1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 62, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 62, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Seismic tomography is a well‐established approach to invert smooth macro‐velocity models from kinematic parameters, such as traveltimes and their derivatives, which can be directly estimated from data. Tomographic methods differ more with respect to data domains than in the specifications of inverse‐problem solving schemes. Typical examples are stereotomography, which is applied to prestack data and Normal‐Incidence‐Point‐wave tomography, which is applied to common midpoint stacked data. One of the main challenges within the tomographic approach is the reliable estimation of the kinematic attributes from the data that are used in the inversion process. Estimations in the prestack domain (weak and noisy signals), as well as in the post‐stack domain (occurrence of triplications and diffractions leading to numerous conflicting dip situations) may lead to parameter inaccuracies that will adversely impact the resulting velocity models. To overcome the above limitations, a new tomographic procedure applied in the time‐migrated domain is proposed. We call this method Image‐Incident‐Point‐wave tomography. The new scheme can be seen as an alternative to Normal‐Incidence‐Point‐wave tomography. The latter method is based on traveltime attributes associated with normal rays, whereas the Image‐Incidence‐Point‐wave technique is based on the corresponding quantities for the image rays. Compared to Normal‐Incidence‐Point‐wave tomography the proposed method eases the selection of the tomography attributes, which is shown by synthetic and field data examples. Moreover, the method provides a direct way to convert time‐migration velocities into depth‐migration velocities without the need of any Dix‐style inversion.

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12096
2014-01-19
2024-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12096
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. de BoorC.1978. A Practical Guide to Splines. Springer Verlag. ISBN 0387953663.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. CameronM.K., FomelS.B. and SethianJ.A.2007. Seismic velocity estimation from time migration. Inverse Problems23, 1329–1369.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ČervenýV.2001. Seismic Ray Theory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521366712.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ClaerboutJ.F.1985. Imaging the Earth's Interior. Blackwell Scientific Publications. ISBN 0865423040.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. DellS., GajewskiD. and VanelleC.2012. Prestack time migration by common‐migrated‐reflector‐element stacking. Geophysics77, s73–s82.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DuveneckE.2004a. 3D tomographic velocity model estimation with kinematic wavefield attributes. Geophysical Prospecting52, 535–545.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. DuveneckE.2004b. Velocity model estimation with data‐derived wavefront attributes. Geophysics69, 265–274.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. FarraV. and MadariagaR.1987. Seismic wavefront modelling in heterogeneous media by ray perturbation theory. Journal of Geophysical Research92, 2697–2712.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. GrechkaV. and TsvankinI.2004. 3‐D description of normal moveout in anisotropic inhomogeneous media. Geophysics63, 1079–1092.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GuillaumeP., LambaréG., SioniS., CarottiD., DepréP., CulianezG., et al. 2011. Geologically consistent velocities obtained by high definition tomography. 81st annual SEG meeting, SEG Expanded Abstracts, 30, 4061–4065.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HubralP.1977. Time migration – Some ray theoretical aspects. Geophysical Prospecting25, 738–745.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. HubralP. and KreyT.1980. Interval Velocities from Seismic Reflection Time Measurements. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. ISBN 0931830133.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. IversenE. and TygelM.2008. Image‐ray tracing for joint 3D seismic velocity estimation and time‐to‐depth conversion. Geophysics73, S99–S114.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. IversenE., TygelM., UrsinB. and de HoopM.V.2012. Kinematic time migration and demigration of reflections in pre‐stack seismic data. Geophysical Journal International189, 1635–1666.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. JonesI.F.2010. Tutorial: Velocity estimation via ray‐based tomography. First Break28, 45–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. NetzebandG.L., HübscherC.P. and GajewskiD.2010. The structural evolution of the Messinian evaporites in the Levantine Basin. Marine Geology230, 249–273.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. TygelM., UrsinB., IversenE. and de HoopM.V.2012. Estimation of geological dip and curvature from time‐migrated zero‐offset seismic reflections in heterogeneous anisotropic media. Geophysical Prospecting60, 201–216.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12096
Loading
Image‐ray Tomography
Geophysical Prospecting 62, 413 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12096
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12096
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12096
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Image ray; Tomography

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error