1887
Volume 65 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

To simulate the seismic signals that are obtained in a marine environment, a coupled system of both acoustic and elastic wave equations is solved. The acoustic wave equation for the fluid region simulates the pressure field while minimizing the number of degrees of freedom of the impedance matrix, and the elastic wave equation for the solid region simulates several elastic events, such as shear waves and surface waves. Moreover, by combining this coupled approach with the waveform inversion technique, the elastic properties of the earth can be inverted using the pressure data obtained from the acoustic region. However, in contrast to the pure acoustic and elastic cases, the complex impedance matrix for the coupled media does not have a symmetric form because of the boundary (continuity) condition at the interface between the acoustic and elastic elements. In this study, we propose a manipulation scheme that makes the complex impedance matrix for acoustic–elastic coupled media to take a symmetric form. Using the proposed symmetric matrix, forward and backward wavefields are identical to those generated by the conventional approach; thus, we do not lose any accuracy in the waveform inversion results. However, to solve the modified symmetric matrix, LDLT factorization is used instead of LU factorization for a matrix of the same size; this method can mitigate issues related to severe memory insufficiency and long computation times, particularly for large‐scale problems.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12423
2016-07-12
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AmestoyP.R., DuffI.S. and L'ExcellentJ.‐Y.2000. Multifrontal parallel distributed symmetric and unsymmetric solvers. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering184, 501–520.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BaysalE., KosloffD.D. and SherwoodJ.W.C.1983. Reverse time migration. Geophysics48, 1514–1524.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BleibinhausF., HoleJ.A., RybergT. and FuisG.S.2007. Structure of the California Coast Ranges and San Andreas Fault at SAFOD from seismic waveform inversion and reflection imaging. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth112, 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BunksC., SaleckF.M., ZaleskiS. and ChaventG.1995. Multiscale seismic waveform inversion. Geophysics60, 1457–1473.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. ChangW.‐F. and McMechanG.A.1990. 3D acoustic prestack reverse‐time migration. Geophysical Prospecting38, 737–755.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ChangW.‐F. and McMechanG.A.1994. 3‐D elastic prestack, reverse‐time depth migration. Geophysics59, 597–609.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ChoiY., MinD.‐J. and ShinC.2008. Two‐dimensional waveform inversion of multi‐component data in acoustic–elastic coupled media. Geophysical Prospecting56, 863–881.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. GolubG.H. and Van LoanC.F.1996. Matrix Computations 3rd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. KimY., MinD.‐J. and ShinC.2011. Frequency‐domain reverse‐time migration with source estimation. Geophysics76, S41.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. KomatitschD., BarnesC. and TrompJ.2000. Wave propagation near a fluid–solid interface: A spectral‐element approach. Geophysics65, 623.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LaillyP.1983. The seismic inverse problem as a sequence of before stack migrations. In: Conference on Inverse Scattering, Theory and Applications, SIAM. pp. 206–220.
  12. LevanderA.R.1988. Fourth‐order finite‐difference P‐SV seismograms. Geophysics53, 1425–1436.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. MadariagaR.1976. Dynamics of an expanding circular fault. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America66, 639–666.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MarfurtK.J.1984. Accuracy of finite‐difference and finite‐element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equations. Geophysics49, 533–549.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. MoraP.1987. Nonlinear two‐dimensional elastic inversion of multioffset seismic data. Geophysics52, 1211–1228.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. MUMPS
    MUMPS2011. MUltifrontal Massively Parallel Solver (MUMPS 4.10.0) Users’ Guide, pp. 1–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. OpertoS., RavautC., ImprotaL., VirieuxJ., HerreroA. and Dell'AversanaP.2004. Quantitative imaging of complex structures from dense wide‐aperture seismic data by multiscale traveltime and waveform inversions: a case study. Geophysical Prospecting52, 625–651.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. OpertoS., VirieuxJ., DessaJ.X. and PascalG.2006. Crustal seismic imaging from multifold ocean bottom seismometer data by frequency domain full waveform tomography: Application to the eastern Nankai trough. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth111, 1–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. PlessixR.2006. A review of the adjoint‐state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications. Geophysical Journal International167, 495–503.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. PlessixR., BaetenG., de MaagJ.W., ten KroodeF. and RujieZ.2012. Full waveform inversion and distance separated simultaneous sweeping: A study with a land seismic data set. Geophysical Prospecting60, 733–747.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. PrattR.G., ShinC. and HicksG.J.1998. Gauss–Newton and full Newton methods in frequency domain seismic waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International133, 341–362.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. RavautC., OpertoS., ImprotaL., VirieuxJ., HerreroA. and Dell'AversanaP.2004. Multiscale imaging of complex structures from multifold wide‐aperture seismic data by frequency‐domain full‐waveform tomography: Application to a thrust belt. Geophysical Journal International159, 1032–1056.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SavaP. and FomelS.2003. Angle‐domain common‐image gathers by wavefield continuation methods. Geophysics681065.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. ShinC. and ChaY.H.2009. Waveform inversion in the Laplace–Fourier domain. Geophysical Journal International177, 1067–1079.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. ShinC. and MinD.‐J.2006. Waveform inversion using a logarithmic wavefield. Geophysics71, R31.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SymonsN., AldridgeD. and HaneyM.2006. 3D acoustic and elastic modeling with marmousi 2. 76th SEG meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 2171–2175.
  27. TarantolaA.1984. Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics49, 1259–1266.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. TarantolaA.1986. A strategy for nonlinear elastic inversion of seismic reflection data. Geophysics51, 1893–1903.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. VirieuxJ.1986. P‐SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity‐stress finite‐difference method. Geophysics51, 889.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. VirieuxJ. and OpertoS.2009. An overview of full‐waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics74, WCC1.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. WhitmoreN.D.1983. Iterative depth migration by backward time propagation. 53rd SEG meeting, Las Vegas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 382–385.
  32. ZienkiewiczO.C., TaylorR.L. and ZhuJ.Z.2013. The Finite Element Method: Its Basis and Fundamentals, Seventh Ed. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12423
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12423
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Computing aspects; Full waveform; Inversion; Modelling; Tomography

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