A unified approach to 3-D seismic reflection imaging, Part II: Theory

Geophysics ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 759-775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Tygel ◽  
Jörg Schleicher ◽  
Peter Hubral
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Seismic Imaging ◽  
Velocity Model ◽  
Image Transformation ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Imaging Theory ◽  
Reflection Imaging ◽  
Transformation Problems

Diffraction‐stack and isochrone‐stack integrals are quantitatively described and employed. They constitute an asymptotic transform pair. Both integrals are the key tools of a unified approach to seismic reflection imaging that can be used to solve a multitude of amplitude‐preserving, target‐oriented seismic imaging (or image‐transformation) problems. These include, for instance, the generalizations of the kinematic map‐transformation examples discussed in Part I. All image‐transformation problems can be addressed by applying both stacking integrals in sequence, whereby the macro‐velocity model, the measurement configuration, or the ray‐code of the considered elementary reflections may change from step to step. This leads to weighted (Kirchhoff‐ or generalized‐Radon‐type) summations along certain stacking surfaces (or inplanats) for which true‐amplitude (TA) weights are provided. To demonstrate the value of the proposed imaging theory (which is based on analytically chaining the two stacking integrals and using certain inherent dualities), we examine in detail the amplitude‐preserving configuration transform and remigration for the case of a 3-D laterally inhomogeneous velocity medium.

A unified approach to 3-D seismic reflection imaging, Part I: Basic concepts

Geophysics ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 742-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Hubral ◽  
Jörg Schleicher ◽  
Martin Tygel
Keyword(s):  
Time Domain ◽  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Velocity Model ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Seismic Record ◽  
Kirchhoff Type ◽  
Velocity Models ◽  
Reflection Imaging ◽  
The Time Domain ◽  
Image Transformations

Given a 3-D seismic record for an arbitrary measurement configuration and assuming a laterally and vertically inhomogeneous, isotropic macro‐velocity model, a unified approach to amplitude‐preserving seismic reflection imaging is provided. This approach is composed of (1) a weighted Kirchhoff‐type diffraction‐stack integral to transform (migrate) seismic reflection data from the measurement time domain into the model depth domain, and of (2) a weighted Kirchhoff‐type isochrone‐stack integral to transform (demigrate) the migrated seismic image from the depth domain back into the time domain. Both the diffraction‐stack and isochrone‐stack integrals can be applied in sequence (i.e., they can be chained) for different measurement configurations or different velocity models to permit two principally different amplitude‐preserving image transformations. These are (1) the amplitude‐preserving transformation (directly in the time domain) of one 3-D seismic record section into another one pertaining to a different measurement configuration and (2) the transformation (directly in the depth domain) of a 3-D depth‐migrated image into another one for a different (improved) macro‐velocity model. The first transformation is referred to here as a “configuration transform” and the second as a “remigration.” Additional image transformations arise when other parameters, e.g., the ray code of the elementary wave to be imaged, are different in migration and demigration. The diffraction‐ and isochrone‐stack integrals incorporate a fundamental duality that involves the relationship between reflectors and the corresponding reflection‐time surfaces. By analytically chaining these integrals, each of the resulting image transformations can be achieved with only one single weighted stack. In this way, generalized‐Radon‐transform‐type stacking operators can be designed in a straightforward way for many useful image transformations. In this Part I, the common geometrical concepts of the proposed unified approach to seismic imaging are presented in simple pictorial, nonmathematical form. The more thorough, quantitative description is left to Part II.

A Unified approach to seismic reflection imaging

1994 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Tygel ◽  
P. Hubral ◽  
J. Schleicher
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Reflection Imaging

A Unified Approach to Seismic Reflection Imaging

1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Tygel ◽  
P. Hubral ◽  
J. Schleicher
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Reflection Imaging

To: “A unified approach to 3-D seismic reflection imaging, Part II: Theory” (M. Tygel, J. Schleicher, and P. Hubral, GEOPHYSICS, 61, 759–775)

Geophysics ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 670-673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herman Jaramillo ◽  
Jörg Schleicher ◽  
Martin Tygel
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Projection Matrix ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Reflection Imaging

It came to our attention that in the paper of Tygel et al. (1996), formula (A-5) is incorrect. First, it is different from the cited equation (17) of Tygel et al. (1995). Second, the derivation of formula (17) in Appendix A of Tygel et al. (1995) is invalid for the purposes of Tygel et al., (1996) because in the 1995 paper, a rotation is treated, whereas in Tygel et al. (1996), a projection matrix is needed. Further investigation of the subject was needed to resolve these inconsistencies.

Delineation of the 85°E ridge and its structure in the Mahanadi Offshore Basin, Eastern Continental Margin of India (ECMI), from seismic reflection imaging

2010 ◽  
Vol 27 (9) ◽  
pp. 1841-1848 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rabi Bastia ◽  
M. Radhakrishna ◽  
Suman Das ◽  
Anand S. Kale ◽  
Octavian Catuneanu
Keyword(s):  
Continental Margin ◽  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Reflection Imaging

Interpretation of seismic reflection profiling data for the structure of the San Andreas fault zone

1983 ◽  
Vol 73 (6A) ◽  
pp. 1701-1720
Author(s):  
R. Feng ◽  
T. V. McEvilly
Keyword(s):  
Fault Zone ◽  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
San Andreas Fault ◽  
Velocity Model ◽  
Seismic Reflection Profile ◽  
Lateral Velocity ◽  
Zone Structure ◽  
Ray Method ◽  
Velocity Change ◽  
San Andreas

Abstract A seismic reflection profile crossing the San Andreas fault zone in central California was conducted in 1978. Results are complicated by the extreme lateral heterogeneity and low velocities in the fault zone. Other evidence for severe lateral velocity change across the fault zone lies in hypocenter bias and nodal plane distortion for earthquakes on the fault. Conventional interpretation and processing methods for reflection data are hard-pressed in this situation. Using the inverse ray method of May and Covey (1981), with an initial model derived from a variety of data and the impedance contrasts inferred from the preserved amplitude stacked section, an iterative inversion process yields a velocity model which, while clearly nonunique, is consistent with the various lines of evidence on the fault zone structure.

Rhyl Field: developing a new structural model by integrating basic geological principles with advanced seismic imaging in the Irish Sea

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 355-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gavin Ward ◽  
Dean Baker
Keyword(s):  
Structural Model ◽  
Seismic Imaging ◽  
Critical Factor ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Velocity Model ◽  
Irish Sea ◽  
Depth Migration ◽  
Processing Power ◽  
And Migration ◽  
Automated Quality Control

AbstractA new model of compression in the Upper Triassic overlying the Rhyl Field has been developed for the Keys Basin, Irish Sea. This paper highlights the significance of the overburden velocity model in revealing the true structure of the field. The advent of 3D seismic and pre-stack depth migration has improved the interpreter's knowledge of complex velocity fields, such as shallow channels, salt bodies and volcanic intrusions. The huge leaps in processing power and migration algorithms have advanced the understanding of many anomalous features, but at a price: seismic imaging has always been a balance of quality against time and cost. As surveys get bigger and velocity analyses become more automated, quality control of the basic geological assumptions becomes an even more critical factor in the processing of seismic data and in the interpretation of structure. However, without knowledge of both regional and local geology, many features in the subsurface can be processed out of the seismic by relying too heavily on processing algorithms to image the structural model. Regrettably, without an integrated approach, this sometimes results in basic geological principles taking second place to technology and has contributed to hiding the structure of the Rhyl Field until recently.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document