Future Work

The previous sections have proven that an inversion for the velocity model that produces the FEAVO anomalies is possible. The actual work of setting up such an inversion first for 2D, then for 3D, remains to be done. While the functioning of the forward and the inverse operators for the iterative inversion is being proved by the work of Paul Sava, I have to replace his approach of constructing $\Delta Image$ with my approach of extracting the FEAVO anomalies.

I will also need to investigate ways to discriminate between absorption and velocity caused FEAVO. I plan to study the effects of the source directivity on the amplitudes and to investigate a non-smoothing styling goal for the inversion. I would have to investigate ways to do surface-consistent amplitude corrections that will account for surface absorption variations, and to see whether that will not destroy the FEAVO.

Finally, I will perform geological interpretations of the data with FEAVO removed, and compare them with interpretations of the original data. This should show that FEAVO removal and the new velocity model made a difference in interpretation results.

 

hatsim
Figure 6 Left, from top to bottom: 1. Wavefield recorded 6 km deep after propagation through constant velocity; 2. Wavefield recorded 6 km deep after propagation through velocity model in panel 6; 3. Difference between 1 and 2; Right, from top to bottom: 4. Ratio between the maximum amplitudes in panel 2 and panel 1, for each x location; 5. Difference between the times of the maximum amplitudes in 1 and 2, for each x location; 6. Velocity model for panel 2 - homogeneous with a lower velocity slab inserted.