Abstract
We demonstrate how the velocity concepts attached to conventional stacking assuming local smooth 1D type of Earth models, are modified within the setting of the Common Reflection Surface (CRS) method to handle lateral velocity variations. The corresponding matrix (scalar) normal moveout (NMO)- and Dix-velocities in 3D (2D) are now linked to a smooth velocity medium in depth sampled along the mapping or normal rays taking into account lateral velocities. This is rather different from the conventional 1D case where the link between the data-driven velocities and the smooth 1D velocity medium are represented by vertical mapping rays. Further and by analogy with the conventional 1D approach, where time-migration velocities are computed from NMO- or Dix-velocities after proper smoothing, its CRS counterpart is established. It is demonstrated that matrix (scalar) time-migration velocities to be used in ray-based 3D (2D) time-migration (TM) can be obtained by proper mapping of the corresponding CRS velocities. Relevant mapping equations valid for the 2D case have earlier been treated in the literature. However, to our knowledge, this is the first time such mapping equations have been derived for the 3D case. This mapping takes into account smooth lateral velocity variations, normally not properly accounted for in the initial model employed in conventional time-migration building based on NMO-velocities. Also, unlike the conventional approach, the use of the CRS method makes it feasible to build a smooth velocity field in depth beyond that of 1D. In this connection, we propose to use Normal Incidence Point (NIP) tomography (alternatively Image Incidence Point (IIP) tomography) to build a macro-velocity model upon which the time-to-depth mapping and the correction factors can be calculated. That step is then followed by construction of an updated smooth replacement medium, better able to capture local changes in velocity. The proposed approach can be used iteratively. Such depth velocities can be employed as an initial model for iterative depth migration. The main idea being that velocity-model building by using time-domain observables ensures more robustness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cameron M.K., Fomel S.B. and Sethian J.A., 2007. Seismic velocity estimation from time migration. Inverse Probl., 23, 1329–1369.
Cameron M.K., Fomel S.B. and Sethian J.A., 2008. Time-to-depth conversion and seismic velocity estimation using time-migration velocity. Geophysics, 73, VE205–VE210.
Cameron M.K., Fomel S.B. and Sethian J.A., 2009. Analysis and algorithms for a regularized Cauchy problem arising from a nonlinear elliptic PDE for seismic velocity estimation. J. Comput. Phys., 228, 7388–7411.
Cervený V., 2001. Seismic Ray Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Dix C.H., 1955. Seismic velocities from surface measurements. Geophysics, 20, 68–86.
Dell S., Gajewski D. and Tygel M., 2014. Image-ray tomography. Geophys. Prospect., 62, 413–426, DOI: 10.1111/1365-2478.12096.
Duveneck E., 2004a. Tomographic Determination of Seismic Velocity Models with Kinematic Wavefield Attributes. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Duveneck E., 2004b. Velocity model estimation with data-derived wavefront attributes. Geophysics, 69, 265–274.
Fowler P., 1984. Velocity independent imaging of seismic reflections. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1984, 383–385, DOI: 10.1190/1.1893996.
Fowler P., 1988. Seismic Velocity Estimation Using Prestack Time Migration. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (http://sepwww.stanford.edu/theses/sep58/58_00.pdf).
Hubral P., 1977. Time migration — some ray theoretical aspects. Geophys. Prospect., 25, 738–745.
Hubral P. and Krey T., 1980. Interval velocities from seismic reflection time measurements. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, eISBN: 978-1-56080-250-1, print ISBN: 978-0-931830-13-6.
Iversen E. and Tygel M., 2008. Image-ray tracing for joint 3D seismic velocity estimation and timeto-depth conversion. Geophysics, 73, S99–S114.
Jones I.E., 2010. An Introduction to: Velocity Model Building. EAGE Publications, EAGE, Houten, The Netherlands.
Jäger R., Mann J., Höcht G. and Hubral P., 2001. Common-reflection-surface stack: Image and attributes. Geophysics, 66, 97–109.
Li S. and Fomel S., 2013. A robust approach to time-to-depth conversion in the presence of lateral velocity variations. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2013, 4800–4805, DOI: 10.1190/segam2013-0253.1.
Li S. and Fomel S., 2014. A robust approach to time-to-depth conversion and interval velocity estimation from time migration in the presence of lateral velocity variations. Geophys. Prospect., DOI: 10.1111/1365-2478.12191 (in print).
Mann J., 2002. Extensions and Applications of the Common-Reflection-Surface Stack Method. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Mann J., Hubral P., Traub B., Gerst A. and Meyer H., 2000. Macro-model independent approximative prestack time migration. Extended Abstract. 62nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Session B-52, Volume 6. EAGE Publications, EAGE, Houten, The Netherlands.
Newman P., 1973. Divergence effects in a layered earth. Geophysics, 38, 481–488.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gelius, LJ., Tygel, M. Migration-velocity building in time and depth from 3D (2D) Common-Reflection-Surface (CRS) stacking - theoretical framework. Stud Geophys Geod 59, 253–282 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-014-1036-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-014-1036-6