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

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Full‐waveform inversion is re‐emerging as a powerful data‐fitting procedure for quantitative seismic imaging of the subsurface from wide‐azimuth seismic data. This method is suitable to build high‐resolution velocity models provided that the targeted area is sampled by both diving waves and reflected waves. However, the conventional formulation of full‐waveform inversion prevents the reconstruction of the small wavenumber components of the velocity model when the subsurface is sampled by reflected waves only. This typically occurs as the depth becomes significant with respect to the length of the receiver array. This study first aims to highlight the limits of the conventional form of full‐waveform inversion when applied to seismic reflection data, through a simple canonical example of seismic imaging and to propose a new inversion workflow that overcomes these limitations. The governing idea is to decompose the subsurface model as a background part, which we seek to update and a singular part that corresponds to some prior knowledge of the reflectivity. Forcing this scale uncoupling in the full‐waveform inversion formalism brings out the transmitted wavepaths that connect the sources and receivers to the reflectors in the sensitivity kernel of the full‐waveform inversion, which is otherwise dominated by the migration impulse responses formed by the correlation of the downgoing direct wavefields coming from the shot and receiver positions. This transmission regime makes full‐waveform inversion amenable to the update of the long‐to‐intermediate wavelengths of the background model from the wide scattering‐angle information. However, we show that this prior knowledge of the reflectivity does not prevent the use of a suitable misfit measurement based on cross‐correlation, to avoid cycle‐skipping issues as well as a suitable inversion domain as the pseudo‐depth domain that allows us to preserve the invariant property of the zero‐offset time. This latter feature is useful to avoid updating the reflectivity information at each non‐linear iteration of the full‐waveform inversion, hence considerably reducing the computational cost of the entire workflow. Prior information of the reflectivity in the full‐waveform inversion formalism, a robust misfit function that prevents cycle‐skipping issues and a suitable inversion domain that preserves the seismic invariant are the three key ingredients that should ensure well‐posedness and computational efficiency of full‐waveform inversion algorithms for seismic reflection data.

