Waveform inversion using a logarithmic wavefield

Although waveform inversion has been studied extensively since its beginning 20 years ago, applications to seismic field data have been limited, and most of those applications have been for global-seismology- or engineering-seismology-scale problems, not for exploration-scale data. As an alternative to classical waveform inversion, we propose the use of a new, objective function constructed by taking the logarithm of wavefields, allowing consideration of three types of objective function, namely, amplitude only, phase only, or both. In our waveform inversion, we estimate the source signature as well as the velocity structure by including functions of amplitudes and phases of the source signature in the objective function. We compute the steepest-descent directions by using a matrix formalism derived from a frequency-domain, finite-element/finite-difference modeling technique. Our numerical algorithms are similar to those of reverse-time migration and waveform inversion based on the adjoint state of the wave equation. In order to demonstrate the practical applicability of our algorithm, we use a synthetic data set from the Marmousi model and seismic data collected from the Korean continental shelf. For noisefree synthetic data, the velocity structure produced by our inversion algorithm is closer to the true velocity structure than that obtained with conventional waveform inversion. When random noise is added, the inverted velocity model is also close to the true Marmousi model, but when frequencies below 5 Hz are removed from the data, the velocity structure is not as good as those for the noise-free and noisy data. For field data, we compare the time-domain synthetic seismograms generated for the velocity model inverted by our algorithm with real seismograms and find that the results show that our inversion algorithm reveals short-period features of the subsurface. Although we use wrapped phases in our examples, we still obtain reasonable results. We expect that if we were to use correctly unwrapped phases in the inversion algorithm, we would obtain better results.

[1]  A. Tarantola.  Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation , 1984 .

[2]  Roelof Versteeg,et al.  The Marmousi experience; velocity model determination on a synthetic complex data set , 1994 .

[3]  Peter Mora,et al.  Inversion = Migration + Tomography , 1988, Shell Conference.

[4]  Full-wavefield inversion of wide-aperture SH and Love wave data , 1991 .

[5]  Albert Tarantola,et al.  The Non-Linear Inversion of Seismic Waveforms can BE Performed either by Time Extrapolation or by Depth EXTRAPOLATION1 , 1988 .

[6]  G. McMechan,et al.  3-D prestack full-wavefield inversion , 1995 .

[7]  R. M. Alford,et al.  ACCURACY OF FINITE‐DIFFERENCE MODELING OF THE ACOUSTIC WAVE EQUATION , 1974 .

[8]  C. Shin,et al.  A frequency‐space 2-D scalar wave extrapolator using extended 25-point finite‐difference operator , 1998 .

[9]  A. Pica,et al.  Nonliner inversion of seismic reflection data in a laterally invariant medium , 1990 .

[10]  R. Pratt,et al.  Reflection waveform inversion using local descent methods: Estimating attenuation and velocity over a gas-sand deposit , 2001 .

[11]  G. Schuster,et al.  Acoustic wave-equation traveltime and waveform inversion of crosshole seismic data , 1995 .

[12]  A. Tarantola,et al.  Two‐dimensional nonlinear inversion of seismic waveforms: Numerical results , 1986 .

[13]  K. Marfurt.  Accuracy of finite-difference and finite-element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equations , 1984 .

[14]  Z. M. Song,et al.  Frequency-domain acoustic-wave modeling and inversion of crosshole data; Part II, Inversion method, synthetic experiments and real-data results , 1995 .

[15]  Hicks,et al.  Gauss–Newton and full Newton methods in frequency–space seismic waveform inversion , 1998 .

[16]  Kurt J. Marfurt,et al.  The Future of Iterative Modeling in Geophysical Exploration , 1989 .

[17]  C. Shin,et al.  Improved amplitude preservation for prestack depth migration by inverse scattering theory , 2001 .

[18]  G. Chavent,et al.  An optimal true-amplitude least-squares prestack depth-migration operator , 1999 .

[19]  Min-Jea Tahk.  Co-Evolutionary Approaches for Numerical Optimization , 2005 .

[20]  S. Treitel,et al.  A REVIEW OF LEAST-SQUARES INVERSION AND ITS APPLICATION TO GEOPHYSICAL PROBLEMS* , 1984 .

[21]  R. Shipp,et al.  Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain, Part 2: Fault delineation in sediments using crosshole data , 1999 .

[22]  C. Shin,et al.  An optimal 9-point, finite-difference, frequency-space, 2-D scalar wave extrapolator , 1996 .

[23]  G. McMechan,et al.  2‐D full‐wavefield inversion for wide‐aperture, elastic, seismic data , 1992 .

[24]  A. Tarantola.  A strategy for nonlinear elastic inversion of seismic reflection data , 1986 .

[25]  P. Mora.  Nonlinear two-dimensional elastic inversion of multioffset seismic data , 1987 .

[26]  R. Pratt.  Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain; Part 1, Theory and verification in a physical scale model , 1999 .

[27]  G. Chavent,et al.  Inversion of normal incidence seismograms , 1982 .

[28]  Wafik B. Beydoun,et al.  A simultaneous inversion for background velocity and impedance maps , 1990 .

[29]  Changsoo Shin,et al.  Efficient calculation of a partial-derivative wavefield using reciprocity for seismic imaging and inversion , 2001 .