1887
Volume 62, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Reflections in seismic data induce serious non‐linearity in the objective function of full‐ waveform inversion. Thus, without a good initial velocity model that can produce reflections within a half cycle of the frequency used in the inversion, convergence to a solution becomes difficult. As a result, we tend to invert for refracted events and damp reflections in data. Reflection induced non‐linearity stems from cycle skipping between the imprint of the true model in observed data and the predicted model in synthesized data. Inverting for the phase of the model allows us to address this problem by avoiding the source of non‐linearity, the phase wrapping phenomena. Most of the information related to the location (or depths) of interfaces is embedded in the phase component of a model, mainly influenced by the background model, while the velocity‐contrast information (responsible for the reflection energy) is mainly embedded in the amplitude component. In combination with unwrapping the phase of data, which mitigates the non‐linearity introduced by the source function, I develop a framework to invert for the unwrapped phase of a model, represented by the instantaneous depth, using the unwrapped phase of the data. The resulting gradient function provides a mechanism to non‐linearly update the velocity model by applying mainly phase shifts to the model. In using the instantaneous depth as a model parameter, we keep track of the model properties unfazed by the wrapping phenomena.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12089
2013-12-06
2024-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlkhalifahT. and ChoiY.2012. Heeding the waveform inversion nonlinearity by unwrapping the model and data. 74th EAGE Conference, 99–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BednarJ.B. and PyunS.2007. Comparison of waveform inversion, part 2: Phase approach. Geophysical Prospecting55, 465–475.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BeydounW.B. and TarantolaA.1988. First Born and Rytov approximations: Modeling and inversion conditions in a canonical example. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America83.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ChoiY. and AlkhalifahT.2011. Frequency‐domain waveform inversion using the unwrapped phase. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts30, 2576–2580.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. EllefsenK.J.2009. A comparison of phase inversion and traveltime tomography for processing near‐surface refraction traveltimes. Geophysics74, WCB11–WCB24.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. FomelS.2007. Local seismic attributes. Geophysics72, A29–A33.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. GrzegorczykT.M., MeaneyP.M., JeonS.I., GeimerS.D. and PaulsenK.D.2011. Importance of phase unwrapping for the reconstruction of microwave tomographic images. Biomedical Optics Express2, 315–330.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. KimW. and ShinC.2005. Phase inversion of seismic data with unknown source wavelet: Synthetic examples. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts24, 1685–1688.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. ShatiloA.P.1992. Seismic phase unwrapping: Methods, results, problems. Geophysical Prospecting40, 211–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ShinC. and MinD.‐J.2006. Waveform inversion using a logarithmic wavefield. Geophysics71, R31–R42.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. StoffaP.L., BuhlP. and BryanG.M.1974. The application of homomorphic deconvolution to shallow‐water marine seismology ‒ Part i. Models. Geophysics39, 401–416.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12089
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12089
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