1887
Volume 72, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

To estimate the depth errors in a subsurface model obtained from the inversion of seismic data, the stationary‐phase approximation in a two‐dimensional constant‐velocity model with a dipped reflector is applied to migration with a time‐shift extension. This produces two asymptotic solutions: one is a straight line, and the other is a curve. If the velocity differs from the true one, a closed‐form expression of the depth error follows from the depth and apparent dip of the reflector as well as the position of the amplitude peak at a non‐zero time shift, where the two solutions meet and the extended migration image focuses. The results are compared to finite‐frequency results from a finite‐difference code. A two‐dimensional synthetic example with a salt diapir illustrates how depth errors can be estimated in an inhomogeneous model after inverting the seismic data for the velocity model.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2024 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. Geophysical Prospecting published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13496
2024-05-21
2026-02-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13496
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/72/5/gpr13496.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13496&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Audebert, F. & Diet, J.P. (2005) Migrated focus panels: Focusing analysis reconciled with prestack depth migration. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1993. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 961–964. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1822668
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Backus, G. & Gilbert, F. (1970) Uniqueness in the inversion of inaccurate gross Earth data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 266(1173), 123–192. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1970.0005
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnier, G., Biondi, E., Clapp, R.G. & Biondi, B. (2023) Full‐waveform inversion by model extension: practical applications. Geophysics, 88(5), R609–R643. https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2022‐0382.1
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Beylkin, G. & Burridge, R. (1990) Linearized inverse scattering problems in acoustics and elasticity. Wave Motion, 12(1), 15–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165‐2125(90)90017‐X
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chauris, H. & Benjemaa, M. (2010) Seismic wave‐equation demigration/migration. Geophysics, 75(3), S111–S119. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3380705
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Claerbout, J. (1985) Imaging the Earth's Interior, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. de Bruin, C.G.M., Wapenaar, C.P.A. & Berkhout, A.J. (1990) Angle‐dependent reflectivity by means of prestack migration. Geophysics, 55(9), 1223–1234. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442938
     [Google Scholar]
  8. de Vries, D. & Berkhout, A.J. (1984) Influence of velocity errors on the focusing aspects of migration. Geophysical Prospecting, 32, 629–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2478.1984.tb01710.x
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Duveneck, E. (2021) Angle gathers from time‐shift extended least‐squares reverse‐time migration. In: Conference Proceedings of the 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214‐4609.202113232
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Erdélyi, A. (1956) Asymptotic expansions. New York: Dover.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Faye, J.‐P. & Jeannot, J.‐P. (1986) Prestack migration velocities from focusing depth analysis. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1986. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 438–440. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1893053
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Higginbotham, J.H., Brown, M.P. & Clapp, R.G. (2008) Wave equation migration velocity focusing analysis, in SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2008. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 3083–3087. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3063985
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Huang, G., Nammour, R., Symes, W.W. & Dolliazal, M. (2019) Waveform inversion via source extension. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2019. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 4761–4766. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2019‐3216338.1
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Kern, M. & Symes, W.W. (1994) Inversion of reflection seismograms by differential semblance analysis: algorithm structure and synthetic examples. Geophysical Prospecting, 42(6), 565–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2478.1994.tb00231.x
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Liu, Z. & Bleistein, N. (1995) Migration velocity analysis: Theory and an iterative algorithm. Geophysics, 60(1), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443741
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Luo, Y. & Schuster, G.T. (1991) Wave‐equation traveltime inversion. Geophysics, 56(5), 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443081
     [Google Scholar]
  17. MacKay, S. & Abma, R. (1992) Imaging and velocity estimation with depth‐focusing analysis. Geophysics, 57(12), 1608–1622. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443228
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Mulder, W.A. (2001) Higher‐order mass‐lumped finite elements for the wave equation. Journal of Computational Acoustics, 9(2), 671–680. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218396X0100067X
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Mulder, W.A. (2006) The perturbed traveltime equation and the adjoint‐states gradient of the traveltime error. Geophysical Journal International, 167(2), 679–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2006.02932.x
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Mulder, W.A. (2008) Automatic velocity analysis with the two‐way wave equation. In: Conference Proceedings of the 70th EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2008. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214‐4609.20147941
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Mulder, W.A. (2014) Subsurface offset behaviour in velocity analysis with extended reflectivity images. Geophysical Prospecting, 62(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.12073
