping in scalar models of data acquisition. Geophysical Prospecting48, 135–161.DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2478.2000.00178.x
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ČervenýV.2001. Seismic Ray Theory . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  8. DellingerJ.A., GrayS.H., MurphyG.E., EtgenJ.T.2000. Efficient 2.5D true‐amplitude migration. Geophysics65, 943–950.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DochertyP.1991. A brief comparison of some Kirchhoff integral formulas for migration and inversion. Geophysics56, 1164–1169.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DochertyP., ArtleyC., PlumleeM., SullivanM., WindelsR.2000. Tomographic migration and velocity analysis in 3D. 70th SEG meeting, Calgary, Canada, Expanded Abstracts, 938–941.
  11. GrayS.H.1992. Frequency‐selective design of the Kirchhoff migration operator. Geophysical Prospecting40, 565–572.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. GrayS.H.1997. True‐amplitude seismic migration: a comparison of three approaches. Geophysics62, 929–936.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. HagedoornJ.G.1954. A process of seismic reflection interpretation. Geophysical Prospecting2, 85–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. HanitzschC.1995. Amplitude preserving prestack Kirchhoff depth migration/inversion in laterally inhomogeneous media . PhD dissertation, University of Karlsruhe.
  15. HanitzschC.1997. Comparison of weights in prestack amplitude‐preserving Kirchhoff depth migration. Geophysics62, 1812–1816.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. De HoopM.V.1998. Asymptotic inversion: multipathing and caustics. 68th SEG meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1534–1537.
  17. JakubowiczH. & LevinS.1983. A simple exact method of three‐dimensional migration – theory. Geophysical Prospecting31, 34–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. JaramilloH. & BleisteinN.1999. The link of Kirchhoff migration and demigration to Kirchhoff and Born modeling. Geophysics64, 1793–1805.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. LumleyD.E., ClaerboutJ.F., BevcD.1994. Anti‐aliased Kirchhoff 3D migration. 64th SEG meeting, Los Angeles, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1282–1285.
  20. MillerN., OristaglioM., BeylkinG.1987. A new slant on the seismic imaging: migration and integral geometry. Geophysics52, 943–964.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. SchneiderW.A.1978. Integral formulation for migration in two and three dimensions. Geophysics43, 49–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. SheafferS.1999. 2.5D downward continuation of the seismic wavefield using Kirchhoff data mapping. MSc thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Center for Wave Phenomena Research Report number CWP‐326.
  23. ThierryP., LambaréG., XuS.1999. 3D common diffracting angle migration/inversion for AVA analysis. 69th SEG meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 844–847.
  24. ZhangY., GrayS.H., YoungJ.2001. True‐amplitude common‐offset, common‐azimuth v(z) migration. 63rd EAGE conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Expanded Abstracts, P066.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00290.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00290.x
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