1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 17, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 5
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Reflection traveltime tomography has been used to describe subsurface velocity structures which, in practice, can be used as a background or initial model for pre‐stack depth migration or full waveform inversion. Conventional reflection traveltime tomography is performed by solving an optimization problem based on a ray‐tracing method. As a result, reflection traveltime tomography requires heavy computational efforts to carry out ray tracing and solve a large matrix equation. In addition, like most data‐domain tomography methods, reflection traveltime tomography depends on initial guesses and suffers from non‐uniqueness and uncertainty of solutions. In this research, we propose a deterministic ray‐based reflection traveltime tomography method by applying seismic interferometry. This method does not suffer from the non‐uniqueness problem and does not require information on subsurface media. By adding a virtual layer (whose properties are known) on top of the real surface and applying convolution‐type interferometry, we approximately determine the stationary points (i.e., incident raypaths in the virtual layer). Then, we generate reflection points for a range of assumed velocities and estimate the velocity by considering the number of reflection points and the traveltime difference between the observed and calculated data. The reflection surface can then be recovered by using the estimated velocity. Once the first target layer is resolved, we can recover the whole media by recursively applying the same method to the lower layers. Numerical examples using surface seismic profile data for homogeneous‐layer (with a low‐velocity layer) and inhomogeneous‐layer models and real field data experiments on the Congo data set demonstrate that our method can successfully recover the velocities and depths of subsurface media without initial guesses. However, our method has some limitations for multi‐layer models because the method does not have sufficient reflection points for the deeper layers.

© 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12064
2019-09-04
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12064
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BakulinA. and CalvertR.2004. Virtual source: new method for imaging and 4D below complex overburden. 74th SEG Annual International meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 2477–2480.
  2. BakulinA. and CalvertR.2006. The virtual source method: theory and case study. Geophysics71, SI139–SI150.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BrossierR., OpertoS. and VirieuxJ.2009. Seismic imaging of complex onshore structures by 2D elastic frequency‐domain full‐waveform inversion. Geophysics74, WCC105–WCC118.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BunksC., SaleckF.M., ZaleskiS. and ChaventG.1995. Multiscale seismic waveform inversion. Geophysics60, 1457–1473.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. CameronM.K., FomelS.B. and SethianJ.A.2007. Seismic velocity estimation from time migration. Inverse Problems23, 1329–1369.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DongS. and HanafyS.2008. Interferometric interpolation and extrapolation of sparse 2D OBS data. UTAM Annual meeting, 3–18.
  7. DraganovD., WapenaarK. and ThorbeckeJ.2006. Seismic interferometry: reconstructing the earth's reflection response. Geophysics71, SI61–SI70.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. DragosetB., VerschuurE., MooreI. and BisleyR.2010. A perspective on 3D surface‐related multiple elimination. Geophysics75, 75A245–75A261.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. GholamiY., BrossierR., OpertoS., PrieuxV., RibodettiA. and VirieuxJ.2013. Which parameterization is suitable for acoustic vertical transverse isotropic full waveform inversion? Part 2: synthetic and real data case studies from Valhall. Geophysics78, R107–R124.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GrohmannM., MüllerS., NiederleithingerE. and SieberS.2017. Reverse time migration: introducing a new imaging technique for ultrasonic measurements in civil engineering. Near Surface Geophysics15, 242–258.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HanafyS.M. and SchusterG.T.2014. Interferometric interpolation of sparse marine data. Geophysical Prospecting62, 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. HondoriE.J., MikadaH., AsakawaE. and MizohataS.2015. A new initial model for full waveform inversion without cycle skipping. 85th SEG Annual International meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 1446–1450.
  13. JonesI.F.2010. Tutorial: velocity estimation via ray‐based tomography. First Break28, 45–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. LandaE., KosloffD., KeydarS., KorenZ. and ReshefM.1988. A method for determination of velocity and depth from seismic reflection data. Geophysical Prospecting36, 223–243.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. LiS. and FomelS.2015. A robust approach to time‐to‐depth conversion and interval velocity estimation from time migration in the presence of lateral velocity variations. Geophysical Prospecting63, 315–337.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. LiZ. and ZhangJ.2018. Applying joint traveltime and waveform inversion to image the Sichuan Basin, China. Near Surface Geophysics16, 79–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. LiuJ., DraganovD. and GhoseR.2018. Seismic interferometry facilitating the imaging of shallow shear‐wave reflections hidden beneath surface waves. Near Surface Geophysics16, 372–382.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. LiuY. and WuZ.2019. Evaluation of traveltime tomography in estimating near‐surface velocity inversion. Near Surface Geophysics17, 85–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. MoserT.J.1991. Shortest path calculation of seismic rays. Geophysics56, 59–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. OhJ.W. and MinD.J.2013. Weighting technique using backpropagated wavefields incited by deconvolved residuals for frequency‐domain elastic full waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International194, 322–347.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. PonS. and LinesL.R.2004. Sensitivity analysis of seismic depth migrations: Canadian structural model. 2004 CSEG National Convention, Abstracts.
  22. PrieuxV., LambaréG., OpertoS. and VirieuxJ.2013. Building starting models for full waveform inversion from wide‐aperture data by stereotomography. Geophysical Prospecting61, 109–137.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. RussellB.1998. A simple seismic imaging exercise. The Leading Edge17, 885–889.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. SchusterG.T.2001. Theory of daylight/interferometric imaging: tutorial. 63rd EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Extended Abstracts, A032.
  25. SchusterG.T.2009. Seismic Interferometry. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. ShinC. and ChaY.H.2008. Waveform inversion in the Laplace domain. Geophysical Journal International173, 922–931.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. TaillandierC., NobleM., ChaurisH. and CalandraH.2009. First‐arrival traveltime tomography based on the adjoint‐state method. Geophysics74, WCB57–WCB66.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. TrinksI., SinghS.C., ChapmanC.H., BartonP.J., BoschM. and CherrettA.2005. Adaptive traveltime tomography of densely sampled seismic data. Geophysical Journal International160, 925–938.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. VesnaverA.L.1996. Irregular grids in seismic tomography and minimum‐time ray tracing. Geophysical Journal International126, 147–165.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. von KetelhodtJ.K., FechnerT., ManziM.S.D. and DurrheimR.J.2018. Joint inversion of cross‐borehole P‐waves, horizontally and vertically polarized S‐waves: tomographic data for hydro‐geophysical site characterization. Near Surface Geophysics16, 529–542.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. WapenaarK. and FokkemaJ.2006. Green's function representations for seismic interferometry. Geophysics71, SI33–SI46.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. WapenaarK., DraganovD., SniederR., CampmanX. and VerdeA.2010. Tutorial on seismic interferometry: part 1—Basic principles and applications. Geophysics75, 75A195–75A209.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. WéberZ.2001. Optimizing model parameterization in 2D linearized seismic traveltime tomography. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors124, 33–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. WuR.S., LuoJ. and WuB.2014. Seismic envelope inversion and modulation signal model. Geophysics79, WA13–WA24.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. YanL. and LinesL.R.2001. Seismic imaging and velocity analysis for an Alberta Foothills seismic survey. Geophysics66, 721–732.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. YangJ., LiuY., LiY.E., ChengA., DongL. and DuY.2019. Joint least‐squares reverse time migration of primary and prismatic waves. Geophysics84, S29–S40.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. YuJ. and SchusterG.T.2006. Crosscorrelogram migration of inverse vertical seismic profile data. Geophysics71, S1–S11.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. ZhaoA., ZhangZ. and TengJ.2004. Minimum travel time tree algorithm for seismic ray tracing: improvement in efficiency. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering1, 245–251.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12064
Loading
Ray‐based reflection traveltime tomography using approximate stationary points
Near Surface Geophysics 17, 463 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12064
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12064
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12064
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Ray tracing; Seismic inversion; 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