Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 24, no. 5 (March 1, 1997), p. 511-514.
Available electronically at: http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/papers/grlcoh/grlcoh.html
Another approach to velocity estimation is by travel-time inversion. The depth of resolution is limited by the type of arrivals used- first arrivals constrain the relatively shallow velocities, to depths usually less than one-third the maximum receiver offset, while reflections provide deeper constraints. Usually travel time inversion with reflected arrivals is performed using times picked off one or a limited number of reflecting horizons, as in Pullammanappallil and Louie (1994). This leads to poor ray coverage in areas of the model not underlain by reflection picks. Moreover, it is often difficult to pick reflection times from noisy or complex land-recorded shot gathers.
To overcome some of these problems several workers have tried to combine pre-stack migration with reflection tomography. One such method casts the migration as a linearized inversion problem, but the need to solve a large linear system makes this method computationally expensive (Ehinger and Lailly, 1993). Jervis et al. (1993) use a genetic algorithm to estimate velocities. Instead of using travel time residual, their objective function is based on a differential semblance operator (Symes and Carazzone, 1991). Their approach requires iterative migration, and to keep the computation time tractable they have to define the velocities as spline functions.
We base our approach on the formalism of Landa et al. (1989). They perform velocity inversion in two steps. First, for a given velocity distribution, they map the depth to reflectors using zero-offset travel time information. Next, the velocity model is updated using the reflection coherency criterion. Their method requires the velocity model to be layered. The interface positions and velocity within each layer also need to be spline functions. Our method differs from this in that we use both travel time and amplitude information simultaneously, and we perform a pre-stack migration only once, using the final velocity model. We need not estimate any velocity distribution or reflector configuration prior to the optimization.
First-arrival times, easily picked, provide information about relatively shallow horizons, while coherency computed from reflection times and amplitudes should constrain velocities above deeper horizons. Performing a pre-stack migration through the velocity model obtained after the optimization images many reflections at the same time. Using simulated annealing for the optimization avoids the need for linearization and the consequent problem of the inversion being trapped in a local minimum. We demonstrate the utility of this technique using synthetic and real data.
The objective of our optimization is to simultaneously minimize
(equation 1) and maximize
(equation 2).
We achieve this with a Monte-Carlo based technique
called simulated annealing. The advantages that stem from the nonlinear
nature of this optimization process have been documented by several workers
(e.g., Sen and Stoffa, 1991; Pullammanappallil and Louie, 1993). By using it
in our problem we demonstrate its ability to optimize multiple objective
functions simultaneously. This allows us to utilize additional information from
the data space, which could have a very different nature,
and get more robust solutions in the model space.
We use a fast finite-difference
solution to the eikonal equation (Vidale, 1988) to compute the first-arrival
times through the model, while a modification of this (computation of first
arrival times from depth points to surface sources and receivers, as in
Pullammanappallil and Louie, 1993) is used to get the reflection times. Once we have the
reflection times, we compute
using equation (2), which involves adding
the amplitudes along the travel time trajectory.
A randomly altered model may be accepted based on four conditions:
We determine
the parameters ,
,
,
and
with procedures described in detail by Pullammanappallil and Louie (1993; 1994).
This involves doing several short runs of the optimization for fixed test values of these
parameters, and computing the average least square error for
each run.
One set of short runs using a range of temperatures gives us the
critical temperature
, from the run
with the least error, which in turn
determines how
and
are varied during the optimization.
Additional sets of short runs estimate the values of
and
giving the least error.
Figure 1b shows the synthetic velocity model reconstructed with our coherency criterion. As in Pullammanappallil and Louie (1994), we examine ray distributions traced through the velocity results, and the point-by-point deviations among suites of final models having similar errors, to outline what parts of the sections the optimizations have constrained. Comparing Figure 1b with the synthetic model obtained using only first-arrival time picks (Figure 1a) we see that the depth of the resolved velocities increases from 2 km to about 5 km. The shape of the basin also matches the original (Figure 1c) better when the coherency criterion is used. Next, we image reflections with a pre-stack Kirchhoff migration of the synthetic records through these velocities (Figure 2). The migration through the model shown in Figure 1b images both branches of the Garlock fault and connects them to the basin floor (Figure 2b), while the one through 1a misplaces the elements of the basin boundary, and fails to connect them.
Comparing the migrated image in Figure 2b with the migration through the original velocities (Figure 2c), we see that the main difference is in the sharpness of the basin bounding reflections. This can be attributed to smoothing of the optimized velocities. The lack of sources toward the south side of the model leads to more migration artifacts in that region. This synthetic test serves as a resolution study of the results we will obtain from our optimizations of the real COCORP Mojave line 5 data. The synthetic velocity sections (Figure 1) and the migrations of synthetic data derived from them (Figure 2) point out the strengths and shortcomings of both the velocity optimizations and the pre-stack migrations.
