Pahlavanloo, Ali, Soleimani monfared, Mehrdad, Gallo, Claudio. (1396). Improving seismic image in complex structures by new solving strategies in the CO-CRS and the CO-CDS methods. مجله ژئوفیزیک ایران, 10(5), 42-56.

Ali Pahlavanloo; Mehrdad Soleimani monfared; Claudio Gallo. "Improving seismic image in complex structures by new solving strategies in the CO-CRS and the CO-CDS methods". مجله ژئوفیزیک ایران, 10, 5, 1396, 42-56.

Pahlavanloo, Ali, Soleimani monfared, Mehrdad, Gallo, Claudio. (1396). 'Improving seismic image in complex structures by new solving strategies in the CO-CRS and the CO-CDS methods', مجله ژئوفیزیک ایران, 10(5), pp. 42-56.

Pahlavanloo, Ali, Soleimani monfared, Mehrdad, Gallo, Claudio. Improving seismic image in complex structures by new solving strategies in the CO-CRS and the CO-CDS methods. مجله ژئوفیزیک ایران, 1396; 10(5): 42-56.

Improving seismic image in complex structures by new solving strategies in the CO-CRS and the CO-CDS methods

^{1}, Faculty of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

^{2}Faculty of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

^{3}Imaging and Numerical Geophysics Program, Centre for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia, Pula, Italy

چکیده

Conventional seismic imaging possesses problem in exposing structural detail in complex geological media. Nevertheless, some recently introduced methods reduce this ambiguity to some extent, by using data based imaging operator or emancipation from the macro-velocity model. The zero offset common reflection surface (ZO-CRS) stack method is a velocity independent imaging technique which is frequently used in seismic imaging. Various modifications of this method were introduced through its development. The ZO diffraction stacking operator, the common offset CRS (CO-CRS) and anisotropic CRS methods were introduced to enhance the final seismic image. As diffraction events are carriers of structural details information, we adhere to improve response diffraction to obtain more structural details in the final image. Thus we combined advantages of the CO-CRS method by the diffraction operator to make the CO-CDS stack operator. The parameters of the reflection operator were changed to fulfill conditions of a diffraction response in CO domain. Meanwhile, to resolve the problem of conflicting dips, the solving strategy was modified in order to consider all possible angles and make a contribution to them in their related operators. Thus it was expected that the CO-CDS stack reveals weak diffraction events in the stacked section, in favor of further depth migration. The introduced method was applied to a synthetic and land data. Utilizing the CO-CDS method on the synthetic data brings out as much as diffraction in the stacked result. For land data set, the CO-CDS operator boosted the share of diffraction in the stack section which was further underwent depth migration procedure by the robust Gaussian Beam algorithm with a smooth velocity model. Outstanding enhancement in the final result compared to the conventional and the CRS methods were depicted by depth imaging of the CO-CDS result, which was a consequence of improved diffraction based operator of the CRS method.

Improving seismic image in complex structures by new solving strategies in the CO-CRS and the CO-CDS methods

نویسندگان [English]

Ali Pahlavanloo^{1}؛ Mehrdad Soleimani monfared^{2}؛ Claudio Gallo^{3}

^{1}, Faculty of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

^{2}Faculty of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

^{3}Imaging and Numerical Geophysics Program, Centre for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia, Pula, Italy

چکیده [English]

