Theoretical and numerical issues in the determination of reflector depths in seismic reflection tomography

1995 ◽  
Vol 100 (B7) ◽  
pp. 12449-12458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth P. Bube ◽  
Robert T. Langan ◽  
Jeffrey R. Resnick
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Reflection Tomography

Seismic reflection tomography via simulated annealing

1994 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 679-682
Author(s):  
Phil Carrion ◽  
Gualtiero Böhm
Keyword(s):  
Simulated Annealing ◽  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Reflection Tomography

3-D seismic reflection tomography on top of the GOCAD depth modeler

Geophysics ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 1499-1510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Luc Guiziou ◽  
Jean Laurent Mallet ◽  
Raül Madariaga
Keyword(s):  
Ray Tracing ◽  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Macro Model ◽  
Triangulated Surfaces ◽  
Zero Offset ◽  
Tracing Techniques ◽  
Inversion Techniques ◽  
Reflection Tomography ◽  
Seismic Lines

The estimation of velocity macro‐models by seismic reflection tomography is studied in three‐dimensions. Inversion techniques based on the kinematics of seismic data require an appropriate parameterization of the geological macro‐model, in particular as far as the velocity field is concerned. The step toward structurally complex geological models is achieved by exploiting a new approach to 3-D depth modeling: GOCAD. The peculiarities inherent to GOCAD triangulated surfaces and its associated discrete smooth interpolator (DSI) have led to the development of original ray‐tracing techniques. By exploiting intensively the topology of the triangulated surfaces, these new algorithms make it possible to reach a good balance between accuracy and computation performance. To build a 3-D macro‐model estimation tool, ray‐tracing is then associated with a least‐squares inversion of depth parameters and velocity parameters from 3-D zero‐offset traveltimes and stacking velocities, or multi‐offset prestack traveltimes from 2-D seismic lines.

Reply by Author to Discussion by Kristjansson and Wright

Geophysics ◽  
1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-427
Author(s):  
Tsvi Meidav
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Point ◽  
General Solution ◽  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Suggested Approach ◽  
Seismic Reflection Data ◽  
Reflection Data

Kristjansson and Wright are right in their comment that equations (16) or (17) are correct “only if either point A or B is held fixed and this fixed point is used to define the origin for the problem.” Hence, the suggested approach cannot be used as the general solution for the determination of the dip from seismic reflection data.

Tomographic determination of velocity and depth in laterally varying media

Geophysics ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 903-923 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. N. Bishop ◽  
K. P. Bube ◽  
R. T. Cutler ◽  
R. T. Langan ◽  
P. L. Love ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Seismic Velocity ◽  
Real Data ◽  
Seismic Reflection Data ◽  
Near Surface ◽  
Reflection Data ◽  
Tomographic Method ◽  
Recorded Data ◽  
The Difference

Estimation of reflector depth and seismic velocity from seismic reflection data can be formulated as a general inverse problem. The method used to solve this problem is similar to tomographic techniques in medical diagnosis and we refer to it as seismic reflection tomography. Seismic tomography is formulated as an iterative Gauss‐Newton algorithm that produces a velocity‐depth model which minimizes the difference between traveltimes generated by tracing rays through the model and traveltimes measured from the data. The input to the process consists of traveltimes measured from selected events on unstacked seismic data and a first‐guess velocity‐depth model. Usually this first‐guess model has velocities which are laterally constant and is usually based on nearby well information and/or an analysis of the stacked section. The final model generated by the tomographic method yields traveltimes from ray tracing which differ from the measured values in recorded data by approximately 5 ms root‐mean‐square. The indeterminancy of the inversion and the associated nonuniqueness of the output model are both analyzed theoretically and tested numerically. It is found that certain aspects of the velocity field are poorly determined or undetermined. This technique is applied to an example using real data where the presence of permafrost causes a near‐surface lateral change in velocity. The permafrost is successfully imaged in the model output from tomography. In addition, depth estimates at the intersection of two lines differ by a significantly smaller amount than the corresponding estimates derived from conventional processing.

SISTRE: 3‐D velocity determination of complex geologic structures via reflection tomography

1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sotiris Kapotas ◽  
Jean‐Luc Guiziou ◽  
Michel Barut
Keyword(s):  
Reflection Tomography
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document