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Mulder, W.A. (2023) Time‐shift extended imaging for estimating depth errors. In: Conference Proceedings of the 84th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214‐4609.202310690
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Mulder, W.A. & Kuvshinov, B.N. (2023) Estimating large‐scale uncertainty in the context of full‐waveform inversion. In: Conference Proceedings of the 84th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, vol. 2023, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214‐4609.202310304
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Mulder, W.A. & Plessix, R.‐É. (2002) Time‐versus frequency‐domain modelling of seismic wave propagation. In: Conference Proceedings of the 64th EAGE Conference & Exhibition. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214‐4609‐pdb.5.E015
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Mulder, W.A. & Plessix, R.‐É. (2004) A comparison between one‐way and two‐way wave‐equation migration. Geophysics, 69(6), 1491–1504. 10.1190/1.1836822
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Mulder, W.A. & ten Kroode, A. P.E. (2002) Automatic velocity analysis by differential semblance optimization. Geophysics, 67(4), 1184–1191. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1500380
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Mulder, W.A. & van Leeuwen, T. (2008) Automatic migration velocity analysis and multiples. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2008. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 3128–3132. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3063996
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Nemeth, T. (1996) Relating depth‐focusing analysis to migration velocity analysis. In: SEG TechnicalPprogram Expanded bstracts 1996. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1826675
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Nemeth, T., Wu, C. & Schuster, G.T. (1999) Least‐squares migration of incomplete reflection data. Geophysics, 64(1), 208–221. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444517
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Østmo, S., Mulder, W.A. & Plessix, R.‐É. (2002) Finite‐difference iterative migration by linearized waveform inversion in the frequency domain. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2002. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1384–1387. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1816917
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Plessix, R.‐É. & Mulder, W.A. (2004) Frequency‐domain finite‐difference amplitude‐preserving migration. Geophysical Journal International, 157(3), 975–987. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2004.02282.x
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Rickett, J.E. (2003) Illumination‐based normalization for wave‐equation depth migration. Geophysics, 68(4), 1371–1379. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1598130
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Rickett, J.E. & Sava, P.C. (2002) Offset and angle‐domain common image‐point gathers for shot‐profile migration. Geophysics, 67(3), 883–889. https://library.seg.org/doi/10.1190/1.1484531
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Sava, P.C. & Fomel, S. (2006) Time‐shift imaging condition in seismic migration. Geophysics, 71(6), S209–S217. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2338824
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Schuster, G.T. (2017) Seismic inversion. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560803423
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Shen, P. & Symes, W.W. (2008) Automatic velocity analysis via shot profile migration. Geophysics, 73(5), VE49–VE59. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2972021
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Symes, W.W. (2008) Migration velocity analysis and waveform inversion. Geophysical Prospecting, 56(6), 765–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2478.2008.00698.x
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Symes, W.W. (2023) Efficient computation of extended surface sources. GEM ‐ International Journal on Geomathematics, 14, 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13137‐023‐00213‐0
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Tarantola, A. (1984) Linearized inversion of seismic reflection data. Geophysical Prospecting, 32(6), 998–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2478.1984.tb00751.x
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Tarantola, A. (2005) Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898717921
     [Google Scholar]
  41. van der Corput, J.G. (1935) Zur Methode der stationären Phase. Erste Mitteilung Einfache Integrale. Compositio Mathematica, 1, 15–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. van Leeuwen, T. & Herrmann, F.J. (2013) Mitigating local minima in full‐waveform inversion by expanding the search space. Geophysical Journal International, 195(1), 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt258
     [Google Scholar]
  43. van Leeuwen, T. & Mulder, W.A. (2008) Velocity analysis based on data correlation. Geophysical Prospecting, 56(6), 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2478.2008.00704.x
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Warner, M. & Guasch, L. (2016) Adaptive waveform inversion: Theory. Geophysics, 81(6), R429–R445. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015‐0387.1
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Weibull, W.W. & Arntsen, B. (2013) Automatic velocity analysis with reverse‐time migration. Geophysics, 78(4), S179–S192. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2012‐0064.1
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Yang, T. & Sava, P. (2011) Wave‐equation migration velocity analysis with time‐shift imaging. Geophysical Prospecting, 59(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2478.2011.00954.x
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang, Y. & Gao, F. (2008) Full waveform inversion based on reverse time propagation. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2008. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1950–1955. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3059278
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13496
Loading
Stationary‐phase analysis of time‐shift extended imaging in a constant‐velocity model
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 1555 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13496
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13496
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13496
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): computing aspects; inverse problem; mathematical formulation; seismics; wave

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