Conventional seismic imaging possesses problem in exposing structural detail in complex geological media. Nevertheless, some recently introduced methods reduce this ambiguity to some extent, by using data based imaging operator or emancipation from the macro-velocity model. The zero offset common reflection surface (ZO-CRS) stack method is a velocity independent imaging technique which is frequently used in seismic imaging. Various modifications of this method were introduced through its development. The ZO diffraction stacking operator, the common offset CRS (CO-CRS) and anisotropic CRS methods were introduced to enhance the final seismic image. As diffraction events are carriers of structural details information, we adhere to improve response diffraction to obtain more structural details in the final image. Thus we combined advantages of the CO-CRS method by the diffraction operator to make the CO-CDS stack operator. The parameters of the reflection operator were changed to fulfill conditions of a diffraction response in CO domain. Meanwhile, to resolve the problem of conflicting dips, the solving strategy was modified in order to consider all possible angles and make a contribution to them in their related operators. Thus it was expected that the CO-CDS stack reveals weak diffraction events in the stacked section, in favor of further depth migration. The introduced method was applied to a synthetic and land data. Utilizing the CO-CDS method on the synthetic data brings out as much as diffraction in the stacked result. For land data set, the CO-CDS operator boosted the share of diffraction in the stack section which was further underwent depth migration procedure by the robust Gaussian Beam algorithm with a smooth velocity model. Outstanding enhancement in the final result compared to the conventional and the CRS methods were depicted by depth imaging of the CO-CDS result, which was a consequence of improved diffraction based operator of the CRS method.

Baykulov, M., and Gajewski, D., 2009, Prestack seismic data enhancement with partial common-reflection-surface (CRS) stack: Geophysics, 74, 49-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3106182

Bergler, S., 2001, The Common-Reflection-Surface stack for common offset-theory and application: M. Sc. Thesis, Universität Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Bergler, S., Hubral, P., Marchetti, P., Cristini, A., and Cardone, G., 2002, 3D common-reflection-surface stack and kinematic wavefield attributes: The Leading Edge, 21, 1010-1015.

Biondi, B., 2006, 3D seismic imaging: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.

Bonomi, E., Cristini, A.M., Theis, D., and Marchetti, P., 2009, 3D CRS analysis: a new data-driven optimization strategy for the simultaneous estimate of the eight stacking parameters: In Expanded Abstracts, 79^{th} SEG Technical Program.

Bonomi, E., Tomas, C., Marchetti, P., and Caddeo, G., 2014, Velocity-independent and data-driven prestack time imaging: It is possible: The Leading Edge, 33, 1008-1014.

Bortfeld, R., 1989, Geometrical ray theory; Rays and traveltimes in seismic systems second-order approximations of the traveltimes: Geophysics, 54, 342-349.

Chandrakala, K., Mall, D.M., Sarkar, D., and Pandey O.P., 2013, Seismic imaging of the Proterozoic Cuddapah basin, South India and regional geodynamics: Precambrian Research, 231, 277– 289.

Cristini, A., Cardone, G., Chira, P., Hubral, P., and Marchetti, P., 2001, 3D zero offset-common reflection surface stack for land data: Presented at the SEG Workshop Velocity Model Independent Imaging in Complex Media. San Antonio, USA.

Duveneck, E., 2004, Velocity model estimation with data-derived wavefront attributes: Geophysics, 69, 265–274.

Fomel, S., 2007, Velocity-independent time-domain seismic imaging using local event slopes: Geophysics, 72, 139-147.

Garabito, G., Oliva, P. C., and Cruz, J. C. R., 2011, Numerical analysis of the finite-offset common-reflection-surface traveltime approximations: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 74, 89–99.

Garabito, G., Cruz, J. C. R., and Soellner, W., 2016, Finite-offset common reflection surface stack using global optimization for parameter estimation: a land data example: Geophysical Prospecting, Published Online.

Gelchinsky, B., Berkovitch, A., and Keydar, S., 1999, Multifocusing homeomorphic imaging: Part 1. Basic concepts and formulas: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 42, 229-242.

Hedin, P., Almqvist, B., Berthet, T., Juhlin, C., Buske, S., Simon, H., Giese, R., Krauss, F., Rosberg, J. E., and Alm, P. G., 2015, 3D reflection seismic imaging at the 2.5 km deep COSC-1 scientific borehole, central Scandinavian Caledonides: Tectonophysics, 689, 40-55.

Hertweck, T., Schleicher, J., and Mann, J., 2007, Data stacking beyond CMP, The Leading Edge, 26: 818-827.

