Earthquake Science

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 331–339 | Cite as

Automating adjoint wave-equation travel-time tomography using scientific workflow

  • Xiaofeng Zhang
  • Po Chen
  • Satish Pullammanappallil
Research Paper


Recent advances in commodity high-performance computing technology have dramatically reduced the computational cost for solving the seismic wave equation in complex earth structure models. As a consequence, wave-equation-based seismic tomography techniques are being actively developed and gradually adopted in routine subsurface seismic imaging practices. Wave-equation travel-time tomography is a seismic tomography technique that inverts cross-correlation travel-time misfits using full-wave Fréchet kernels computed by solving the wave equation. This technique can be implemented very efficiently using the adjoint method, in which the misfits are back-propagated from the receivers (i.e., seismometers) to produce the adjoint wave-field and the interaction between the adjoint wave-field and the forward wave-field from the seismic source gives the gradient of the objective function. Once the gradient is available, a gradient-based optimization algorithm can then be adopted to produce an optimal earth structure model that minimizes the objective function. This methodology is conceptually straightforward, but its implementation in practical situations is highly complex, error-prone and computationally demanding. In this study, we demonstrate the feasibility of automating wave-equation travel-time tomography based on the adjoint method using Kepler, an open-source software package for designing, managing and executing scientific workflows. The workflow technology allows us to abstract away much of the complexity involved in the implementation in a manner that is both robust and scalable. Our automated adjoint wave-equation travel-time tomography package has been successfully applied on a real active-source seismic dataset.


Adjoint tomography Scientific workflow Seismic inversion Kepler 


  1. Aki K, Richards PG (2002) Quantitative seismology. University Science Books, Sausalito, p 700Google Scholar
  2. Bamberger A, Chavent G, Hemons Ch, Lailly P (1982) Inversion of normal incidence seismograms. Geophysics 47(5):757–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen P (2011) Full-wave seismic data assimilation: theoretical background and recent advances. Pure Appl Geophys 168(10):1527–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen P, Jordan TH, Zhao L (2007) Full three-dimensional tomography: a comparison between the scattering-integral and adjoint-wavefield methods. Geophys J Int 170(1):175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahlen FA, Tromp J (1998) Theoretical global seismology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 1025Google Scholar
  6. Fichtner A, Kennett BLN, Igel H, Bunge H-P (2009) Full seismic waveform tomography for upper-mantle structure in the Australasian region using adjoint methods. Geophys J Int 179:1703–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lee E, Chen P (2013) Automating seismic waveform analysis for full 3-D waveform inversions. Geophys J Int 194(1):572–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee E, Chen P, Jordan T, Wang L (2011) Rapid full-wave centroid moment tensor (CMT) inversion in a three-dimensional earth structure model for earthquakes in Southern California. Geophys J Int 186:311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Liu Q, Gu R (2012) Seismic imaging: from classical to adjoint tomography. Tectonophysics. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2012.07.006Google Scholar
  10. Luo Y, Schuster GT (1991) Wave equation travel-time inversion. Geophysics 56:645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Olsen KB (1994) Simulation of 3-D elastic wave propagation in the Salt Lake Basin. PhD Dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (1992) Numerical recipes in C, the art of scientific computing, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 994Google Scholar
  13. Tape C, Liu Q, Maggi A, Tromp J (2010) Seismic tomography of the southern California crust based on spectral-element and adjoint methods. Geophys J Int 180:433–462. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04429.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tarantola A (1984) Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics 49(8):1259–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tarantola A (1988) Theoretical background for the inversion of seismic waveforms, including elasticity and attenuation. Pure Appl Geophys 128(1/2):365–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tromp J, Tape C, Liu Q (2005) Seismic tomography, adjoint methods, time reversal and banana-doughnut kernels. Geophys J Int 160:195–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhao L, Jordan TH (1998) Sensitivity of frequency-dependent traveltimes to laterally heterogeneous, anisotropic Earth structure. Geophys J Int 133:683–704Google Scholar
  18. Zhao L, Jordan TH, Chapman CH (2000) Three-dimensional Fréchet differential kernels for seismic delay times. Geophys J Int 141:58–576Google Scholar
  19. Zhao L, Jordan TH, Olsen KB, Chen P (2005) Fréchet kernels for imaging regional earth structure based on three-dimensional reference models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(6):2066–2080. doi:10.1785/0120050081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhao L, Chen P, Jordan TH (2006) Strain Green’s tensors, reciprocity, and their applications to seismic source and structure studies. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(5):1753–1763. doi:10.1785/0120050253CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Seismological Society of China, Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaofeng Zhang
    • 1
  • Po Chen
    • 1
  • Satish Pullammanappallil
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geology and GeophysicsUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  2. 2.Optim Software and Data Solutions LLCRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations