To better understand the PS-AMO operator, I compute and
analyze its impulse response.
Figure compares the AMO impulse responses obtained with
the filters in equation
(top) and equation
(bottom).
Both are obtained with a value of
and vp=2.0 km/s, and are
kinematically equivalent.
Figure presents a similar comparison to
Figure
for the case of converted waves. Here,
we use
and vp=2.0 km/s. Both impulse responses,
Figures
and
, also
illustrate the differences in the dynamic
behavior of the operator. The top panels for both figures show
the impulse responses using the operator from equation
, which is
based on the known PS-DMO operator of Xu et al. (2001). In contrast,
the bottom panels show the PS-AMO operator
from equation
, which is based on
the new PS-DMO operator, presented in Chapter 2, equivalent to the Zhou et al. (1996) PP-DMO operator.
The arrows in Figures
and
show that
the operator from equation
has stronger amplitudes
for steeply dipping events than the operator from equation
.
The area marked by the oval in the bottom panel for both
Figures
and
shows that impulse response for the PS-AMO operator
is not center at zero inline and crossline midpoint location, as
it is the case of the PP-AMO operator.
![]() |
![]() |
Figure shows two important characteristics of PS-AMO. First, the
PS-AMO operator is asymmetric because of the difference between the downgoing and upgoing
raypaths. Second, the PS-AMO operator varies with respect to traveltime, even for a constant velocity medium;
this behavior is caused by all the non-linear dependencies of the PS-AMO operator
with respect to traveltime, P velocity, and
. The vertical variation of
the lateral shift reflects that the lateral displacement between
the CMP and CRP also varies with the traveltime. Both characteristics are
intrinsic of converted-wave data.
![]() |