Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 173, Issue 3, pp 749–773 | Cite as

Laplace–Fourier-Domain Full Waveform Inversion of Deep-Sea Seismic Data Acquired with Limited Offsets

  • Yongchae Cho
  • Wansoo Ha
  • Youngseo Kim
  • Changsoo Shin
  • Satish Singh
  • Eunjin ParkEmail author


Laplace–Fourier-domain full waveform inversion is considered one of the most reliable schemes to alleviate the drawbacks of conventional frequency-domain inversion, such as local minima. Using a damped wavefield, we can reduce the possibility of converging to local minima and produce an accurate long-wavelength velocity model. Then, we can obtain final inversion results using high-frequency components and low damping coefficients. However, the imaging area is limited because this scheme uses a damped wavefield that makes the magnitudes of the gradient and residual small in deep areas. Generally, the imaging depth of Laplace–Fourier-domain full waveform inversion is half the streamer length. Thus, dealing with seismic data in the deep-sea layer is difficult. The deep-sea layer reduces the amplitude of signals and acts as an obstacle for computing an exact gradient image. To reduce the water layer’s effect, we extrapolated the wavefield with a downward continuation and performed refraction tomography. Then, we performed Laplace–Fourier-domain full waveform inversion using the refraction tomography results as an initial model. After obtaining a final velocity model, we verified the inversion results using Kirchhoff migration. We presented common image gathers and a synthetic seismogram of Sumatra field data to prove the reliability of the velocity model obtained by Laplace–Fourier-domain full waveform inversion. Through the test, we concluded that Laplace–Fourier-domain full waveform inversion with refraction tomography of the downward-continued wavefield recovers the subsurface structures located at depth despite a relatively short streamer length compared to the water depth.


Full waveform inversion Laplace–Fourier domain downward continuation 



This research was a part of the project titled ‘The Study of Marine Geology and Geological Structure in the Korean Jurisdictional Seas’, funded by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Korea, and was supported by the Energy Efficiency and Resources of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the Korea government Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (No. 20132010201760). Also, we would like to extend our gratitude to Total oil company for providing a Sumatra seismic dataset to Seoul National University.