To demonstrate the capabilities of our method with a real data set, we picked first-arrival times off 28 shot gathers of 96 traces each, recorded along COCORP Mojave line 5 across the Garlock fault in Cantil Valley, California. The raw shot-gathers are used in the reflection coherency calculation; Louie and Qin (1991) show examples of the raw line 5 data gathers. Figure 3a shows the velocity model using only first-arrival time picks. Only the well-resolved regions of the models are shown, and we get well-resolved velocities only down to 1.5 km. A pre-stack migration through this model is shown in Figure 4a. Lack of good velocity information below 1.5 km leads to poor focusing of coherent energy. Only the Garlock fault east branch is apparent (east GF in Figure 4), and its quality is poor compared to the results of Louie and Qin (1991).
Figure 3c shows the velocity model obtained when using the combined travel time-reflection coherency optimization. Pullammanappallil and Louie (1993) show an example of reflection picks from this data set. We see that the velocity field is smoother and the pre-stack migration through this (Figure 4c) images the east branch of the Garlock fault as well as Louie and Qin (1991), and in the same location as in Pullammanappallil and Louie (1993). The reflections become more coherent and continuous, and we even see hints of deeper reflections.
Finally we compare our coherency optimization results (Figures 3c and 4c) with those obtained when using only picked travel times, i.e., picked first arrivals and picked reflections (Figures 3a,b and 4a,b). We do this to see how well we are able to image the data reflections without picking the reflection times. Figure 3b and 4b show the velocities and migrated image obtained using only travel times. Comparing Figures 4b and 4c, we infer that the reflections are imaged better when we include the coherency criterion. Figure 4c is the first image to link the east branch of the Garlock fault (east GF) to the floor of Cantil Basin. A misplaced multiple reflection underlies the east branch. From the Basin floor, a coherent reflection continues 5 km south until it is lost in the artifacts of poor depth point coverage, and its interpretation can only be speculative. Given the data coverage, with receivers mostly to the south, it may not be surprising that we are not able to image the southwest branch of the Garlock fault (SW GF).
Standard processing of the COCORP Mojave reflection lines by Cheadle et al. (1986) revealed several strong, gently-dipping to sub-horizontal reflections distributed throughout the crust of the Mojave block, south of the Garlock fault. Examining shot records from line 3, which parallels the Garlock about 50 km south of the fault zone, Serpa and Dokka (1992) showed that one of the most prominent reflections was actually a side-swipe reflection from a south-dipping branch of the Garlock fault. On line 5, which crosses the Garlock at high angle as well as intersecting line 3 to the south, we can speculate from our result in Figure 4c that the observations of both Cheadle et al. (1986) and Serpa and Dokka (1992) could be correct. A south-dipping east branch of the Garlock (east GF) appears to flatten at 3.5 km depth and link to a sub-horizontal reflection that proceeds southward below the Mojave block for at least 5 km. Louie and Qin (1991) proposed that the Garlock has a listric geometry and flattens southward into a decollement below the Mojave block. Our results may well show direct evidence of such a structure.
Cheadle, M. J., Czuchra, B. L., Byrne, T., Ando, C. J., Oliver, J. E., Brown, L. D., Kaufman, S., Malin, P. E., and Phinney, R. A., The deep crustal structure of the Mojave Desert, California, from COCORP seismic reflection data: Tectonics, 5, 293-320, 1986.
Ehinger, A., and P. Lailly, Prestack imaging by coupled linearized inversion, in Mathematical Methods in Geophysical Imaging, Proc. of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation, San Diego, California, 2033, 66-87, 1993.
Jervis, M., P. L. Stoffa, and M. A. Sen, 2-D migration velocity estimation using a genetic algorithm, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20, 1495-1498, 1993.
Landa, E., W. Beydoun, and A. Tarantola, Reference velocity model estimation from prestack waveforms: coherency optimization by simulated annealing, Geophysics, 54, 984-990, 1989.
Louie, J. N. and J. Qin, Structural imaging of the Garlock fault, Cantil Valley, California, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 14,461-14,479, 1991.
Pullammanappallil, S. K. and J. N. Louie, Inversion of seismic reflection traveltimes using a nonlinear optimization scheme, Geophysics, 58, 1607-1620, 1993.
Pullammanappallil, S. K. and J. N. Louie, A generalized simulated-annealing optimization for inversion of first-arrival times, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., 84, 1994.
Sen, M. K. and P. L. Stoffa, Nonlinear one-dimensional seismic waveform inversion using simulated annealing, Geophysics, 56, 1624-1638, 1991.
Serpa, L., and Dokka, R. K., Geometry of the Garlock fault zone based on seismic reflection data: J. Geophys. Res., 97, 15,297-15,306, 1992.
Stork, C., Singular value decomposition of the velocity-reflector depth tradeoff, part 1: Introduction using a two-parameter model, Geophysics, 57, 927-932, 1992a.
Stork, C., Singular value decomposition of the velocity-reflector depth tradeoff, part 2: High-resolution analysis of a generic model, Geophysics, 57, 933-943, 1992b.
Symes, W. W., and J. J. Carazzone, Velocity inversion by differential semblance optimization, Geophysics, 56, 654-663, 1991.
Toldi, J. L., Velocity analysis without picking, Geophysics, 34, 191-199, 1989.
Vidale, J. E., Finite difference calculation of travel times, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., 78, 2062-2076, 1988.
Yilmaz, O., and R. Chambers, Migration velocity analysis by wavefield extrapolation, Geophysics, 49, 1664-1674, 1984.