Figure shows the approximations
in the group-velocity and phase-slowness domains for the qP
surface of Greenhorn Shale (Jones and Wang, 1981), a
transversely isotropic medium.
As shown by the four plots,
the approximations are reasonably consistent even away
from the axial ``control points'' for
the qP surface, despite the strongly non-elliptic anisotropy.
(If the first anelliptic approximation in the two domains of interest
were perfectly consistent with each other,
the thick dashed line would follow the same trajectory relative to the
thin continuous line in both columns.
As it is, at
the approximation in the group domain underestimates
the group velocity by 1.7% and
the approximation in the phase domain overestimates
the group velocity by .6%.)
The three axial constraints seem to be enough to tie the two approximations
to the underlying TI medium, and thus to each other.
The fit is not so good for the corresponding qSV surface,
shown in Figure .
This is not surprising as there is no way
a single-valued ray equation can track a triplication.
The approximation can still be used in the phase-slowness domain
in such cases, but there is no hope that
the phase- and group-domain approximations
can be very consistent if the approximation in either domain
is anywhere concave.
Mathematically, for there to be no concavity in either domain
the ``F'' factor in equation (
) (or Fz and Fx
factors in equation (
)) should satisfy the inequality
3/7 < F < 7/3 . | (13) |