You are on page 1of 17

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.

org/

[ntroductJon

Part

to Seismic Inversion

8 - Model-based
-

Inversion
_
-

Methods

m
m
L

Bran Russel

PART 8 - MODEL-BASED INVERSION

....

Page 8 -

Introduction

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

8.1

to Seismic

Introducti

In the

information

Inversion

Methods

Brian

Russell

on

past

sections

directly

of

the

course,

we have derived

reflectivi-ty

from the seismic section and used recursire

produce a final velocity versus depth model.

inversion to

We have also seen that these

methods can be severely affected by noise, poor amplitude recovery, and the
band-limited nature of seismic data.
will

be included

In
first

in

the

final

inversion

and comparing the model to

our

approac is

intuitively
data

itself.

seismic data.

We shall then use the

comparison between real and modeled data to iteratively

the model in such a way as to better

this

result.

this chapter, we shall consider the case of builaing a geologic moUel

results of tis

of

That is, any problems in the data itsel f

match the seismic data.

shown in Figure 8.1.

Notice

that

update

The basic idea

this

method is

very appealing since it avoids the airect inversion of the seismic


On the other hand, it may be possible to come up with a model

that matchesthe data'very well, but is incorrect. (This can be seen easily
by noting that there are infinitely manyvelocity/depth pairs that will result
in the sametime value.) This is referred to as the problem of nonuniqueness.
To implement the approach shown in
fundamental questions.

First,

Figure 8.1,

we need to answer two

what is the mathematical relationship

the model data and the seismic data?

Second,

between

how do'we update the' model? We

shall consider two approaches


to theseproblems,the generalizedlinear
inversion (GLI) approach outlined in CooRe and Schneider (1983}, and the
Seismic Lithologic
(SLIM) method which was developed in Gelland and Larner
(1983).

Part

8 - Model-based

Inversion

Page 8 -

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Introduction

to Seismic

Inversion

Methods'

Brian

Russell

CALCULATE
UPDATE
IMPEDANCE

ERROR

ERROR
SMALL
ENOUGH

NO

YES

SOLUTION
= ESTIMATE

Model Based Invemion

Figure 8.1

Flowchart for the model based inversion

Part

8 - Model-based

Inversion

technique.

Page 8 -

Introduction

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

8.2

%o Seismic

Generalized

Linear

Inversion

Methods

Brian

Russell

Inversion

The generalized linear inversion(GLI) method is a methodwich can be.


applied to virtually any set of geophysicalmeasurementsto determine the
geologicalsituation whichproduced these results. That is, given a set of
geophysicalobservations, the GLI method
will derive the geological model
which best fits

tese observations in a

least squares sense.

Mathematically,

if we express the model and observations as vectors

M:(m
1,m
2, ..... , mk)
T=vector
ofkmodel
parameters,
and
T: (t1,t2, ..... , tn)T:
functional

of n observations.

between the model and observations can be expressed

Then the relationship


in the

vector

form

t i = F(ml,m2, ...... , mk)


Once

the

functional

relationship

i : 1, ...

, n.

has been derived

observations and the model, any set of

between

model parameters will

the

produce an

output. But what model?GLI eliminatesthe needfor trial

and error by

analyzing the error betweenthe model output and the observations, and then
perturbing the model parameters in such a way as to produce an output which
will produceless error.
In this way, we may iterate towards a solution.
Mathematically'
F(M)

)F(MO)

= F(Mo)+ aT

M,

MO-Initialodel,

where

M:

true earth model,

AM:

changein model parameters,

F(M) : observations,

F(Mo):calculated
valuesfrominitial

model, and

)F(M
O)

.2

Part

8 - Model-based

Inversion

= change
in calculated
values.

Page 8 -

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Introduction to Seismic Inversion Flethods

Brian Russell

IMPEDANCE

(GM/CM3)(FT/SEC)
X1000

IMPEDANCE

4.6

41.5AMPLITUDE

41.5 4.6

ml

41.5 4.6

41.5

ii

,i

i,

ii

:.
__

Figure 8.2

A synthetic

test of the GLI approach to model based

inversion.

(a) Input impedance. (b) Reflectivity derived from (a)


with added multiples. (c) Recurslye inversion of (b).
(d) Recurslye

inversion

of (b)convolved

(e) GLI inversion of (b).

