Frequency dependent grids -- promise and problems
Introduction
Many seismic data processing applications use Fourier Transform over time
but not in space. This is often a natural choice because the time axis
is always uniformly and adequately sampled, the seismic velocity does not
change with time so some operators become time invariant and can be
applied economically in the frequency domain (sometimes with the aid of
tricks like the log-stretch transform). Fourier transform over space
is more problematic because of the irregular space sampling and because
velocity changes with space.
Therefore, models are often built, and wave-fields are propagated in the
Frequency-space (F-X-Y) domain. Examples are Log Stretch DMO and Inversion
to Zero Offset (IZO), Spatial Prediction for signal/noise separation
(FXY-decon), Spatial Prediction for interpolation (FXY-Interp), and migration
(FXY finite differencing and Kirchoff).
Seismic data are acquired in irregular spatial sampling,
Data(shot location, receiver location, time). The spatial
sampling is regularized in the processing. For example,
-
The zero-offset model (so called `stack') is regularly sampled in
X, Y, and time, ZeroOffsetModel(X,Y,Time).
(So are migrated data in X, Y, and Z or time. It is only later
when the migrated data are interpreted that an irregularly sampled
earth model is built.)
-
Prestack interpolated data may be in
ShotGather(Receiver Y, Receiver Y, Time)
or Receiver Gather(Shot Y, Shot Y, Time)
or MidPointGather(Offset, Azimuth, Time)
The regularly sampled models have grids which define their X,Y sampling.
A wave-field in the (X, Y, Frequency) domain requires a small spatial sampling
interval for high temporal frequencies while a large sampling interval
will suffice for low frequencies. It is well known that the required
minimal spatial sampling interval is inversely proportional to the frequency.
Promise
Using the same sampling interval for low and high frequencies
is over parameterization which obviously means a waste of storage
and processing resources. It is less obvious, but more important, that
frequency dependent grids also have quality advantages. Namely
-
Unless carefully constrained, an over-parameterized model may
contain illegal components that will fit (noisy) data better
than a better model which does not include high wave-numbers
for low frequencies.
-
Spatial prediction filters become the same for all frequencies.
This is an important observation (that Dave Nichols made soon
after I talked about the first reason to use frequency dependent
grids). It means that Spitz's method of using the same
prediction filter for double the frequency - half the sampling
interval, or triple the frequency - third the sampling interval,
are special cases in a continuum of constant spatial sampling
interval times temporal frequency.
The promise of frequency dependent grids for spatial interpolation
and signal/noise separation are therefore immense; both quality and
economy.
Challenge
The immediate challenge is that data in frequency dependent grids,
cannot be described as header-ed seismic traces, nor in cubes. Rather
it is like a pyramid in F-X-Y or a code in F-Radius-Azimuth.
The more serious challenge is that F-X-Y operators applied on
sparse grids and the complex interpolation involved in going back
to the time domain when everything is done are touchy.
I will show some figures I made in Gatwick, which show artifacts which
are probably due to suboptimal operators and complex interpolation.
Artifact free time slice with frequency independent grids
Time slice with frequency dependent grids
Another time slice with frequency dependent grids
Another time slice with frequency dependent grids
Suggested project: Phase 1: Frequency Dependent F-X-Y decon
- Load regular data (start with synthetic data with coherent events
including flat and dipping reflectors and point diffractors and
added random noise).
- Fourier transform over time
- Interpolate (subsample) the cube into a pyramid
- Solve for a single prediction filter for all frequencies.
- Apply the prediction filter to separate noise and signal
- Interpolate (oversample) the frequency dependent grid signal and
noise pyramids to frequency independent grid signal and noise cubes.
- Inverse Fourier transform
(Phase 0 is skipping 4,5 above)
Suggested project: Phase 2: Frequency Dependent F-X-Y interpolation
- Load irregularly sampled data
- Fourier transform over time
- Solve an inversion in which the unknown is the signal pyramid:
Data(F,Xi,Yi) = Interpolate { Model(F,X,Y) }
With good and/or bad pass constrained as described in my last week msgs,
// Constrained Inversion ///////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// 1. d = F m // Data d fits model m via forward modeling F
// 2. 0 = B m // Bad pass B on model m gives 0
// 3. m = G x // Model m is good part of unknown x
//
// (d) = (F)
// (-) = (-) G x // 1, 2, & 3 together
// (0) = (B)
//
//
// (d) = (FG)
// (-) = (--) x // Equivalent to above
// (0) = (BG)
//
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
F is (bilinear) interpolation
G is prediction and B is unprediction
- Interpolate (oversample) the frequency dependent grid model pyramid
to a frequency independent grid model cube.
- Inverse Fourier transform
Suggested project: Phase 3: Space varying FD F-X-Y interpolation
Same as phase 2 but with a space varying prediction filter.