  1. Ammon, C. J., Ji, C., Thio, H., Robinson, D., Ni, S., Hjorleifsdottir,V., Kanamori, H., Lay, T., Das, S., Helmberger, D., Ichinose, G., Polet, J. and Wald, D. (2005), Rupture process of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, Science 308, 1133–1139.Google Scholar
  2. Bishop, T. N., Bube, K. P., Cutler, R. T., Langan, R. T., Love, P. L., Reasnick, J. R., Shuey, R. T., Spindler, D. A., and Wyld, H. W. (1985), Tomographic determination of velocity and depth in laterally varying media, Geophysics 50, 903–923.Google Scholar
  3. Chauhan, A. P. S., Singh, S. C., Hanato, N. D., Carton, H., Klingelhoefer, F., Dessa, J. X., Permana, H., White, N. J., Graindorge, D., and the Sumatra OBS Scientific Team, (2009), Seismic imaging of forearc backthrusts at northern Sumatra subduction zone, Geophys. J. Int. 179, 1772–1780.Google Scholar
  4. Chiu, S. K. L., Kanasewich, E. R., and Phadke, S. (1986), Three-dimensional determination of structure and velocity by seismic tomography, Geophysics 51, 1559–1571.Google Scholar
  5. Claerbout, J. and Green, I., Basic Earth Imaging – Madagascar edition (Stanford Exploration Project, 2009).Google Scholar
  6. Clayton, R. and Engquist, B. (1977), Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic wave equations, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 67, 1529–1540.Google Scholar
  7. Ghosal, D., Singh, S. C., and Martin, J. (2014), Shallow subsurface morphotectonics of the NW Sumatra subduction system using an integrated seismic imaging technique, Geophys. J. Int. 198, 1818–1831.Google Scholar
  8. Graves, W. (1996), Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3d elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, 1091–1106.Google Scholar
  9. Ha, W., and Shin, C. (2012), Proof of the existence of both zero- and low- frequency information in a damped wavefield, Journal of Applied Geophysics, 83, 96–99.Google Scholar
  10. Ha, W., W. Chung, and C. Shin, 2012, Pseudo-hessian matrix for the logarithmic objective function in full waveform inversion, J. Appl. Geophys. 21, 201–214.Google Scholar
  11. Ha, W., Chung, W., Park, E., and Shin, C. (2012), 2-D acoustic Laplace-domain waveform inversion of marine field data, Geophys. J. Int. 190, 421–428.Google Scholar
  12. Ha, W., Pyun, S., Yoo, J., and Shin, C. (2010), Acoustic full waveform inversion of synthetic land and marine data in the Laplace domain, Geophys. Pros. 58, 1033–1047.Google Scholar
  13. Kamei, R., Pratt, R. G., and Tsuji, T. (2013), On acoustic waveform tomography of wide-angle OBS data-strategies for pre-conditioning and inversion, Geophys. J. Int. 194, 1250–1280.Google Scholar
  14. Koo, N., Shin, C., Min, D., Park, K., and Lee, H. (2011), Source estimation and direct wave reconstruction in Laplace-domain waveform inversion for deep-sea seismic data, Geophys. J. Int. 187, 861–870.Google Scholar
  15. Lailly, P., The seismic inverse problem as a sequence of before stack migrations (SIAM, 1983).Google Scholar
  16. Marfurt, K. (1984), Accuracy of finite-difference and finite-element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave-equations, Geophysics 49, 533–549.Google Scholar
  17. Mora, P. (1987), Nonlinear two-dimensional elastic inversion of multioffset seismic data, Geophysics 52, 1211–1228.Google Scholar
  18. Murphy, G. E., and Gray, S. H. (1999), Manual seismic reflection tomography, Geophysics 64, 1546–1552.Google Scholar
  19. Pratt, R., and Worthington, M. (1988), The application of diffraction tomography to cross-hole seismic data, Geophysics 53, 1284–1294.Google Scholar
  20. Pratt, R., Shin, C., and Hicks, G. (1998), Gauss-newton and full newton methods in frequency-space seismic waveform inversion, Geophys. J. Int. 133, 341–362.Google Scholar
  21. Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock, Y., Genrich, J. F., Puntodewo, S., Rais, J., Subarya, C., and Sutisna, S. (2000), One century of tectonic deformation along the Sumatran faults from triangulation and Global Positioning System surveys, J. Geophys. Res. 105, 28343–28361.Google Scholar
  22. Raynolds, A. C. (1978). Boundary conditions for the numerical solution of wave propagation problems, Geophysics 43, 1099–1110.Google Scholar
  23. Rhie, J., Dreger, D., Burgmann, R., and Romanowicz, B. (2007), Slip of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake from joint inversion of long-period global seismic waveforms and GPS static offsets, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, S115–S127.Google Scholar
  24. Sibuet J.-C., Rangin, C., Le, P., Singh, S., Cattaneo, A., Graindorge, D., Klingelhoefer, F., Lin, J.-Y., Malod, J.-A., Maury, R., Schneider, J., Sultan, N., Umber, M., and Yamaguchi, H. (2007), 26th December 2004 great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake – seismogenic zone and active splay faults, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 263, 88–103.Google Scholar
  25. Singh, S. C., Chauhan, A., Calvert, A. J., Hananto, N. D., Ghosal, D., Rai, A., and Carton, H. (2012), Seismic evidence of bending and unbending of subducting oceanic crust and the presence of mantle megathrust in the 2004 Great Sumatra earthquake rupture zone, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 321, 166–176.Google Scholar
  26. Singh, S. C., Carton, H., Tapponnier, P., Hananto, N. D., Chauhan, A. P. S., Hartoyo, D., Bayly, M., Moeljopranoto, S., Bunting, T., Christie, P., Lubis, H., and Martin, J. (2008), Seismic evidence for broken oceanic crust in the 2004 Sumatra earthquake epicentral region, Nat. Geosci. 11, 777–781.Google Scholar
  27. Shin, C., Min, D., Marfurt, K., Lim, H., Yang, D., Cha, Y., Ko, S., Yoon, K., Ha, T., and Hong, S. (2002), Traveltime and amplitude calculations using the damped wave solution, Geophysics 67, 1637–1647.Google Scholar
  28. Shin, C., and Cha, Y. (2008), Waveform inversion in the Laplace domain, Geophys. J. Int. 173, 922–931.Google Scholar
  29. Shin, C., and Cha, Y. (2009), Waveform inversion in the Laplace-Fourier domain, Geophys. J. Int. 177, 1067–1079.Google Scholar
  30. Shin, C., and Ha, W. (2008), A comparison between the behavior of objective functions for waveform inversion in the frequency and Laplace domains, Geophysics 73, VE119–VE133.Google Scholar
  31. Shin, C., Koo, N., Cha, Y., and Park, K. (2010), Sequentially ordered single-frequency 2d acoustic waveform inversion in the Laplace-Fourier domain, Geophys. J. Int. 181, 935–950.Google Scholar
  32. Shin, C., and Min., D. (2006), Waveform inversion using a logarithmic wavefield, Geophysics 71, R31–R42.Google Scholar
  33. Symes, W., (2008), Migration velocity analysis and waveform inversion, Geophys. Pros. 56, 765–790.Google Scholar
  34. Tarantola, A. (1984), Inversion of seismic-reflection data in the acoustic approximation, Geophysics 49, 1259–1266.Google Scholar
  35. Virieux, J., and Operto, S. (2009), An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics, Geophysics 74, WCC1–WCC26.Google Scholar
  36. Versteeg, R. (1994), The Marmousi experience: Velocity model determination on a synthetic complex data set, Leading Edge 13, 927–936.Google Scholar
  37. Zhang, J., and Toksoz, M. N. (1998), Nonlinear refraction traveltime tomography, Geophysics 63, 1726–1737.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yongchae Cho
    • 1
  • Wansoo Ha
    • 2
  • Youngseo Kim
    • 3
  • Changsoo Shin
    • 4
  • Satish Singh
    • 5
  • Eunjin Park
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Schlumberger Information SolutionsSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Pukyong National UniversityBusanRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Saudi AramcoDhahranSaudi Arabia
  4. 4.Seoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Institute de Physique du Globe de ParisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations