Evaluation of two‐pass three‐dimensional migration

Geophysics ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Dickinson
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Data ◽  
Field Data ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Velocity Variation ◽  
Lateral Velocity ◽  
Data Manipulation ◽  
Depth Migration ◽  
Data Comparison ◽  
Time Migration ◽  
Order Of Magnitude

The theoretically correct way to perform a three‐dimensional (3-D) migration of seismic data requires large amounts of data manipulation on the computer. In order to alleviate this problem, a true, one‐pass 3-D migration is commonly replaced with an approximate technique in which a series of two‐dimensional (2-D) migrations is performed in orthogonal directions. This two‐pass algorithm produces the correct answer when the velocity is constant, both horizontally and vertically. Here I analyze the error due to this algorithm when the velocities vary vertically. The analysis has two parts: first, a theoretical analysis is performed in which a formula for the error is derived; and second, a field data comparison between one‐pass and two‐pass migrations is shown. My conclusion is that two‐pass 3-D migration is, in general, a very good approximation. Its errors are usually small, the exceptions being when both the reflector dip is large (in practice this typically means greater than about 25 to 40 degrees) and the orientation of the reflector is in neither the inline nor the crossline direction. Even then the error is the same order of magnitude as that due to the uncertainty in the migration velocities. These conclusions are still valid when there is lateral velocity variation, as long as this variation is accounted for by trace stretching. The analysis presented here deals with time migration; no claims are made regarding depth migration.

In quest of the flank

Geophysics ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 701-717 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Larner ◽  
Craig J. Beasley ◽  
Walt Lynn
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Data ◽  
Field Data ◽  
Velocity Structure ◽  
Velocity Variation ◽  
Wide Angle ◽  
Lateral Velocity ◽  
Time Migration ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Ray Bending ◽  
Accurate Imaging

Primarily through synthetic and field data examples, this paper reviews the benefits of recent developments in time migration of seismic data and reveals limitations, some of them fundamental, that keep elusive the goal of imaging steep events with full accuracy. Even where velocity varies only with depth and, hence, time migration should suffice, accurate imaging of very steep events requires that the velocity structure be known with considerable precision and be finely sampled in depth. This sensitivity of migration accuracy to detail in velocity structure is attributable to the sensitivity of ray bending for wide‐angle rays to detail in the velocity structure. Also, interestingly, the presence of ray bending at interfaces is seen to enhance the steep‐event accuracy of some algorithms (e.g., phase shift and cascaded finite‐difference) while it degrades the accuracy of others (for example, conventional Kirchhoff summation and the frequency‐wavenumber domain method of Stolt). Of the various time‐migration schemes, a cascading of the Stolt method is the most efficient while having steep‐event accuracy in the presence of significant vertical velocity variation. Its behavior in the presence of even mild lateral velocity variation, however, differs greatly from that of the other methods and must be taken into account. A case involving 3-D migration of 3-D survey data shows how different issues in imaging of the subsurface (two‐pass versus single‐pass 3-D migration and algorithm choice in the presence of mild lateral velocity variation) can become intertwined in practice and lead to confusion as to which of the issues is essential for accurate imaging of the subsurface.

scholarly journals Wave-equation time migration

Geophysics ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-58
Author(s):  
Sergey Fomel ◽  
Harpreet Kaur
Keyword(s):  
Wave Equation ◽  
Time Domain ◽  
Field Data ◽  
Model Building ◽  
Lateral Velocity ◽  
Depth Migration ◽  
Time Migration ◽  
Expensive Model ◽  
Approximate Equations ◽  
Ray Coordinates

Time migration, as opposed to depth migration, suffers from two well-known shortcomings: (1)approximate equations are used for computing Green’s functions inside the imaging operator; (2) in case of lateral velocity variations, the transformation between the image ray coordinates andthe Cartesian coordinates is undefined in places where the image rays cross. We show that thefirst limitation can be removed entirely by formulating time migration through wave propagationin image-ray coordinates. The proposed approach constructs a time-migrated image without relyingon any kind of traveltime approximation by formulating an appropriate geometrically accurateacoustic wave equation in the time-migration domain. The advantage of this approach is that thepropagation velocity in image-ray coordinates does not require expensive model building and canbe approximated by quantities that are estimated in conventional time-domain processing. Synthetic and field data examples demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach and show that theproposed imaging workflow leads to a significant uplift in terms of image quality and can bridge thegap between time and depth migrations. The image obtained by the proposed algorithm is correctlyfocused and mapped to depth coordinates it is comparable to the image obtained by depth migration.

Systematics of time‐migration errors

Geophysics ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 59 (9) ◽  
pp. 1419-1434 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Black ◽  
Matthew A. Brzostowski
Keyword(s):  
General Scheme ◽  
Velocity Variation ◽  
Lateral Velocity ◽  
Depth Migration ◽  
Time Migration ◽  
Simple Rules ◽  
Rules Of Thumb ◽  
Velocity Changes ◽  
Dip Angle ◽  
Depth Of Burial

Even if the correct velocity is used, time migration mispositions events whenever the velocity changes laterally. These errors increase with lateral velocity variation, depth of burial, and dip angle θ. Our analyses of two model types, one with an implicit gradient and one with an explicit gradient, yield simple “rules of thumb” for these errors to first order in the lateral gradient. The x error is [Formula: see text], and the z error is [Formula: see text], where the quantity A = A(x, z) contains the information about depth of burial and magnitude of lateral gradient. These rules can be used to determine when depth migration is needed. Further analysis also shows that the image‐ray correction to time migration is accurate only at small dip. For dipping events, the image‐ray correction must be supplemented by a shift in x of the form [Formula: see text] and a shift in z given by [Formula: see text]. These time‐migration corrections take the same form for both the models we have studied, suggesting a general scheme for correcting time migration, which we call “remedial migration.”

scholarly journals Practical implementation of three‐dimensional poststack depth migration

Geophysics ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moshe Reshef ◽  
David Kessler
Keyword(s):  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Velocity Variation ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Reverse Time ◽  
Reverse Time Migration ◽  
Depth Migration ◽  
Time Migration ◽  
Data Volume ◽  
Migration Method ◽  
The Given

This work deals with the practical aspects of three‐dimensional (3-D) poststack depth migration. A method, based on depth extrapolation in the frequency domain, is used for the migration. This method is suitable for structures with arbitrary velocity variation, and the number of computations required can be directly related to the complexity of the given velocity function. We demonstrate the superior computational efficiency of this method for 3-D depth migration relative to the reverse‐time migration method. The computational algorithm used for the migration is designed for a multi‐processor machine (Cray-XMP/48) and takes advantage of advanced disk technologies to overcome the input/output (I/O) problem. The method is demonstrated with both synthetic and field data. The migration of a typical 3-D data volume can be accomplished in only a few hours.

Velocity estimation in laterally varying media

Geophysics ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 884-897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter S. Lynn ◽  
Jon F. Claerbout
Keyword(s):  
Taylor Series Expansion ◽  
Velocity Estimation ◽  
Lateral Resolution ◽  
Velocity Variation ◽  
Lateral Velocity ◽  
Depth Migration ◽  
Derivative Term ◽  
Fourth Derivative ◽  
Zero Offset ◽  
Lateral Variations

In areas of large lateral variations in velocity, stacking velocities computed on the basis of hyperbolic moveout can differ substantially from the actual root mean square (rms) velocities. This paper addresses the problem of obtaining rms or migration velocities from stacking velocities in such areas. The first‐order difference between the stacking and the vertical rms velocities due to lateral variations in velocity are shown to be related to the second lateral derivative of the rms slowness [Formula: see text]. Approximations leading to this relation are straight raypaths and that the vertical rms slowness to a given interface can be expressed as a second‐order Taylor series expansion in the midpoint direction. Under these approximations, the effect of the first lateral derivative of the slowness on the traveltime is negligible. The linearization of the equation relating the stacking and true velocities results in a set of equations whose inversion is unstable. Stability is achieved, however, by adding a nonphysical fourth derivative term which affects only the higher spatial wavenumbers, those beyond the lateral resolution of the lateral derivative method (LDM). Thus, given the stacking velocities and the zero‐offset traveltime to a given event as a function of midpoint, the LDM provides an estimate of the true vertical rms velocity to that event with a lateral resolution of about two mute zones or cable lengths. The LDM is applicable when lateral variations of velocity greater than 2 percent occur over the mute zone. At variations of 30 percent or greater, the internal assumptions of the LDM begin to break down. Synthetic models designed to test the LDM when the different assumptions are violated show that, in all cases, the results are not seriously affected. A test of the LDM on field data having a lateral velocity variation caused by sea floor topography gives a result which is supported by depth migration.

Migration of seismic data by phase shift plus interpolation

Geophysics ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeno Gazdag ◽  
Piero Sguazzero
Keyword(s):  
Phase Shift ◽  
Wave Field ◽  
Seismic Data ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Reference Wave ◽  
Second Step ◽  
Lateral Velocity ◽  
Wave Fields ◽  
Shift Method ◽  
Phase Shift Method

Under the horizontally layered velocity assumption, migration is defined by a set of independent ordinary differential equations in the wavenumber‐frequency domain. The wave components are extrapolated downward by rotating their phases. This paper shows that one can generalize the concepts of the phase‐shift method to media having lateral velocity variations. The wave extrapolation procedure consists of two steps. In the first step, the wave field is extrapolated by the phase‐shift method using ℓ laterally uniform velocity fields. The intermediate result is ℓ reference wave fields. In the second step, the actual wave field is computed by interpolation from the reference wave fields. The phase shift plus interpolation (PSPI) method is unconditionally stable and lends itself conveniently to migration of three‐dimensional data. The performance of the methods is demonstrated on synthetic examples. The PSPI migration results are then compared with those obtained from a finite‐difference method.

Plumes: Response of time migration to lateral velocity variation

Geophysics ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 1118-1127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitri Bevc ◽  
James L. Black ◽  
Gopal Palacharla
Keyword(s):  
Impulse Response ◽  
Synthetic Data ◽  
Migration Velocity ◽  
Velocity Variation ◽  
Velocity Dependence ◽  
Geometrical Construction ◽  
Lateral Velocity ◽  
Time Migration ◽  
Offset Time ◽  
Zero Offset

We analyze how time migration mispositions events in the presence of lateral velocity variation by examining the impulse response of depth modeling followed by time migration. By examining this impulse response, we lay the groundwork for the development of a remedial migration operator that links time and depth migration. A simple theory by Black and Brzostowski predicted that the response of zero‐offset time migration to a point diffractor in a v(x, z) medium would be a distinctive, cusp‐shaped curve called a plume. We have constructed these plumes by migrating synthetic data using several time‐migration methods. We have also computed the shape of the plumes by two geometrical construction methods. These two geometrical methods compare well and explain the observed migration results. The plume response is strongly influenced by migration velocity. We have studied this dependency by migrating synthetic data with different velocities. The observed velocity dependence is confirmed by geometrical construction. A simple first‐order theory qualitatively explains the behavior of zero‐offset time migration, but a more complete understanding of migration velocity dependence in a v(x, z) medium requires a higher order finite‐offset theory.

Enhancements to prestack frequency‐wavenumber (f-k) migration

Geophysics ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z. Li ◽  
W. Lynn ◽  
R. Chambers ◽  
Ken Larner ◽  
Ray Abma
Keyword(s):  
Computational Effort ◽  
Velocity Variation ◽  
Lateral Velocity ◽  
Time Migration ◽  
Migration Velocity Analysis ◽  
Prestack Time Migration ◽  
And Migration ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Ray Bending ◽  
Excellent Source

Prestack frequency‐wavenumber (f-k) migration is a particularly efficient method of doing both full prestack time migration and migration velocity analysis. Conventional implementations of the method, however, can encounter several drawbacks: (1) poor resolution and spatial aliasing noise caused by insufficient sampling in the offset dimension, (2) poor definition of steep events caused by insufficient sampling in the velocity dimension, and (3) inadequate handling of ray bending for steep events. All three of these problems can be mitigated with modifications to the prestack f-k algorithm. The application of linear moveout (LMO) in the offset dimension prior to migration reduces event moveout and hence increases the bandwidth of non‐spatially aliased signals. To reduce problems of interpolation for steep events, the number of constant‐velocity migrations can be economically increased by performing residual poststack migrations. Finally, migration with a dip‐dependent imaging velocity addresses the issue of ray bending and thereby improves the positioning of steep events. None of these enhancements substantially increases the computational effort of f-k migration. Prestack f-k migration possesses a limitation for which no solution is readily available. Where lateral velocity variation is modest, steep events (such as fault‐plane reflections in sediments) may not be imaged as well as by other migration approaches. This shortcoming results from the restriction that, in the prestack f-k approach, a single velocity field must serve to perform two different functions: imaging and stacking. Nevertheless, in areas of strong velocity variation and gentle to moderate dip, the detailed velocity control afforded by the prestack f-k method is an excellent source of geologic information.

Response by Arthur E. Barnes to the reply by the authors

Geophysics ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 1947-1947 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur E. Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Lateral Velocity ◽  
Prestack Depth Migration ◽  
Depth Migration ◽  
Time Migration ◽  
Pulse Distortion ◽  
Velocity Variations ◽  
Zero Offset ◽  
Complex Geology

I appreciate the thoughtful and thorough response given by Tygel et al. They point out that even for a single dipping reflector imaged by a single non‐zero offset raypath, pulse distortion caused by “standard processing” (NM0 correction‐CMP sort‐stack‐time migration) and pulse distortion caused by prestack depth migration are not really the same, because the reflecting point is mispositioned in standard processing. Within a CMP gather, this mispositioning increases with offset, giving rise to “CMP smear.” CMP smear degrades the stack, introducing additional pulse distortion. Where i‐t is significant, and where lateral velocity variations or reflection curvature are large, such as for complex geology, the pulse distortion of standard processing can differ greatly from that of prestack depth migration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document