1887
Volume 53, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

Full waveform inversion (FWI) plays a major role in the oil and gas industry as a state-of-the-art technique that produces quantitative subsurface structures with high-fidelity images. Various FWI studies have been conducted, and these suggest that FWI is a promising inversion method. Recently, many attempts have been made toward three-dimensional (3D) and four-dimensional FWI applications (which were difficult to perform in the past) because of the progress made in computer science and the growth of computer resources. To manage the very large data requirement of 3D problems, a time-domain FWI that is relatively efficient in terms of memory demands must be implemented. However, it could encounter practical issues, leading to failure in its convergence. In this paper, we introduce these practical issues and several alternative methods for mitigating them. The first issue is the bandpass filtering of the observed seismograms. We suggest that the frequency-domain filter based on a reference wavelet would be optimal in terms of both bandpass filtering and source wavelet estimation. The second issue is related to acoustic approximation. We show that a simple density model comprising only water and solid layers is a reasonable option to address seafloor reflectivity properly. The last issue is the accumulation of round-off errors due to the massive computation of the objective function. We demonstrate that a simple modification of the error calculation can resolve this round-off error problem.

© 2021 Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2021.1900724
2022-03-04
2026-01-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2021.1900724
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amundsen, L.1993. Estimation of source array signatures. Geophysics58 no. 12: 1865–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Borisov, D., S.C.Singh, and N.Fuji. 2015. An efficient method of 3-D elastic full waveform inversion using a finite-difference injection method for time-lapse imaging. Geophysical Journal International202 no. 3: 1908–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bunks, C., F.M.Saleck, S.Zaleski, and G.Chavent. 1995. Multiscale seismic waveform inversion. Geophysics60 no. 5: 1457–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Cohen, J.K., and J.W.Stockwell. 2019. CWP/SU: Seismic Un*x package. Release No. 44: An open source software package for seismic research and processing, Center for Wave Phenomena, Colorado School of Mines.
  5. Datta, D., M.K.Sen, M.Ojha, and K.Sain. 2015. Effect of density on acoustic full waveform inversion over hydrate bearing zone in offshore India. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1399–1403.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Dondurur, D.2018. Acquisition and processing of marine seismic data. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  7. Dragoset, B.2000. Introduction to air guns and air-gun arrays. The Leading Edge19 no. 8: 892–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Gardner, G.H.F., L.W.Gardner, and A.R.Gregory. 1974. Formation velocity and density—The diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics39 no. 6: 770–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Gholami, Y., R.Brossier, S.Operto, A.Ribodetti, and J.Virieux. 2013. Which parameterization is suitable for acoustic vertical transverse isotropic full waveform inversion? part 1: Sensitivity and trade-off analysis. Geophysics78 no. 2: R81–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Golub, G.H., and V.Pereyra. 1973. The differentiation of pseudo-inverses and nonlinear least squares problems whose variables separate. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis10 no. 2: 413–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Guitton, A., and T.Alkhalifah. 2017. A parameterization study for elastic VTI full-waveform inversion of hydrophone components: Synthetic and North Sea field data examples. Geophysics82 no. 6: R299–308.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hargreaves, N.1984. Far-field signatures by wave field extrapolation. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 290–1.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Jeong, W., and D.J.Min. 2012. Application of acoustic full waveform inversion for density estimation. SEG annual Meeting.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Jones, I.F.2019. Tutorial: the mechanics of waveform inversion. First Break37 no. 5: 31–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Kim, W.K., and D.J.Min. 2014. A new parameterization for frequency-domain elastic full waveform inversion for VTI media. Journal of Applied Geophysics109: 88–110.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Kim, Y., Y.Cho, and C.Shin. 2013. Estimated source wavelet-incorporated reverse-time migration with a virtual source imaging condition. Geophysical Prospecting61: 317–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Krebs, J.R., J.E.Anderson, D.Hinkley, R.Neelamani, S.Lee, A.Baumstein, and M.D.Lacasse. 2009. Fast full-wavefield seismic inversion using encoded sources. Geophysics74 no. 6: WCC177–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Landrø, M., and R.Sollie. 