Semblance picking

bob@sep.stanford.edu

Tomography in the post-migrated domain is quickly becoming the standard approach for obtaining velocities in complex areas. The standard flow to update the velocity through tomography in the post-migrated domain begins by migrating the data using some initial velocity model. This migration method can be Kirchhoff Etgen (1990), downward continuation methods Clapp (2001b); Mosher et al. (2001), or any other method that can produce an image as a function of offset or reflection angle. Some type of moveout analysis is then performed on the migrated volume. This moveout analysis can take the form of one Clapp (2001b); Etgen (1990) or two Biondi (1990) parameter curvature analysis or something more complex like a residual migration scaling parameter Clapp (2002); Etgen (1990). These moveouts are then converted to time errors. We approximate the non-linear relationship between slowness and travel times by linearizing around an initial slowness model. We can then solve the resulting linear system and update our slowness field.

Until recently, computer power limitations forced some shortcuts
in the ideal processing flow.
One of these shortcuts was to use
a sparse set of gathers rather than the entire volume.
Another was to limit moveout analysis was often limited to a set of *a priori*
chosen reflectors.
Both of these limitations have drawbacks.
Etgen et al. (2002) showed that an improved measure
of residual moveout can be achieved by calculating moveout at all image
locations and then smoothing along reflectors.
In addition,
Clapp (2001a); Woodward et al. (1998) showed that
not being limited to a sparse set of picked reflectors can improve the inversion
result and limit the amount of human processing time.
These two results indicate that what we would ideally like to do
is obtain a field of moveout parameters. The problem is
that our data has one more dimension (offset/angle) than our
model. This is the same problem faced in NMO velocity analysis
Toldi (1985).
One of the best solution to this type of problem is the
Differential
Semblance Operator (DSO) approach Symes and Carazzone (1991). The problem with
a DSO type approach is that it is quite expensive and sensitive to
noise.

In this paper I demonstrate an alternate method to estimate the semblance field. The general approach is to solve the non-linear problem through a sequence of simple linear problems. I pick a maximum semblance value at every location. I then form a simple inversion problem to estimate a smooth field of moveout parameters weighted by image and semblance strength. I pick a new maximum in a range around the estimated semblance, estimate a new model and repeat until a satisfactory model is obtained. As the non-linear iterations increase, I decrease the smoothing criteria and range around the estimated semblance.

Review The standard methodology used to update our migration velocity estimate is to start from the fact that the position of a reflection should be independent of the angle at which it is illuminated. As a result, if we look at a common reflection point gather, the reflection depth should be constant as a function of angle (downward continuation methods) or offset (Kirchoff and Gaussian Beam methods). Figure shows the result of migrating a 2-D marine set with a velocity that is significantly in error. When the depth of a reflector is not constant (left panel of Figure ) as a function of our independent variable (angle/offset) it is indicative of some error in our migration velocity. We set up an inversion problem that relates the deviation from constant depth to some change in slowness through a linear approximation ,

(1) |

Figure 1

semb-gather
The left panel shows a CRP gather from a 2-D dataset shown in Figure .
Note that the moveout
varies as a function of angle indicating an error in the velocity model.
The right panel is a semblance gather calculated from the CRP gather
in the right panel.
Gamma is a scaling parameter applied to the velocity field, a scaling
of 1 indicates a flat gather.
Figure 2 |

Selecting a sparse set of CRP gathers and selecting the maximum can give misleading results. If a selected CRP gather has a low signal-noise ratio at the reflector location we can get misleading information. Also, if our CRP analysis points are too sparse we can miss important features in the dataset. Finally, the maximum, especially if automatically selected, can be a dangerous choice. If the semblance has multiple distinct peaks (Figure ) the maximum might indicate a spurious moveout. Clapp (2001b); Etgen et al. (2002) took the approach that a better solution is to do the semblance analysis at each CRP location and then smooth the semblance values along the reflectors. This approach is a definite improvement over the conventional approach but still does not effectively handle the core problem that our data space, moveout as a function of angle/offset, is one more dimension than our model, maximum semblance, and writing a linear relationship between the two is problematic.

peaks
Semblance in complicated portion of the data.
Note the 3 distinct peaks. In this case the peak with the maximum amplitude
is the result of noise in the data rather than the moveout of the reflector.
Figure 3 |

Global solution This type of estimation problem is well known in the literature for NMO velocity analysis Symes and Carazzone (1991); Toldi (1985). One solution to the NMO velocity analysis problem, presented in Clapp et al. (1998) was to:

- Calculate semblance in a gather.
- Pick the maximum within some reasonable fairway.
- Solve the estimation problem:
(2) *V*_{rms}^{2}, is*V*_{int}^{2}, is causal integration, is the semblance at the given location or stack-power, is our control over smoothness, and is some roughening operator.

We can write a similar set of fitting goals for picking the best semblance for our tomography problem,

(3) |

(4) |

data0
Maximum semblance values at model locations. Note
that gamma=1. indicates no moveout.
Figure 4 |

Figure 5

model0
Model estimated using fitting goals
(3), the data shown in Figure
and the weight function shown in Figure .
Figure 6 |

bad
A CRP gather at X=7.3km. Note the reflection
at 3km. The reflection is flat but the artifacts cause the
maximum semblance (Figure ) and the estimated model
(Figure ) to indicate that residual moveout exists.
Figure 7 |

We can add another twist to the problem of bad maximums by repicking our maximum semblance values to be within some tolerance range around our estimated semblance values, then resolving the inversion problem. Figure shows our new data picks limiting the range around estimated model. We can repeat this procedure several times continually decreasing the range around which we will accept new data values. This approach has similarities to simulated annealing. We begin by searching the entire range of our space, trying to get close to the correct solution. Later we limit our search space and try to get the finer features. Using the same analogy, it makes sense to also have be a function of iteration. At early iterations we have a large and by reducing as a function of non-linear iteration we get the finer features of the model. Figure shows the results after repeating this procedure five times. Note the absence of the problem seen in Figure . We have successfully honored the data where we have good semblance and strong reflectors without introducing artifacts in regions where data quality is more questionable.

data-new
The result of limiting the range
of acceptable data values to around a reasonable range defined from
solving fitting goals (3) once.
Figure 8 |

model-final
Our final estimated solving
fitting goals (3) several times reducing the range of
acceptable data values, and decreasing or smoothing constraints.
Figure 9 |

7/8/2003