Part

8 - Model-based

I nversi on

with wavelet.

(Cooke and Schneider, 1983)

Page 8 -

Introduction

to Seismic

Inversion

Methods

Brian

Russell

But note that the error between the observations and the computed values

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

i s simply

F = F(M)- F(MO).
Therefore,

the above equation can be re expressed as a matrix equation


F

where

= A AM,

A:

matrix
with

of deri vatives
n rows anU k columns.

The soluti on to the above equation would appear to be

-1

= A

where A-l: matrixinverseof A.

F,

However, since there are usually more observations than parameters (that

is, n is usually greater


therefore

does

not

than k)

have

the matrix A is

true

inverse.

This

usually not square and


is

overdeterminedcase. To solve the equation in that

referred

to

as

an

case, we use a least

squares solution often referred to as the Marquart-Levenburg


method(see Lines
and Treitel

(1984)).

The solution

is given by

M: (AT'A)-IA
TZF.
Figure 8.1 can be thought of as a flowchart of the GLI methodif we make
the impedanceupdate using the methodjust described. However, we still must
derive

the

observations.
convol utional

functional

relationship

The simplest

necessary to relate

solution

the

which presents itself

model to

the

is the standarO

model

s(t)

= w(t) * r(t),

where r(t)

= primaries only.

Cooke and Schneider (1983) use a modilied version of the previous formula

in which multiples

and transmission losses are modelled. Figure 8.2 is a

composite from their paper showingthe results of an inversion applied to

single synthetic impedance trace.

Part

8 - Model-based

Inversion

Page 8 -

Introduction

to Seismic

Inversion

Methods

Brian

'

Russell

IMP.EDANCE
x1OOO

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

(GM/CM3)(FT/$EC)

._
,.o

. .:-:

. .:.

,, ,,

. . .....

. .:.........::
:...., ...... .. :...lO
? "e'.

: :........:..:.-.-_-

........

,,

, ....-.

-.

4':
-':::./-.:.!i!i..::..':..
:.:......:.':ii.'-'-:..
:.....
'......'..'..
:.' }::!
- ..'.:"

'

300M$

Figure 8.3

2-D model to test GLI algorithm.

The well on the right


encountersa gas sand while the well on the left does not.
(Cooke and Schneider, 1983)
IMPEDANCE

AMPLITUDE

(GM/CM3! (FT/SEC)X1000
10

,,,.l

Figure 8.4

Model

traces

derived

from

m)del in Figure 8.3.


{Cooke and Sc)neider, 1983)

Part 8 - Model-based nversion

Figure 8.5

38 10

38

GLI inversion of model traces.


Compare
with sonic log on right side of Fiiure 8.3.
(Cooke and Schneider, 1983)
Page 8 -

Introduction

to Seismic

Inver. sJon Methods

Brian

Russell

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

In Figure 8.2, notice that the advantage of incorporating multiples in


the solution is that, although they are modelled in couting
the seismic

response,they are not included in the model parameters. This is a big


advantage over recursire methods, since those methods incorporate
multiples into the solution if they are not removedfrom the section.
Another

important

feature

of

this

particular

method is

the

the

parameterizationused. Instead of assigninga different value of velocity at


each time sample, large

geological blocks were defined.

assigneda starting impedancevalue, impedancegradient,


time.

This

Each block was

and a thickness in

reduceU the numberof parameters and therefore

simplified

the

computation.However,there is enough flexibility in this modellingapproach


to

derive a fairly

detailed geological inversion.

Wewill

now look at both a

syntheticandreal examplefromCookeandSchneider(1983).
A 2-0 synthetic example was next considered by Cooke and Schneider
(1983). Figure 8.3 showsthe model, which consisted of two gas sands encased
in shale.

One well encountered the

sand and the other missed.

The impedance

profile of the discovery well is shownon the right.


Figure 8.4 shows
synthetic traces over the two wells, in which a noise component
has been
added.

Finally,

Figure 8.5 showsthe initial

guess and the

final

solution,

for which the gradients have been set to zero.


Notice that although the
solution is not perfect, the gas sand has been delineated.

Part

8 - Model-based

Inversion

Page 8 -

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Introduction to Seismic Inversion Methods

Brian Russell

YES

_____J
' '

- _

FINALMObEL

._ x,

.... r - ;,

-.-'%..

