Anisotropic parameters used for numerical tests

To verify the accuracy of the results under realistic but different anisotropic conditions, in the numerical examples I used three set of anisotropic Thomsen parameters representing three different rocks described by Tsvankin (2001):  

 $$\begin{array} {l} \bullet\;{\rm Taylor\;Sand:}\;\;\epsilon=0... ...n=0.0975,\;\;\delta=-0.11,\;\;\rightarrow \eta=.266.\end{array}$$

Notice that the GreenLight River Shale is derived from the Green River Shale described by Tsvankin (2001) by halving the anisotropic parameters ($\epsilon$ and $\delta$), because the strong unelliptical nature of the original one ($\eta=.74$) caused the group-slowness approximation in equation 6 to break down, and made the kinematic computations based on ray tracing, and thus on group velocity and angles, inconsistent with wavefield migrations based on the dispersion relation in equation 7. Notice that the GreenLight River Shale is still the most unelliptical among the set of rocks I am using.