Höcht, G., de Bazelaire, E., Majer, P., and Hubral, P., 1999, Seismic and optics: hyperbolae and curvatures: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 42, 261–281.

Iidaka, T., Kurashimo, E., Iwasaki, T., Arai, R., Kato, A., Katao, H., and Yamazaki, F., 2015, Large heterogeneous structure beneath the Atotsugawa Fault, central Japan, revealed by seismic refraction and reflection experiments: Tectonophysics, 657, 144-154.

Jäger, R., 1999, The common reflection surface stack: theory and application: M. Sc. Thesis, Universität Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Juhlin, C., Dehghannejad, M., Lund, B., Malehmir, A., and Pratt, G., 2010, Reflection seismic imaging of the end-glacial Pärvie Fault system, northern Sweden: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 70, 307–316.

Landa, E., Fomel, S., and Moser, T., 2006, Path-integral seismic imaging: Geophysical Prospecting, 54, 491–503.

Leite, L. W. B., Lima, H. M., Heilmann, B. Z., and Mann, J., 2010, CRS-based seismic imaging in complex marine geology: In Expanded Abstract, 72^{nd} EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Barcelona.

Mann, J., Jäger, R., Müller, T., Höcht, G., and Hubral, P., 1999, Common-reflection-surface stack - a real data example: Journal of Applied Geophysics 42, 301-318.

Mann, J., 2002, Extensions and applications of the common-reflection-surface stack method: Ph. D. Thesis, Universität Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Müller, T., 1999, The Common Reflection Surface Stack Method–Seismic imaging without explicit knowledge of the velocity model: Ph. D. Thesis, Universität Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Pu, R., Zhang, Y., and Luo, J., 2012, Seismic reflection, distribution, and potential trap of Permian volcanic rocks in the Tahe field: Journal of Earth Science 23, 421–430.

Robein, E., 2010, Seismic imaging—A review of the techniques, their principles, merits and limitations, EAGE publication, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Schwarz, B., Vanelle, C., Gajewski, D., and Kashtan, B., 2014, Curvatures and inhomogeneities: An improved common-reflection-surface approach: Geophysics 79, 231–240.

Soleimani, M., 2015, Seismic imaging of mud volcano boundary in the east of Caspian Sea by common diffraction surface stack method: Arabian Journal of Geoscience, 8, 3943–3958.

Soleimani, M., 2016a, Seismic imaging by 3D partial CDS method in complex media: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 143, 54–64.

Soleimani, M., 2016b, Seismic image enhancement of mud volcano bearing complex structure by the CDS method, a case study in SE of the Caspian Sea shoreline: Russian Geology and Geophysics, 57, 1757–1768.

Soleimani, M., Jodeiri-Shokri, B., and Rafiei, M., 2016, Improvement of seismic structural interpretation of Zagros fold-thrust belt by dip scanning in common diffraction surface imaging method: Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica, published online.

Spinner, M., Tomas, C., Marchetti, P., Gallo, C., and Arfeen, S., 2012, Common-Offset CRS for advanced imaging in complex geological settings: In Expanded Abstract, 82^{nd} SEG Technical Program.

Vieth, K. U., 2001, Kinematic wavefield attributes in seismic imaging: Logos Verlag, Berlin.

Xu, B., Xiao, A., Wu, L., Mao, L., Dong, Y., and Zhou, L., 2014, 3D seismic attributes for structural analysis in compressional context: A case study from western Sichuan Basin: Journal of Earth Science, 25, 985–990.

Yang, K., Chen, B. S., Wang, X. J., Yang, X. C., and Liu, J. R., 2012, Handling dip discrimination phenomenon in common‐reflection‐surface stack via combination of output‐imaging‐scheme and migration/demigration: Geophysical Prospecting 60, 255-269.

Zhang, Y., Bergler, S., and Hubral, P., 2001, Common‐reflection‐surface (CRS) stack for common offset: Geophysical Prospecting, 49, 709-718.