Advertisement

Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica

, Volume 63, Issue 4, pp 538–553 | Cite as

On the role of diffractions in velocity model building: a full-waveform inversion example

  • Sergius DellEmail author
  • Ivan Abakumov
  • Pavel Znak
  • Dirk Gajewski
  • Boris Kashtan
  • Andrey Ponomarenko
Article

Abstract

Imaging of small-scale heterogeneities is important for the geological exploration in complex environments. It requires a processing sequence tuned to high-resolution model building. Conventional methods which use refractions or reflections might face problems in resolving small-scale features since they are visually close to the resolution of the reflection images. Additional information or an unconventional technology, which supports the reflection imaging, is thus of great interest. An unconventional method based on seismic diffractions naturally complements specular reflection imaging. Diffracted waves represent a direct seismic response from small-scale subsurface heterogeneities, such as inclusions with a characteristic size of the prevailing wavelength, or discontinuities in geological interfaces, such as faults and fractures. We investigate the rule of diffracted part of the wavefield on velocity model building using a full-waveform inversion (FWI) example. In order to best acknowledge refracted and reflected parts of the wavefield in FWI, we chose a synthetic data example which mimics the ocean-bottom nodes acquisition survey as it provides almost perfect conditions for FWI of diving waves, a standard tool for high-resolution model building. We show, that FWI using diving waves produces a well-resolved anomaly. Including other part of the wavefield, reflected waves, further improves the resolution of the velocity anomaly but also leads to a gentle overfitting due to missing illumination from the very steep anomaly flanks. Considering diffracted events in FWI improves the model resolution even further resulting in a detailed velocity model and correctly imaged anomaly in both vertical and lateral directions.

Keywords

diffraction velocity imaging seismic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank members of the Applied Seismic Group, University of Hamburg, and Applied and Earthquake Seismology Group, FU Berlin, for helpful discussions.

References

  1. Bauer A., Schwarz B. and Gajewski D., 2017. Utilizing diffractions in wave-front tomography. Geophysics, 82, R65–R73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billette F. and Lambaré G., 1998. Velocity macro-model estimation by stereotomography. Geophys. J. Int., 135, 671–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bleistein N., 1984. Mathematical Methods for Wave Phenomena. Academic Press Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  4. Broyden C.G., 1970. The convergence of a class of double-rank minimization algorithms. J. Inst. Math. Appl., 6, 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dell S. and Gajewski D., 2011. Common-reflection-surface-based workflow for diffraction imaging. Geophysics, 76, S187–S195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grion S., Exley R., Manin M., Miao X., Pica A.L., Wang Y., Granger P. and Ronen S., 2007. Mirror imaging of OBS data. First Break, 25, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Khaidukov V., Landa E. and Moser T.J., 2004. Diffraction imaging by focusing-defocusing: An outlook on seismic superresolution. Geophysics, 69, 1478–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Klem-Musatov K., 1994. Theory of Seismic Diffractions. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kosloff D., Queiroz Filho A., Tessmer E. and Behle A., 1989. Numerical solution of the acoustic and elastic wave equations by a new rapid expansion method. Geophys. Prospect., 37, 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lambaré G., Virieux J., Madariaga R. and Jin S., 1992. Iterative asymptotic inversion in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics, 57, 1138–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leung S. and Qian J., 2006. An adjoint state method for three-dimensional transmission traveltime tomography using first-arrivals. Commun. Math. Sci., 4, 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pestana R. and Stoffa P.L., 2009. Rapid expansion method (REM) for time-stepping in reverse time migration (RTM). SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 28, 2819–2823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Plessix R.E., 2006. A review of the adjoint-state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications. Geophys. J. Int., 167, 495–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen S.-C. and Zhou H.-M., 2016. Re-exploration into migration of seismic data. Chinese J. Geophys., 59, 54–67, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/cjg2.20213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Trad D., 2011. Five-dimensional interpolation: Recovering from acquisition constraints. Geophysics, 74, V123–V132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tsai Y.H.R., Cheng L.T., Osher S. and Zhao H.K., 2003. Fast sweeping algorithms for a class of Hamilton-Jacobi equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 41, 673–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Virieux J. and Operto S., 2009. An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics, 74, WC11–W26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vogel C.R., 2002. Computational Methods for Inverse Problems. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics 23. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  19. Wang G.C., Wang S.X., Song J.Y., Dong C.H. and Zhang M.Q., 2018. Elastic reflection traveltime inversion with decoupled wave equation. Geophysics, 83, R463–R474, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2017-0631.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Warner M., Ratcliffe A., Nangoo T., Morgan J., Umpleby A., Shah N., Vinje V., Stekl I., Guasch L., Win C., Conroy G. and Bertrand A., 2013. Anisotropic 3D full-waveform inversion. Geophysics, 78, R59–R80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wu R.-S. and Nafı Toksöz M., 1987. Diffraction tomography and multi-source holography applied to seismic imaging. Geophysics, 52, 11–25,. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1442237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Xie Y. and Gajewski D., 2017. 5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes. Geophys. J. Int., 211, 897–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yuan S.Y., Wang S.X., Luo Y.N., Wei W.W. and Wang G.C., 2019. Impedance inversion by using the low-frequency full-waveform inversion result as an a priori model. Geophysics, 84, R149–R164, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2017-0643.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhao H.R., 2004. A fast sweeping method for eikonal equations. Math. Comput., 74, 603–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Znak P., Kashtan B. and Gajewski D., 2018. Velocity model building by geometrical spreading focusing. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018, 5188–5192, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2018-2997331.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Inst. Geophys. CAS, Prague 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergius Dell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ivan Abakumov
    • 2
  • Pavel Znak
    • 1
  • Dirk Gajewski
    • 1
  • Boris Kashtan
    • 3
  • Andrey Ponomarenko
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Saint Petersburg State UniversitySt.PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations