Abstract
Amplitude variation with offset (AVO) pre-stack inversion is an effective method for reservoir prediction. The traditional AVO method is based on the Zoeppritz approximate formula, which will lead to inaccurate inversion results when the difference of incident angle and formation impedance are large. In addition, it will be affected by noise and the formation boundary may be blur. To overcome these shortcomings, a new method is proposed. First, the exact Zoeppritz equation prestack inversion (EZPI) is used. Second, the L2 norm of the second order difference matrix is added to the objective function to enhance the anti-noise performance (EZL2). Finally, the adaptive edge-preserving filter (Ad-EPS) is used in every iteration (EZL2AEPS) to make the formation boundary clearer and obtain block structure. Ad-EPS scans windows automatically to find the most suitable filter window for each sampling point. Levenberg-Marquart algorithm is used to implement the inversion process. The synthetic data test shows the superiority of EZL2AEPS, which not only has excellent anti-noise ability but also can recover the formation boundary accurately. The example of the real data from a coal mine is also proposed. The parameters of the inversion need to be continuously tested. EZL2AEPS is also able to characterize thin coal seams. The boundaries of upper and lower bedrock can be distinguished, which demonstrates the proposed approach is feasible.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data and Material
The datasets used or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code Availability
The code required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared at this time as the code also forms part of an ongoing study.
References
Agarwal, V. (2003). Total variation regularization and L-curve method for the selection of regularization parameter. ECE, 21, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45870-820
Anagaw, A. Y., & Sacchi, M. D. (2012). Edge-preserving seismic imaging using the total variation method. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 9(2), 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/9/2/138
Ashraf, H., Mousa, W. A., & Al-Dossary, S. (2017). Efficient and accurate edge-preserving smoothing for 3D hexagonally sampled seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting, 65(3), 696–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12447
Chopra, S., & Castagna, J. P. (2007). Introduction to this special section—AVO. The Leading Edge, 26(12), 1506–1507. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2821935
Dai, R., Yin, C., Zaman, N., & Zhang, F. (2019). Seismic inversion with adaptive edge-preserving smoothing preconditioning on impedance model. Geophysics, 84(1), R11–R19. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2016-0672.1
Fatti, J. L., Smith, G. C., Vail, P. J., Strauss, P. J., & Levitt, P. R. (1994). Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: A 3-D seismic case history using the Geostack technique. Geophysics, 59(9), 1362–1376. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443695
Huang, H. D., Wang, Y. C., Guo, F., Zhang, S., Ji, Y. Z., & Liu. (2015). Zoeppritz equation-based prestack inversion and its application in fluid identification. Applied Geophysics, 12(2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11770-015-0483-3
Gholami, A. (2015). Nonlinear multichannel impedance inversion by total-variation regularization. Geophysics, 80(5), R217–R224. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015-0004.1
Innanen, K. A. (2011). Inversion of the seismic AVF/AVA signatures of highly attenuative targets. Geophysics, 76(1), R1–R14. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3518816
Keiiti, A., & Richards, P. G. (1980). Quantitative seismology: theory and methods.
Li, C., & Zhang, F. (2017). Amplitude-versus-angle inversion based on the l 1-norm-based likelihood function and the total variation regularization constraint. Geophysics, 82(3), R173–R182. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2016-0182.1
Li, D., Peng, S., Zhang, R., Guo, Y., Lu, Y., & Cui, X. (2021). Prestack seismic inversion with structural constraints. Interpretation, 9(2), T495–T506. https://doi.org/10.1190/int-2020-0209.1
Liu, X. B., Liu, F. P., Meng, X. J., & Xiao, J. Q. (2012). An accurate method of computing the gradient of seismic wave reflection coefficients (SWRCs) for the inversion of stratum parameters. Surveys in Geophysics, 33(2), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-011-9149-8
Lu, J., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., & Shi, Y. (2015). Joint PP and PS AVA seismic inversion using exact Zoeppritz equations. Geophysics, 80(5), R239–R250. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2014-0490.1
Luo, Y., Marhoon, M., Dossary, A. I., & S, Alfaraj M. (2002). Edge-preserving smoothing and applications. The Leading Edge, 21(2), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1452603
Nielsen, H.B. (1999). Damping parameter in Marquardt's method. IMM
Ostrander, W. J. T. (1984). Plane-wave reflection coefficients for gas sands at nonnormal angles of incidence. Geophysics, 49(10), 1637–1648. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441571
Passos de Figueiredo, L., Grana, D., Santos, M., Figueiredo, W., Roisenberg, M., Neto, G. S. (2017). Bayesian seismic inversion based on rock-physics prior modeling for the joint estimation of acoustic impedance, porosity and lithofacies, Journal of Computational Physics, 336, 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.02.013
Russell, B. H., Gray, D., & Hampson, D. P. (2011). Linearized AVO and poroelasticity. Geophysics, 76(3), C19–C29. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3555082
Shuey, R. T. (1985). A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations. Geophysics, 50(4), 609–614. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441936
Smith, G. C., & Gidlow, P. M. (1987). Weighted stacking for rock property estimation and detection of gas. Geophysical Prospecting, 35(9), 993–1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1987.tb00856.x
Tarantola, A. (2005). Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Tihonov, A. N. (1963). Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the regularization method. Soviet Mathematics., 4, 1035–1038.
