1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 66, Issue 9
  5. Article
Volume 66, Issue 9
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In reverse time migration, we can produce angle‐domain common‐imaging gathers in either the scattering‐angle domain or the dip‐angle domain. The latter, although not used as widely as the former, still provides a unique view to look into seismic imaging. The reverse time migration dip‐angle angle‐domain common‐image gather can be computed via the subsurface offset extension, which is a bit costly in storage. We here obtain dip‐angle angle‐domain common‐imaging gathers efficiently in acoustic reverse time migration by using the normalized Poynting vectors. Poynting vector, an indicator of the directional energy flux, is easy to compute during wavefield propagation. Similar to the subsurface‐offset method, our method also has dip‐angle angle‐domain common‐imaging gathers of blocky horizontal coherence. In the theory of local semblance analysis, the signal with better horizontal coherence has a higher semblance score, and vice versa. Based on the estimated semblance scores, we can thus design a specularity filter to preserve valid signals and suppress noises. We validate our method with two data sets. Both the Marmousi data and the real data show that our method works effectively in eliminating noises and enhancing resolution in the acoustic reverse time migration imaging.

© 2018 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2018 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12696
2018-10-23
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12696
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.2002. Quantitative Seismology, 2nd edn. Sausalito, CA: University Science Books
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BaysalE., KosloffD.D. and SherwoodJ.W.1983. Reverse time migration. Geophysics48, 1514–1524.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BienatiN., AndreolettiC., PerroneF., LipariV. and GiboliM.2009. Limited aperture migration in the angle domain. 71st EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Expanded Abstracts.
  4. BiondiB. and SymesW.W.2004. Angle‐domain common‐image gathers for migration velocity analysis by wavefield‐continuation imaging. Geophysics69, 1283–1298.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BiondiB. and TisserantT.2004. 3d angle‐domain common‐image gathers for migration velocity analysis. Geophysical Prospecting52, 575–591.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Brandsberg‐Dahl, S., de HoopM.V. and UrsinB.2003. Focusing in dip and ava compensation on scattering‐angle/azimuth common image gathers. Geophysics68, 232–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. BrowaeysT.J.2008. Dip‐angle common‐image gathers by wave‐equation migration. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 3003–3007.
  8. CervenyV.2005. Seismic Ray Theory. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. ChenJ.2004. Specular ray parameter extraction and stationary‐phase migration. Geophysics69, 249–256.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. ChenY., LiuT. and ChenX.2015. Velocity analysis using similarity‐weighted semblance. Geophysics80, A75–A82.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. DafniR. and SymesW.W.2016a. Kinematic artifacts in the subsurface‐offset extended image and their elimination by a dip‐domain specularity filter. Geophysics81, S477–S495.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. DafniR. and SymesW.W.2016b. Scattering and dip angle decomposition based on subsurface offset extended wave‐equation migration. Geophysics81, S119–S138.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. FichtnerA. and TrampertJ.2011a. Hessian kernels of seismic data functionals based upon adjoint techniques. Geophysical Journal International185, 775–798.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. FichtnerA. and TrampertJ.2011b. Resolution analysis in full waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International187, 1604–1624.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. GrayS.H.2013. Spatial sampling, migration aliasing, and migrated amplitudes. Geophysics78, S157–S164.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. JinH., McMechanG.A. and GuanH.2014. Comparison of methods for extracting adcigs from rtm. Geophysics79, S89–S103.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. LoewenthalD., StoffaP.L. and FariaE.L.1987. Suppressing the unwanted reflections of the full wave equation. Geophysics52, 1007–1012.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. MosherC.C. and FosterD.J.2000. Common angle imaging conditions for pre‐stack depth migration. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 830–833.
  19. NeidellN.S. and TanerM.T.1971. Semblance and other coherency measures for multichannel data. Geophysics36, 482–497.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. NolanC.J. and SymesW.W.1996. Imaging and coherency in complex structures. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 359–362.
  21. PruchaM.L., BiondiB.L. and SymesW.W.1999. Angle‐domain common image gathers by wave‐equation migration. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 824–827.
  22. SavaP. and FomelS.2006. Time‐shift imaging condition in seismic migration. Geophysics71, S209–S217.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. SavaP. and VasconcelosI.2011. Extended imaging conditions for wave‐equation migration. Geophysical Prospecting59, 35–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. SavaP.C. and FomelS.2003. Angle‐domain common‐image gathers by wavefield continuation methods. Geophysics68, 1065–1074.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. StolkC.C. and SymesW.W.2004. Kinematic artifacts in prestack depth migration. Geophysics69, 562–575.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. VirieuxJ.1986. P‐SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: velocity‐stress finite‐difference method. Geophysics51, 889–901.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. VyasM., MobleyE., NicholsD. and PerdomoJ.2010. Angle gathers for rtm using extended imaging conditions. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 3252–3256.
  28. WangW. and McMechanG.A.2015. Vector‐based elastic reverse time migrationvector‐based elastic rtm. Geophysics80, S245–S258.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. WhitmoreN.1983. Iterative depth migration by backward time propagation. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 382–385.
  30. WuR.‐S. and ChenL.2006. Directional illumination analysis using beamlet decomposition and propagation. Geophysics71, S147–S159.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. XuS., ChaurisH., LambaréG., and NobleM.2001. Common‐angle migration: a strategy for imaging complex media. Geophysics66, 1877–1894.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. YoonK. and MarfurtK.J.2006. Reverse‐time migration using the Poynting vector. Exploration Geophysics37, 102–107.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. ZhangQ. and McMechanG.A.2011. Direct vector‐field method to obtain angle‐domain common‐image gathers from isotropic acoustic and elastic reverse time migration. Geophysics76, WB135–WB149.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12696
Loading
Efficient dip‐angle angle‐domain common‐image gather estimation using Poynting vector in acoustic reverse time migration and its application in noise suppression
Geophysical Prospecting 66, 1714 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12696
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12696
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12696
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Acoustic; Imaging; Signal processing

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