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

Least squares Fourier reconstruction is basically a solution to a discrete linear inverse problem that attempts to recover the Fourier spectrum of the seismic wavefield from irregularly sampled data along the spatial coordinates. The estimated Fourier coefficients are then used to reconstruct the data in a regular grid via a standard inverse Fourier transform (inverse discrete Fourier transform or inverse fast Fourier transform).

Unfortunately, this kind of inverse problem is usually under‐determined and ill‐conditioned. For this reason, the least squares Fourier reconstruction with minimum norm adopts a damped least squares inversion to retrieve a unique and stable solution.

In this work, we show how the damping can introduce artefacts on the reconstructed 3D data. To quantitatively describe this issue, we introduce the concept of “extended” model resolution matrix, and we formulate the reconstruction problem as an appraisal problem. Through the simultaneous analysis of the extended model resolution matrix and of the noise term, we discuss the limits of the Fourier reconstruction with minimum norm reconstruction and assess the validity of the reconstructed data and the possible bias introduced by the inversion process. Also, we can guide the parameterization of the forward problem to minimize the occurrence of unwanted artefacts. A simple synthetic example and real data from a 3D marine common shot gather are used to discuss our approach and to show the results of Fourier reconstruction with minimum norm reconstruction.

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

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12192
2014-10-30
2024-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12192
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AaronP., BarnesS., SchonewilleM. and van BorselenR.2007. Data regularization for 3D SRME: a comparison of methods. 77th SEG meeting, San Antonio, Texas, Expanded Abstracts, 1987–1991.
  2. AbmaR. and KabirN.2005. Comparisons of interpolation methods. The Leading Edge24, 984–989.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. AsterR.C., BorchersB. and ThurberC.2005. Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems. Academic Press. ISBN 9780123850485.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BagainiC. and SpagnoliniU.1996. 2D continuation operators and their applications. Geophysics61, 1846–1858.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BerkhoutA.J. and VerschuurD.J.2006. Imaging of multiple reflections. Geophysics71, SI209–SI220.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. CanningA. and GardnerG.1996. Regularizing 3D data sets with DMO. Geophysics61, 1103–1114.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. CheminguiN. and BiondiB.2002. Seismic data reconstruction by inversion to common offset. Geophysics67, 1575–1585.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. ClaerboutJ.F. and NicholsD.1991. Interpolation beyond aliasing by (tau, x) domain PEFs. 53rd EAGE meeting, Florence, Italy, Expanded Abstract, 2–3.
  9. DongS. and SchusterG.T.2008. Interferometric extrapolation of OBS and SSP data. 78th SEG meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, Expanded Abstracts, 3013–3017.
  10. DowntonJ., DurraniB., HuntL., HadleyS. and HadleyM.2008. 5D Interpolation, PSTM and AVO Inversion. 78th SEG meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, Expanded Abstracts, 237–241.
  11. DowntonJ., HuntL., TradD., ReynoldsS. and HadleyS.2012. 5D interpolation to improve AVO and AVAz: a quantitative case history. Canadian Journal of Exploration Geophysics37, 8–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. DuijndamA.J.W., SchonewilleM.A. and HindriksC.O.H.1999. Reconstruction of band‐limited signals, irregularly sampled along one spatial direction. Geophysics64, 524–538.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. FomelS.2003. Seismic reflection data interpolation with differential offset and shot continuation. Geophysics68, 733–744.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. GardnerG. and CanningA.1994. Effects of irregular sampling on 3D prestack migration. 64th SEG meeting, Los Angeles, California, Expanded Abstracts, 1553–1556.
  15. GulunayN.2003. Seismic trace interpolation in the Fourier transform domain. Geophysics68, 355–369.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. HanafyS.M.2011. 3D Interferometric Extrapolation of SSP Marine Data. 73th EAGE meeting, Vienna, Austria, Expanded Abstracts, P375.
  17. HansenP.C.1998. Rank‐Deficient and Discrete Ill‐Posed Problems. Siam. ISBN 9780898714036.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. HennenfentG. and HerrmannF.J.2005. Sparseness‐constrained data continuation with frames: applications to missing traces and aliased signals in 2/3‐D. 75th SEG meeting, Houston, Texas, Expanded Abstracts, 2162–2165.
  19. HerrmannF.J. and HennenfentG.2008. Non‐parametric seismic data recovery with curvelet frames. Geophysical Journal International173, 233–248.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. HindriksC.O.H., DuijndamA.J.W. and SchonewilleA.1997. Reconstruction of two‐dimensional irregularly sampled wavefields. 67th SEG meeting, Dallas, Texas, Expanded Abstracts, 1163–1166.
  21. HindriksC.O.H. and DuijndamA.J.W.2000. Reconstruction of 3‐D seismic signals irregularly sampled along two spatial coordinates. Geophysics65, 253–263.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. HugonnetP. and CanadasG.1997. Regridding of irregular data using 3D Radon decompositions. 67th SEG meeting, Dallas, Texas, Expanded Abstracts, 1111–1114.
  23. JinS.2010. 5D seismic data regularization by a damped least‐norm Fourier inversion. Geophysics75, WB103–WB111.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. KabirM.M.N. and VerschuurD.J.1995. Restoration of missing offsets by parabolic radon transform. Geophysical Prospecting43, 347–368.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. KustowskiB.2010. Regularization of spatially aliased seismic wavefield using the Pyramid transform: a new insight. 80th SEG meeting, Denver, Colorado, Expanded Abstracts, 3574–3578.