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

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12190
2014-11-11
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12190
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlkhalifahT., FomelS., and BiondiB.2001. The space‐time domain: theory and modelling for anisotropic media. Geophysical Journal International144, 105–113.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AlmominA. and BiondiB.2012. Tomographic full waveform inversion: Practical and computationally feasible approach. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts500, 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BiondiB. and AlmominA.2012. Tomographic full waveform inversion (TFWI) by combining full waveform inversion with wave‐equation migration velocity analysis. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 547, 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ByrdR. H., LuP. and NocedalJ.1995. A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing16, 1190–1208.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. ChaventG., ClémentF. and GòmezS.1994. Automatic determination of velocities via migration‐based traveltime waveform inversion: A synthetic data example. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts328, 1179–1182.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DevaneyA. J.1982. A filtered backprojection algorithm for diffraction tomography. Ultrasonic Imaging4, 336–350.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. FayeJ. P. and JeannotJ. P.1986. Prestack migration velocities from focusing depth analysis. SEG Expanded Abstracts, 438–440.
  8. HaleD.2012. Dynamic warping of seismic images. CWP Report, 723.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. HaleD.2013. Dynamic warping of seismic images. Geophysics78(2), S105–S115.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. JannaneM., BeydounW., CraseE., CaoD., KorenZ., Landa, E.et al., 1989. Wavelengths of Earth structures that can be resolved from seismic reflection data. Geophysics54(7), 906–910.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. LaillyP.1983. The seismic inverse problem as a sequence of before stack migrations. In: Conference on Inverse Scattering, Theory and application, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, (Philadelphia, eds by R.Bednar and Weglein) , pp. 206–220.
  12. LandaE., BeydounW. and TarantolaA.1989. Reference velocity estimation from prestack waveforms: coherency optimization by simulated annealing. Geophysics54, 984–990.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. LuoY. and SchusterG. T.1991. Wave‐equation travel time tomography. Geophysics56, 645–653.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. MaX. and AlkhalifahT.2011. Wavefield extrapolation in the pseudo‐depth domain.Expanded Abstracts, 73 EAGE Annual meeting, p. A014 .
  15. PageotD., OpertoS., ValléeM., BrossierR. and VirieuxJ.2013. A parametric analysis of two‐dimensional elastic full waveform inversion of teleseismic data for lithospheric imaging. Geophysical Journal International193(3), 1479–1505.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. PlessixR. E., MilcikP., CorcoranC., KuehlH. and MatsonK.2012. Full waveform inversion with a pseudotime approach. Expanded Abstracts, 74 EAGE Annual meeting, p. W012.
  17. PlessixR. E., 2006. A review of the adjoint‐state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications. Geophysical Journal International167(2), 495–503.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. PrattR. G. and WorthingtonM. H.1990. Inverse theory applied to multi‐source cross‐hole tomography. Part I: acoustic wave‐equation method. Geophysical Prospecting38, 287–310.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. PrieuxV., BrossierR., GholamiY., OpertoS., VirieuxJ., BarkvedO.I. and KommedalJ.H.2011. On the footprint of anisotropy on isotropic full waveform inversion: the Valhall case study. Geophysical Journal International187, 1495–1515.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. RouthP., KrebsJ., LazaratosS., BaumsteinA., LeeS., ChaY. H.et al., 2011. Encoded simultaneous source full‐wavefield inversion for spectrally shaped marine streamer data. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts30(1), 2433–2438.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. SavaP. and BiondiB.2004. Wave‐equation migration velocity analysis. I Theory. Geophysical Prospecting52(6), 593–606.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. SavaP. and FomelS.2006. Time‐shift imaging condition in seismic migration. Geophysics71(6), S209–S217.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. SniederR., XieM. Y., PicaA. and TarantolaA.1989. Retrieving both the impedance contrast and background velocity: a global strategy for the seismic reflection problem. Geophysics54(8), 991–1000.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. SunD. and SymesW. W.2012. Waveform inversion via non‐linear differential semblance optimization. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, pp. 1–7.
  25. SymesW. W. and CarazzoneJ. J.1991. Velocity inversion by differential semblance optimization. Geophysics, 56, 654–663.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. TarantolaA.1984. Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics49(8), 1259–1266.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. TrompJ., TapeC. and LiuQ.2005. Seismic tomography, adjoint methods, time reversal and banana‐doughnut kernels. Geophysical Journal International160, 195–216.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. van LeeuwenT. and MulderW.A.2008. Velocity analysis based on data correlation. Geophysical Prospecting56(6), 791–803.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. van LeeuwenT. and MulderW. A.2010. A correlation‐based misfit criterion for wave‐equation traveltime tomography. Geophysical Journal International182(3), 1383–1394.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. VirieuxJ. and OpertoS.2009. An overview of full waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics74(6), WCC1–WCC26.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. WoodwardM. J.1992. Wave‐equation tomography. Geophysics57, 15–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. WuR. S. and ToksözM. N.1987. Diffraction tomography and multisource holography applied to seismic imaging. Geophysics52, 11–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. XuS., WangD., ChenF., LambaréG. and ZhangY.2012. Inversion on reflected seismic wave. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts509, 1–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. YangT. and SavaP.2011. Wave‐equation migration velocity analysis with time‐shift imaging. Geophysical Prospecting59(4), 635–650.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. ZhouZ., HowardM. and MifflinC.2011. Use of RTM full 3D subsurface angle gathers for subsalt velocity update and image optimization: Case study at Shenzi field. Geophysics76(5), WB27–WB39.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12190
Loading
Velocity model building from seismic reflection data by full‐waveform inversion
Geophysical Prospecting 63, 354 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12190
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12190
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12190
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Data processing; Full‐waveform inversion; Velocity analysis

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