1992. Source signature determination by inversion. Geophysics57 no. 12: 1633–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Landrø, M., S.Strandenes, and S.Vaage. 1991. Use of near-field measurements to compute far-field marine source signatures - evaluation of the method. First Break9 no. 8: 375–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee, H.Y., S.C.Lim, D.J.Min, B.D.Kwon, and M.Park. 2009. 2D time-domain acoustic-elastic coupled modeling: A cell-based finite-difference method. Geosciences Journal13 no. 4: 407–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Martin, G.S., K.J.Marfurt, and S.Larsen. 2002. Marmousi-2: An updated model for the investigation of AVO in structurally complex areas. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1979–1982.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Min, D.J., C.Shin, and H.S.Yoo. 2004. Free-surface boundary condition in finite-difference elastic wave modeling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94 no. 1: 237–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Mulder, W., and R.Plessix. 2008. Exploring some issues in acoustic full waveform inversion. Geophysical Prospecting56 no. 6: 827–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Oh, J.W., and T.Alkhalifah. 2016. Elastic orthorhombic anisotropic parameter inversion: An analysis of parameterization. Geophysics81 no. 6: C279–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Operto, S., Y.Gholami, V.Prieux, A.Ribodetti, R.Brossier, L.Metivier, and J.Virieux. 2013. A guided tour of multiparameter full-waveform inversion with multicomponent data: From theory to practice. The Leading Edge32 no. 9: 1040–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Park, Y., and S.Pyun. 2015. Source wavelet estimation using common mid-point gathers. Geosystem Engineering18 no. 4: 199–204.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Przebindowska, A., A.Kurzmann, D.Köhn, and T.Bohlen. 2012. The role of density in acoustic full waveform inversion of marine reflection seismics. 74th EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating EUROPEC 2012. cp-293.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Raknes, E.B., and W.Weibull. 2016. Efficient 3D elastic full-waveform inversion using wavefield reconstruction methods. Geophysics81 no. 2: R45–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Ratcliffe, A., C.Win, V.Vinje, G.Conroy, M.Warner, A.Umpleby, I.Steki, T.Nangoo, and A.Bertrand. 2011. Full waveform inversion: A North Sea OBC case study. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2384–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Rickett, J.2013. The variable projection method for waveform inversion with an unknown source function. Geophysical Prospecting61 no. 4: 874–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Shin, C., S.Pyun, and J.B.Bednar. 2007. Comparison of waveform inversion, part 1: Conventional wavefield vs logarithmic wavefield. Geophysical Prospecting55 no. 4: 449–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Symes, W.W.2007. Reverse time migration with optimal checkpointing. Geophysics72 no. 5: SM213–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Tarantola, A.1984. Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics49 no. 8: 1259–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Vigh, D., and E.W.Starr. 2008. Comparisons for waveform inversion, time domain or frequency domain?SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1890–4.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Virieux, J., and S.Operto. 2009. An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics74 no. 6: WCC1–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Virieux, J., S.Operto, H.Ben-Hadj-Ali, R.Brossier, V.Etienne, F.Sourbier, L.Giraud, and A.Haidar. 2009. Seismic wave modeling for seismic imaging. The Leading Edge28 no. 5: 538–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, Z.Y., J.P.Huang, D.J.Liu, C.Z.Li, P.Yong, and Z.J.Yang. 2019. 3D variable-grid full-waveform inversion on GPU. Petroleum Science16 no. 5: 1001–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Warner, M., A.Ratcliffe, T.Nangoo, J.Morgan, A.Umpleby, N.Shah, V.Vinje, et al.2013. Anisotropic 3D full-waveform inversion. Geophysics78 no. 2: R59–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Yilmaz, Ö.2001. Seismic data processing. Tulsa: SEG.
  40. Yoon, K., S.Suh, J.Cai, and B.Wang. 2012. Improvements in time domain FWI and its applications. SEG Technical Program Expanded abstracts.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2021.1900724
Loading
Practical considerations in the implementation of time-domain acoustic full waveform inversion
Exploration Geophysics 53, 126 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1080/08123985.2021.1900724
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2021.1900724
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2021.1900724
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): acoustic approximation; practical issues; round-off error; source estimation; Time-domain full waveform inversion

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