  26. LiuB. and SacchiM.D.2004. Minimum weighted norm interpolation of seismic records. Geophysics69, 1560–1568.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. LiuY., LiuC., WangD., FengX. and LuQ.2012. Iterative seismic data interpolation beyond aliasing using seislet transform. 74th EAGE meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, Expanded Abstracts, P042.
  28. LuL.1985. Application of local slant stack to trace interpolation. 55th SEG meeting, Washington D.C., Expanded Abstracts, 235–238.
  29. MalcolmA.E., De HoopM.V. and Le RousseauJ.V.2005. The applicability of dip moveout/azimuth moveout in the presence of caustics. Geophysics70, S1–S17.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. MazzucchelliP., RoccaF., SpagnoliniU. and SpitzS.1998. Wavefield interpolation: continuation or prediction filter techniques? 60th EAGE meeting, Leipzig, Germany, Expanded Abstracts, 2–51.
  31. MazzucchelliP. and RoccaF.1999. Regularizing land acquisitions using shot continuation operators: effects on amplitudes. 69th SEG meeting, Houston, Texas, Expanded Abstracts, 1995–1998.
  32. NaghizadehM. and InnanenK.A.2011. Seismic data interpolation using a fast generalized Fourier transform. Geophysics76, V1–V10.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. ÖzbekA., ÖzdemirA.K. and VassalloM.2009. Interpolation by matching pursuit. 79th SEG meeting, Houston, Texas, Expanded Abstracts, 3254–3275.
  34. ÖzdemirA.K., ÖzbekA. and VassalloM.2008. Interpolation of irregularly sampled data by matching pursuit. 70th EAGE meeting, Rome, Italy, Expanded Abstracts, G025.
  35. PetersonD.P. and MiddletonD.1962. Sampling and reconstruction of wave‐number limited functions in n‐dimensional Euclidean Spaces. Information and Control5, 279–323.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. RouthP.S. and MillerC.R.2006. Image interpretation using Appraisal analysis. 21st SAGEEP meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Expanded Abstract, 1812–1820.
  37. SacchiM.D. and UlrychT.1996. Estimation of the discrete Fourier transform, a linear inversion approach. Geophysics61, 1128–1136.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. SacchiM.D. and LiuB.2005. Minimum weighted norm wavefield reconstruction for AVA imaging. Geophysical Prospecting53, 787–801.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. ScalesJ.A. and SniederR.2000. The anatomy of inverse problem. Geophysics65(6), 1708–1710.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. SchonewilleM.A. and DuijndamA.J.W.1998. Efficient non‐uniform Fourier and Radon filtering and reconstruction. 68th SEG meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, Expanded Abstracts, 1692–1695.
  41. SchonewilleM.A.2000. Fourier reconstruction of irregularly sampled seismic data. PhD dissertation, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
  42. SchonewilleM.A.2003. A modeling study on seismic data regularization for time‐lapse applications. 73rd SEG meeting, Dallas, Texas, Expanded Abstracts, 1537–1540.
  43. SmithP.J., ScottI. and TraylenT.2012. Simultaneous time‐lapse binning and regularization of 4D data. 74th EAGE meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, Expanded Abstracts, E009.
  44. SpitzS.1991. Seismic trace interpolation in the F‐X domain. Geophysics56, 785–794.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. TradD., UlrychT.J. and SacchiM.D.2002. Accurate interpolation with high‐resolution time‐variant Radon transforms. Geophysics67, 644–656.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. TradD.2009. Five‐dimensional interpolation: recovering from acquisition constraints. Geophysics74, V123–132.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. WangY.2002. Seismic trace interpolation in the f‐x‐y domain. Geophysics67, 1232–1239.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. WangY., LuoY. and SchusterG.T.2009. Interferometric interpolation of missing seismic data. Geophysics74, SI37–SI45.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. XiaJ., XuY., MillerR.D. and ZengC.2010. A trade‐off solution between model resolution and covariance in surface‐wave inversion. Pure and Applied Geophysics167, 1537–1547.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. XuS., ZhangY., PhamD. and LambaréG.2005. Antileakage Fourier transform for seismic data regularization. Geophysics70, V87–V95.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. XuS., ZhangY. and LambaréG.2010. Antileakage Fourier transform for seismic data regularization in higher dimensions. Geophysics75, WB113–WB12.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. YilmazO.2001. Seismic Data Analysis: Processing, Inversion, and Interpretation of Seismic Data. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. ISBN: 1560800941, 9781560800941.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. YuZ., FergusonJ., McMechanG. and AnnoP.2007. Wavelet‐Radon domain de‐aliasing and interpolation of seismic data. Geophysics72, V41–V49.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. ZwartjesP.M. and GisolfA.2007. Fourier reconstruction with sparse inversion. Geophysical Prospecting55, 199–221.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12192
Loading
Appraisal problem in the 3D least squares Fourier seismic data reconstruction
Geophysical Prospecting 63, 296 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12192
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12192
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12192
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Inverse problem; Inversion; Parameter estimation; Seismic

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