1887
Volume 63, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Imaging the change in physical parameters in the subsurface requires an estimate of the long wavelength components of the same parameters in order to reconstruct the kinematics of the waves propagating in the subsurface. One can reconstruct the model by matching the recorded data with modeled waveforms extrapolated in a trial model of the medium. Alternatively, assuming a trial model, one can obtain a set of images of the reflectors from a number of seismic experiments and match the locations of the imaged interfaces. Apparent displacements between migrated images contain information about the velocity model and can be used for velocity analysis. A number of methods are available to characterize the displacement between images; in this paper, we compare shot‐domain differential semblance (image difference), penalized local correlations, and image‐warping. We show that the image‐warping vector field is a more reliable tool for estimating displacements between migrated images and leads to a more robust velocity analysis procedure. By using image‐warping, we can redefine the differential semblance optimization problem with an objective function that is more robust against cycle‐skipping than the direct image difference. We propose an approach that has straightforward implementation and reduced computational cost compared with the conventional adjoint‐state method calculations. We also discuss the weakness of migration velocity analysis in the migrated‐shot domain in the case of highly refractive media, when the Born modelling operator is far from being unitary and thus its adjoint (migration) operator poorly approximates the inverse.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12225
2015-01-15
2020-06-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al‐Yahya, K.1989. Velocity analysis by iterative profile migration. Geophysics54, 718–729.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Albertin, U., Sava, P., Etgen, J. and Maharramov, M.2006. Adjoint wave‐equation velocity analysis. SEG Techincal program, Expanded Abstract, 3345–3349.
  3. Baek, H., Calandra, H. and Demanet, L.2014. Velocity estimation via registration‐guided least‐squares waveform inversion. Geophysics79, R79–R89.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biondi, B. and Almomin, A.2013. Tomographic full‐waveform inversion (TFWI) by combining FWI and wave‐equation migration velocity analysis. The Leading Edge32, 1074–1080.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Biondi, B. and Sava, P.1999. Wave‐equation migration velocity analysis. SEG Techincal program, Expanded Abstract, 1723–1726.
  6. Carcione, J.2007. Wave Fields in Real Media Wave Propagation in Anisotropic, Anelastic, Porous and Electromagnetic Media, Vol. 38 Handbook of Geophysical Exploration. Elsevier. ISBN 9780080464084.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chauris, H. and Plessix, R.‐E.2012. Investigating the differential waveform inversion. 74th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark, WS06.
  8. Chavent, G. and Jacewitz, C.A.1995. Determination of background velocities by multiple migration fitting. Geophysics60, 476–490.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Claerbout, J.F.1985. Imaging the Earth's Interior. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0865423040.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Faye, J.‐P. and Jeannot, J.‐P.1986. Prestack migration velocity analysis from focusing depth imaging. SEG Techincal program, Expanded Abstract, 438–440.
  11. Fichtner, A., Bunge, H.‐P. and Igel, H.2006. The adjoint method in seismology I. theory. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors157, 86–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fleury, C. and Perrone, F.2012. Bi‐objective optimization for the inversion of seismic reflection data: Combined FWI and MVA. SEG Techincal program, Expanded Abstract, 1–6.
  13. Hale, D.2009. A method for estimating apparent displacement vectors from time‐lapse seismic images. Geophysics74, V99–V107.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hale, D.2013. Dynamic image warping of seismic images. Geophysics78, S105–S115.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hale, D., Cox, B. and Hatchell, P.J.2008. Apparent horizontal displacements in time‐lapse seismic images. SEG Techincal program, Expanded Abstract, 3169–3173.
  16. Kelly, S., Martinez, J.R., Tsimelzon, B. and Crawley, S.2010. A comparison of inversion results for two full‐waveform methods that utilize the lowest frequencies in dual‐sensor recordings. SEG Techincal program, Expanded Abstract, 940–944.
  17. Lions, J. and Magenes, E.1972. Non‐Homogeneous Boundary Value Problems and Applications vol. 2. Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 3642652190.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Luo, Y. and Schuster, G.T.1991. Wave‐equation traveltime inversion. Geophysics56, 645–653.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ma, Y. and Hale, D.2013. Wave‐equation reflection traveltime inversion with dynamic warping and full‐waveform inversion. Geophysics78, R223–R233.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Nemeth, T., Wu, C. and Schuster, G.T.1999. Least‐squares migration of incomplete reflection data. Geophysics64, 208–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Perrone, F. and Sava, P.2012. Wavefield tomography based on local image correlation. 74th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark, Expanded Abstracts, P233.
  22. Perrone, F.Sava, P., Andreoletti, C. and Bienati, N.2014. Linearized wave‐equation migration velocity analysis by image warping. Geophysics79, S35–S46.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Plessix, R.‐E.2006. A review of the adjoint‐state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications. International Journal of Geophysics167, 495–503.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Pratt, R.G.1999. Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain, Part 1: Theory and verification in a physical scale model. Geophysics64, 888–901.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Santosa, F. and Symes, W.W.1989. An analysis of least‐squares velocity inversion. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. ISBN 9780931830785.
  26. Sattlegger, J.W.1975. Migration velocity determination: Part I. Philosophy. Geophysics40, 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Sava, P. and Biondi, B.2004. Wave‐equation migration velocity analysis. I. Theory. Geophysical Prospecting52, 593–606.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sava, P., Biondi, B. and Etgen, J.2005. Wave‐equation migration velocity analysis by focusing diffractions and reflections. Geophysics70, U19–U27.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Sava, P. and Fomel, S.2003. Angle‐domain common‐image gathers by wavefield continuation methods. Geophysics68, 1065–1074.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Shen, P. and Symes, W.W.2008. Automatic velocity analysis via shot profile migration. Geophysics73, VE49–VE59.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sirgue, L. and Pratt, R.2004. Efficient waveform inversion and imaging: A strategy for selecting temporal frequencies. Geophysics69, 231–248.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Stolk, C.C. and Symes, W.W.2004. Kinematic artifacts in prestack depth migration. Geophysics69, 562–575.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Symes, W.W.1993. A differential semblance criterion for the inversion of multioffset seismic reflection data. Journal of Geophysical Research98, 2061–2073.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Symes, W.W.2008. Migration velocity analysis and waveform inversion. Geophysical Prospecting56, 765–790.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Symes, W.W. and Carazzone, J.J.1991. Velocity inversion by differential semblance optimization. Geophysics56, 654–663.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Tarantola, A.1984. Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics49, 71–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Vasconcelos, I.Sava, P. and Douma, H.2010. Nonlinear extended images via image‐domain interferometry. Geophysics75, SA105–SA115.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Verschuur, D.J.1991. Surface‐related multiple elimination, an inversion approach. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands.
  39. Warner, M., Morgan, J., Umpleby, A., Stekl, I. and Guasch, L.2012. Which physics for full‐wavefield seismic inversion? 74th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark, Expanded Abstracts, W029.
  40. Xu, S., Wang, D., Chen, F. and Zhang, Y.2012. Full waveform inversion for reflected seismic data. 74th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark Expanded Abstracts, W024.
  41. Yang, D., Malcolm, A. and Fehler, M.2014. Using image warping for time‐lapse image domain wavefield tomography. Geophysics79, WA141–WA151.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Yang, T. and Sava, P.2011. Image‐domain waveform tomography with two‐way wave‐equation. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2591–2596.
  43. Zhang, Y., Xu, S., Tang, B., Bai, B., Huang, Y. and Huang, T.2010. Angle gathers from reverse time migration. The Leading Edge29, 1364–1371.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12225
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12225
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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