Strong scattering perturbations like large-scale salt structures in the model parameters make the task of full waveform inversion more difficult than the weak scattering inversion. The problem becomes even tougher when both the velocity and density are involved. In this work, we introduce an angle domain method using the direct envelope inversion with the new Fréchet derivative to solve the strong scattering inversion for velocity and density. The direct envelope inversion method works well on salt structure recovery for the velocity model. However, it fails if the density parameter is considered. By adding angle information into the inversion, tradeoff between velocity and density can be greatly reduced. Numerical examples show that by accomplishing the direct envelope inversion in the angle domain, both the velocity and density estimation with strong scattering perturbations are greatly improved.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Biondi, B., and A.Almomin
    [2014] Simultaneous inversion of full data bandwidth by tomographic full- waveform inversion. Geophysics, 79, WA129–WA140.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bozdağ, E., J.Trampert, and J.Tromp
    [2011] Misfit functions for full waveform inversion based on instantaneous phase and envelope measurements. Geophysical Journal International, 185, 27 845–870.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, G., R. S.Wu, and S.Chen
    [2018] Multi-scale Direct Envelope Inversion Using Wavenumber Filtering Based on Reflection Tomography for Background Velocity Recovery of Large-scale, Strong-contrast Media. 88th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1038–1042.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dahlke, T., B.Biondi, and R.Clapp
    [2015] Domain decomposition of level set updates for salt segmentation. 85th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1366–1371.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dellinger, J., A. J.Brenders, J.Sandschaper, C.Regone, J.Etgen, I.Ahmed, and K.Lee
    [2017] The garden banks model experience. The Leading Edge, 36, 151–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Esser, E., F.Herrmann, L.Guasch, and M.Warner
    [2015] Constrained waveform inversion in salt-affected datasets. 85th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1086–1090.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gardner, G. H. F., L. W.Gardner, and A. R.Gregory
    [1974] Formation velocity and density- the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics, 39, 770–780.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Luo, J., and R. S.Wu
    [2015] Seismic envelope inversion: reduction of local minima and noise resistance. Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 597–614.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Warner, M., and L.Guasch
    [2014] Adaptive waveform inversion: Theory. 84th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1089–1093.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Wu, R. S., and G.Chen
    [2017] New Frechet Derivative for Envelope Data and Multi-Scale Envelope Inversion. 79th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2017, Tu-A3-12.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Wu, R S., J.Luo, and B.Wu
    [2014] Seismic envelope inversion and modulation signal model. Geophysics, 79, WA13–WA24.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Yang, Y. N., B.Engquist, J. Z.Sun, and B. F.Hamfeldt
    [2018] Application of optimal transport 44 and the quadratic Wasserstein metric to full-waveform inversion. Geophysics, 83, P. R43–R62.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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