A parameterization study for elastic VTI Full Waveform Inversion of hydrophone components: synthetic and North Sea field data examples
KAUST DepartmentEarth Science and Engineering Program
Physical Science and Engineering (PSE) Division
Seismic Wave Analysis Group
Online Publication Date2017-10-06
Print Publication Date2017-11
Permanent link to this recordhttp://hdl.handle.net/10754/625358
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractChoosing the right parameterization to describe a transversely isotropic medium with a vertical symmetry axis (VTI) allows us to match the scattering potential of these parameters to the available data in a way that avoids potential tradeoff and focus on the parameters to which the data are sensitive. For 2-D elastic full waveform inversion in VTI media of pressure components and for data with a reasonable range of offsets (as with those found in conventional streamer data acquisition systems), assuming that we have a kinematically accurate NMO velocity (vnmo) and anellipticity parameter η (or horizontal velocity, vh) obtained from tomographic methods, a parameterization in terms of horizontal velocity vh, η and ε is preferred to the more conventional parameterization in terms of vh, δ and ε. In the vh, η, ε parameterization and for reasonable scattering angles (<60o), ε acts as a “garbage collector” and absorbs most of the amplitude discrepancies; between modeled and observed data, more so when density ρ and shear-wave velocity vs are not inverted for (a standard practice with streamer data). On the contrary, in the vv, δ, ε parameterization, ε is mostly sensitive to large scattering angles, leaving vv exposed to strong leakages from ρ mainly. There assertions will be demonstrated on the synthetic Marmousi II as well as a North Sea OBC dataset, where inverting for the horizontal velocity rather than the vertical velocity yields more accurate models and migrated images.
CitationGuitton A, Alkhalifah T (2017) A parameterization study for elastic VTI Full Waveform Inversion of hydrophone components: synthetic and North Sea field data examples. GEOPHYSICS: 1–70. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/geo2017-0073.1.
SponsorsThe authors would like to thank the sponsors of the Center forWave Phenomena as well as KAUST for their financial support. We would also like to thank Marianne Houbiers at Statoil for help and feedback with the North Sea dataset. We would like to thank Statoil ASA and the Volve license partners ExxonMobil E&P Norway AS and Bayerngas Norge AS, for the release of the Volve data. The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Statoil ASA and the Volve field license partners. Finally, we thank the Associate Editor Kris Innanen and reviewers for their valuable comments.
PublisherSociety of Exploration Geophysicists