Ursenbach, C. P. (2002). Optimal Zoeppritz approximations. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2002 (pp. 1897–1900). Society of Exploration Geophysicists. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1817060
Vogel, C. R. (2002). Computational methods for inverse problems. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Wang, Y. (1999). Approximations to the Zoeppritz equations and their use in AVO analysis. Geophysics, 64(6), 1920–1927. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444698
Wang, Y., Wang, X., Meng, X. J., & Niu, X. M. (2011). Pre-stack inversion of wide incident angle seismic data. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2011 (pp. 2507–2511). Society of Exploration Geophysicists. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3627713
Zhang, F., Dai, R., & Liu, H. (2014). Seismic inversion based on L1-norm misfit function and total variation regularization. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 109, 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.07.024
Zhang, F., Li, D., & Dai, R. (2015). Seismic inversion based on edge preserving smooth regularization. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology, 44(2), 255–261. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2016-0672.1
Zhang, H., Shang, Z., & Yang, C. (2007). A non-linear regularized constrained impedance inversion. Geophysical Prospecting, 55(6), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00637.x
Zhe, Y., & Hanming, G. (2013). Non-linear prestack seismic inversion with global optimization using an edge-preserving smoothing filter. Geophysical Prospecting, 61(4), 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12001
Zhi, L., Chen, S., & Li, X. Y. (2013). Joint AVO inversion of PP and PS waves using exact Zoeppritz equation. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2013 (pp. 457–461). Society of Exploration Geophysicists. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2013-0352.1
Zhi, L., Chen, S., & Li, X. Y. (2016). Amplitude variation with angle inversion using the exact Zoeppritz equations—Theory and methodology. Geophysics, 81(2), N1–N15. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2014-0582.1
Zoeppritz, K. (1919). On the reflection and propagation of seismic waves. Gottinger Nachrichten, 1(5), 66–84.
Acknowledgements
We thank the State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining for the research data and the financial support. This paper is funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (no. 2021YQDC10) and 111 Project (no. B18052).
We also thank Dr. Kang Wang and Dr. Dong Li for their helpful suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ZX conceptualization, methodology, software, writing-original draft preparation. YL writing- reviewing and editing. XC, SP supervision. JL, HS data curation.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Conflict of Interest
Authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
The most critical part of the LM algorithm is the calculation of the Jacobian matrix, and the calculation accuracy directly affects the final result of the inversion. The partial derivative relationship between each parameter is very important. The specific expression of the Jacobian matrix G(m) is as follows:
where d = W ⊗ R, W is the seismic wavelet, and n is the number of sampling points.
In the G(m) matrix, l is the type of inversion parameter. As this study pertains to a three-parameter inversion, l = 3. i is the number of incident angles or the number of angle gathers.
Let m = [vp1, vp2, vs1, vs2, ρ1, ρ2]. Find the partial derivative with respect to m:
Simplify Eq. (20) to obtain the exact partial derivative matrix (Eq. (21)) of the reflection coefficient with respect to the three parameters:
Calculate the partial derivatives of the matrices A and B with respect to the parameters as follows:
-
(1)
Calculate the matrix of partial derivatives of matrices A and B with respect to vp1:
$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{A}}}}{{\partial vp_{1} }} = \frac{1}{{vp_{1} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & {\tan \beta_{1} \sin \beta_{1} } & {\sin \alpha_{2} } & {\sin \beta_{2} \tan \beta_{2} } \\ 0 & {\sin \beta_{1} } & {\sin \alpha_{2} \tan \alpha_{2} } & {\sin \beta_{2} } \\ 0 & {1 + 2\sin^{2} \beta_{1} } & {2\frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vs_{2}^{2} }}{{vs_{1}^{2} }}\sin \alpha_{1} \sin \alpha_{2} \tan \alpha_{2} } & { - \frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vp_{1} }}{{vs_{1} }}(1 + 2\sin^{2} \beta_{2} )} \\ { - 4\sin^{2} \beta_{1} } & {2\frac{{vs_{1} }}{{vp_{1} }}(\sin^{2} \beta_{1} \tan \beta_{1} - \sin 2\beta_{1} )} & {\frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vp_{2} }}{{vp_{1} }}(6\sin^{2} \beta_{2} - 1)} & {2\frac{{vs_{2} }}{{vp_{1} }}\frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}(\sin^{2} \beta_{2} \tan \beta_{2} - \sin 2\beta_{2} )} \\ \end{array} } \right]$$(24)$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{B}}}}{{\partial vp_{1} }} = \frac{1}{{vp_{1} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & 0 & 0 & {4\sin^{2} \beta_{1} } \\ \end{array} } \right]^{T}$$(25) -