-cx-r.
.,'_;'.:.
-, . . . .. .-.
t ...

Figure 8.6

I11 ustrated

flow chart

for

the SLIM method.

(Western GeophysicalBrochure)

Part 8 - Model-based Inversion

Page 8 -

! ntroducti

on to Sei stoic !nver si on Methods

Brian

Russel 1

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

8.3 Sei_smic
L_ithologicModelling(,SLIM)
Although the nthod outlined in Cookeand Schneider (1983)
promise, it has not,
commercially.

as

far

However,

fully

released,

than

the

direct

of

a seismic

flowchart

the

layers

of

variable

points along the line.

similar

and

is

Modeling (SLIM) method of

perturbation

of

the

SLIM method taken from a Western

as in the GLI method, an initial


velocity,

Also, the

of a model rather

section.

created and comparedwith a seismic section.


of

very

Although the details of the algorithm have not been

inversion

Notice that,

aware, been implemented

appears

Seismic Lithologic

the method does involve

Figure 8.6 shows a

brochure.

author is

one method that

commercially available is the

Western Geophysical.

as this

showed much

density,

geological model is

The model is defined as a series


and thickness at

seismic wavelet is either

various

control

supplied (from a

previous wavelet extraction procedure) or is estimated from the data.


synthetic model is then comparedwith

the

The

seismic data and the least-squared

error sum is computed. The model is perturbed in such a way as to reduce the
error,

and the process is repeated until

convergence.

The user has total


geological information

control over the constraints and may incorporate


from any source. The major advantage of this method

over classical

methods is

recurslye

that

noise

in the seismic

section

is not

incorporated. However,as in the GLI method,thesolution is nonunique.


The best examples of

Gelland and Larner (1983).


initial

applying

this

method to

Figure 8.7 is taken from their paper and shows an

Denver basin model which has 73 flat

boundaries

of

real data are given in

sonic log.

layers derived from the major

Beside this is the actual stacked

data

to

be

Page 8 -

10

inverted.

Part

8 - Model-based

I nversi

on

Introduction

to Seismic

Inversion

Methods

Brian

Russell

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

1kit

,1.4

1.4

1.6

2.0

2.0

Stack

Initial
Figure 8.7

Left' Init)al Denver


Basinmodelseismic.
Right: Stacked section from DenverBasin.
(Gelfand andLarner, 1983).

lkft

.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

1.8

Field
data

Synthetic

Figure 8.8

Left:

Reflectivity

Fna SLIM JnversJon of


Figure 8.7 spl iceU into
Right- Final reflectivity
from
' -- _ -- __--__ii m
' -'
(Gelfand and Larner,
Part 8 - Model-based Inversion

data shown 1n
field data.
inversion.
1983).
..........
Page 8 -

2.0
.m:
11

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Introduction

to Seismic

Inversion

Methods

Brian

Russell

In Figure 8.8 the stack is again shown in its most complexregion, with
the final synthetic data is shownafter 7 iterations through the program.
Notice the excellent agreement. On the right hand sie of Figure 8-.9 is the
final reflectivity section from which the pseudoimpedanceis derived. Since
this reflectivity is "spiy", or broad band, it already contains the low

frequencycomponent
necessary
for full inversion. Finally, Figure 8.10 shows
the final inversion compared
with a traditional recursire inversion.

Note the

'blocky' nature of the parameterbasedinversion when comparedwith the


recurs i ve i nvers i on.

In

summary,

which can
reflectivity

parameter

be thought
is

of

extracted.

based inversion i s an iterative

as a geology-baseddeconvolution since the full


I

propagatedthroughthe final result

Part

8 - Model-based

Inversion

model1ing scheme

has the

advantage

as in recursire

that

errors

are

not

inversion.

Page 8 -

12

Introduction

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

to Seismic

Methods

500-ft
N

lkft

Inversion

Brian

114
mile
S

Russell

114
mile
SE

.5

.7

l m

1.9

Figure 8.9

Impedance section

derived

from SLIM inversion

of

Denver Basln 1 ine showni n Figure 8.7.

{GelfanUand Larner, 1983)


W

lkft

50011
N

114mileS

114mileS

1.7

19

Fi gure 8.10

Traditional

recursire

inversion

of Denver Basin line

from Fi gur.e 8.7.

(Gelfana anU Larner, 1983)


Part

8 - Model-based

Inversion

Page 8 -

13

Introduction

to Seismic

Inversion

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Appendix
8-!

Methods

Brian

Russell

Mat_r_ix
.appljc.at.
ions_inGeophy.s.ics

Matrix theory showsup in every aspect of geophysicalproocessing.Before


looking at generalized matrix theory, let us considerthe application of
matrices to

the solution of a linear equation, probably the most important

application.

For example, let

3x1+2x2 : 1, and
x1- x2 = 2.
By inspection, we see that the solution is

However,we Could .haveexpressed the equations in the matrix form


A

x1

1 -1

x2

y,

or

The sol ution

is,

therefore
x

-1

x1
x2

8 - Model-based

Inversion

1 . -2

-1/5

or

Part

y,

Page 8 -

14

Introduction

to Seismic Inversion

Me.thods

In the above equations we had the

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

and the

problem terefore

of dimension N.

same numberof equations as unknowns

had a unique answer. In matrix terms, this

that the problem can be set up as a

vector

Brian Russell

square matrix of dimension N x N times a

However, in geophysical problemswe are Uealing with

the real earth anU the equations are never as nice.

fewer

means

equations than

unknowns (in

Generally,

which case the

we either

situation

is

have

called

underdetermined) or more equations than unknowns(in which case the situation

is
is

calleU overdetermined). In geophysicalproblems,the underUetermined


case
of

little

interest

overde termi neU

to

case is

us since

there

is

no unique

of muchinterest since it occurs in

solution.

the

The

following

problems:
(!)

Surface

consi stent

resi dual statics,

(2) Lithological modelling,and


(3) Refracti on model
1i ng.
The overdetermined system of
categories-

consistent

extending our earlier

equations can be split into two separate


inconsistent.
These are best described
by

an

example.

(a) Cons.i
st Overd..etermined
Lin.earEqua.t.
ion.s

In

this

equations

case

are

we

simply

reUunUant equations may

have more equations

than

unknowns, but

scaled versions of te others.

In

this

the extra

case,

the

simply be eliminated, reducingthe prlemto the

square matrix case. For examp.le, consider adding a third equation to our
earl ier example,

so that

3x1+2x2 : 1,
x1- x2 : 2,
anU

Part

8 - Model-based

Inversion

5x1- 5x2 : 10.

Page 8 -

15

Introduction

to Seismic

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

This may be written

Inversion

Methods

Brian

Russell

in matrix form as

x1
x

But notice that the third equation is simply five times the second, and
therefore conveys no new information.

equations back to the original

We may thus

reduce the system of

form.

(b) Inco,
ns,
is,tentOverd.
eermine.
d L.i.near
Equai.on?

In this case the

extra

equations are not scalea

versions

of other

equations-in the set, but conveyconflicting information. In this case, there


is no solution to the problem which will

solve all the equations.

This is

usually the case in our seismic wor and indicates the presence of measurement
noise and errors.
As an example, consider a modification to the preceding
equations, so that

3x1+2xZ -- 1,
x1- x2 -- Z,

ana 5x1- $x2 = 8.


This may be written

in matrix form as

2
-I
-5

Part

8 - Model-based

Inversion

xI

x2

Page 8 -

16

Introduction

to Seismic

Inversion

He.thods

Brian

Russell

'Now the third equationis not reducible to either of the other two, ana
Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

an alternate

of

least

solution

solution must be found.

The most popular aproach is the method

squares, which minimizes the sumof the squared error


and the observed results.

That is,

if

we set the error

between the
to

e=Ax-y,

then we si reply mini mize


n

eTe-(eI , ez, .......

, en)

ei

Le.
Re expressing the 'preceding equation in terms of the values x, y, and A,
we

have

E = eTe= (y - Ax)T(y
- Ax)

= yTy_ xTATy
_ yTAx
+ xTATAx.
We then solve the equation
bE_

bxi
The final

solution to

the

least-squares

problem is given by the normal

equati OhS

AT
Ax = AT y
or

Part

8 - Model-based

Inversion

x = (ATA)-lATy
.

Page 8 -

17