(2)
Calculate the matrix of partial derivatives of matrices A and B with respect to vp2:
$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{A}}}}{{\partial vp_{2} }} = \frac{1}{{vp_{2} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & 0 & { - \sin \alpha_{2} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & { - \tan \alpha_{2} \sin \alpha_{2} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & { - 2\frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vs_{2}^{2} }}{{vs_{1}^{2} }}\sin \alpha_{1} \sin \alpha_{2} \tan \alpha_{2} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {\frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vp_{2} }}{{vp_{1} }}\cos 2\beta_{2} } & 0 \\ \end{array} } \right]$$(26)$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{B}}}}{{\partial vp_{2} }} = \frac{1}{{vp_{2} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} } \right]^{T}$$(27) -
(3)
Calculate the matrix of partial derivatives of matrices A and B with respect to vs1:
$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{A}}}}{{\partial vs_{1} }} = \frac{1}{{vs_{1} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & { - \sin \beta_{1} \tan \beta_{1} } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & { - \sin \beta_{1} } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & { - \frac{{vp_{1} }}{{vs_{1} }}(1 + 2\sin^{2} \beta_{1} )} & { - \frac{{2\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vp_{1} }}{{vp_{2} }}\frac{{vs_{2}^{2} }}{{vs_{1}^{2} }}\sin 2\alpha_{2} } & {\frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vp_{1} }}{{vs_{1} }}\cos 2\beta_{2} } \\ {4\sin^{2} \beta_{1} } & {\frac{{2vs_{1} }}{{vp_{1} }}(\sin 2\beta_{1} - \sin^{2} \beta_{1} \tan \beta_{1} )} & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} } \right]$$(28)$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{B}}}}{{\partial vs_{1} }} = \frac{1}{{vs_{1} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & 0 & 0 & { - 4\sin^{2} \beta_{1} } \\ \end{array} } \right]^{T}$$(29) -
(4)
Calculate the matrix of partial derivatives of matrices A and B with respect to vs2:
$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{A}}}}{{\partial vs_{2} }} = \frac{1}{{vs_{2} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & 0 & 0 & { - \sin \beta_{2} \tan \beta_{2} } \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & {\sin \beta_{2} } \\ 0 & 0 & {\frac{{2vp_{1} }}{{vp_{2} }}\frac{{vs_{1}^{2} }}{{vs_{2}^{2} }}\frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\sin 2\alpha_{2} } & {4\frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vp_{1} }}{{vs_{1} }}\sin^{2} \beta_{2} } \\ 0 & 0 & { - \frac{{4\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vp_{2} }}{{vp_{1} }}\sin^{2} \beta_{2} } & {\frac{{2\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vs_{2} }}{{vp_{1} }}(\sin 2\beta_{2} - \sin^{2} \beta_{2} \tan \beta_{2} )} \\ \end{array} } \right]$$(30)$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{B}}}}{{\partial vs_{2} }} = \frac{1}{{vs_{2} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} } \right]^{T}$$(31) -
(5)
Calculate the matrix of partial derivatives of matrices A and B with respect to ρ1:
$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{A}}}}{{\partial \rho_{1} }} = \frac{1}{{\rho_{1} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & { - \frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vp_{1} }}{{vp_{2} }}\frac{{vs_{2}^{2} }}{{vs_{1}^{2} }}\sin 2\alpha_{2} } & {\frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vp_{1} }}{{vs_{1} }}\cos 2\beta_{2} } \\ 0 & 0 & { - \frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vp_{2} }}{{vp_{1} }}\cos 2\beta_{2} } & { - \frac{{\rho_{2} }}{{\rho_{1} }}\frac{{vs_{2} }}{{vp_{1} }}\sin 2\beta_{2} } \\ \end{array} } \right]$$(32)$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{B}}}}{{\partial \rho_{1} }} = \frac{1}{{\rho_{1} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} } \right]^{T}$$(33) -
(6)
Calculate the matrix of partial derivatives of matrices A and B with respect to ρ2:
$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{A}}}}{{\partial \rho_{2} }} = \frac{1}{{\rho_{1} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {\frac{{vp_{1} }}{{vp_{2} }}\frac{{vs_{2}^{2} }}{{vs_{1}^{2} }}\sin 2\alpha_{2} } & { - \frac{{vp_{1} }}{{vs_{1} }}\cos 2\beta_{2} } \\ 0 & 0 & {\frac{{vp_{2} }}{{vp_{1} }}\cos 2\beta_{2} } & {\frac{{vs_{2} }}{{vp_{1} }}\sin 2\beta_{2} } \\ \end{array} } \right]$$(34)$$\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{B}}}}{{\partial \rho_{2} }} = \frac{1}{{\rho_{1} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} } \right]^{T}$$(35)
Therefore, the reflection coefficient is the same as the three parameters, the P-wave velocity, S-wave velocity, and partial derivative of the density, expressed as follows:
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, Z., Lu, Y., Peng, S. et al. Prestack AVO Inversion of Exact Zoeppritz Equation Using Adaptive Edge Preserving Filter. Pure Appl. Geophys. 180, 215–242 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-022-03214-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-022-03214-6