4 Migration

• Introduction • Exploding Reflectors • Migration Strategies • Migration Algorithms • Migration Parameters • As-
pects of Input data • Migration Velocities • Migration Principles • Kirchhoff Migration • Diffraction Summation
• Amplitude and Phase Factors • Kirchhoff Summation • Finite-Difference Migration • Downward Continuation •
Differencing Schemes • Rational Approximations for Implicit Schemes • Reverse Time Migration • Frequency-Space
Implicit Schemes • Frequency-Space Explicit Schemes • Frequency-Wavenumber Migration • Phase-Shift Migra-
tion • Stolt Migration • Summary of Domains of Migration Algorithms • Kirchhoff Migration in Practice •
Aperture Width • Maximum Dip to Migrate • Velocity Errors • Finite-Difference Migration in Practice •
Depth Step Size • Velocity Errors • Cascaded Migration • Reverse Time Migration • Frequency-Space Migra-
tion in Practice • Steep-Dip Implicit Methods • Depth Step Size • Velocity Errors • Steep-Dip Explicit Methods
• Dip Limits of Extrapolation Filters • Velocity Errors • Frequency-Wavenumber Migration in Practice •
Maximum Dip to Migrate • Depth Step Size • Velocity Errors • Stolt Stretch Factor • Wraparound • Residual Mi-
gration • Further Aspects of Migration in Practice • Migration and Spatial Aliasing • Migration and Random
Noise • Migration and Line Length • Migration from Topography • Exercises • Appendix D: Mathematical
Foundation of Migration • Wavefield Extrapolation and Migration • Stationary Phase Approximations • The
Parabolic Approximation • Frequency-Space Implicit Schemes • Stable Explicit Extrapolation • Optimum Depth
Step • Frequency-Wavenumber Migration • Residual Migration • References

4.0 INTRODUCTION

Migration moves dipping reflections to their true sub-
surface positions and collapses diffractions, thus increas-
ing spatial resolution and yielding a seismic image of
the subsurface. Figure 4.0-1 shows a CMP-stacked sec-
tion before and after migration. The stacked section in-
dicates the presence of a salt dome flanked by gently
dipping strata. Figure 4.0-1 also shows a sketch of two
prominent features — the diffraction hyperbola D that
originates at the tip of the salt dome, and the reflection
B off the flank of the salt dome. After migration, note
that the diffraction has collapsed to its apex P and the
dipping event has moved to a subsurface location A,
which is at or near the salt dome flank. In contrast, re-
flections associated with the gently dipping strata have
moved little after migration.
Figure 4.0-2 is an example with a different type
of structural feature. The stack contains a zone of near-
horizontal reflections down to 1 s. After migration, these
events are virtually unchanged. Note the prominent un-
conformity that represents an ancient erosional surface
just below 1 s. On the stacked section, the unconfor-
mity appears complex, while on the migrated section,
it becomes interpretable. The bowties on the stacked
section are untied and turned into synclines on the mi-
464 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.0-1. A CMP stack (a) before, (b) after migration; (c) sketch of a prominent diffraction D and a dipping event before
(B) and after (A) migration. Migration moves the dipping event B to its assumed true subsurface position A and collapses
the diffraction D to its apex P. The dotted line indicates the boundary of a salt dome.

grated section. The deeper event in the neighborhood

FIG. 4.0-2. A CMP stack (a) before, (b) after migration.
Migration unties the bowties on the stacked section and
turns them into synclines (Taner and Koehler, 1977).
of 3 s is the multiple associated with the unconformity
above. When treated as a primary and migrated with
the primary velocity, it is overmigrated.
Figure 4.0-3a shows a stacked section that con-
tains fault-plane reflections conflicting with the shal-
low gently-dipping reflections. Note the accurate posi-
tioning of the fault planes and delineation of the fault
blocks on the migrated section in Figure 4.0-3b. From
the three examples shown in Figures 4.0-1, 4.0-2, and
4.0-3, note that migration moves dipping events in the
updip direction and collapses diffractions, thus enabling
us to delineate faults while retaining horizontal events
in their original positions.
The goal of migration is to make the stacked sec-
tion appear similar to the geologic cross-section in depth
along a seismic traverse. The migrated section, however,
commonly is displayed in time. One reason for this is
that velocity estimation based on seismic and other data
always is limited in accuracy. Therefore, depth conver-
sion is not completely accurate. Another reason is that
interpreters prefer to evaluate the validity of migrated
sections by comparing them to the unmigrated data.
Therefore, it is preferable to have both sections dis-
played in time. The migration process that produces
a migrated time section is called time migration. Time
migration, the main theme of Chapter 4, is appropriate
as long as lateral velocity variations are mild to moder-
ate.
When the lateral velocity gradients are significant,
time migration does not produce the true subsurface im-
age. Instead, we need to use depth migration, the output
 Migration 465

FIG. 4.0-3. A CMP stack (a) before, (b) after migration. Migration collapses subtle diffractions associated with the growth
faults, moves the fault-plane reflections to the fault positions, and thus makes detailed structural interpretation easier.
466 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.0-4. A CMP stack (a) before, (b) after time migration. Time migration is adequate for accurate imaging of the
top-salt boundary, whereas depth migration is imperative for accurate imaging of the base-salt boundary (B).
 Migration 467

of which is a depth section. Consider the data from an

area with intense salt tectonics in Figure 4.0-4. Time
migration has produced an acceptable image of the re-
gion above the salt. However, note the crossing of events
that is a manifestation of overmigration of the reflection
associated with the base-salt boundary (denoted by B
in Figure 4.0-4b). The improper migration is the result
of inadequate treatment by the time migration of the
effects of severe raypath bendings at the top-salt bound-
ary caused by the strong velocity contrast between the
salt layer and the overlying rocks.
Complex structures associated with salt diapirism,
overthrust tectonics and irregular water-bottom topog-
raphy usually are three dimensional (3-D) in character.
A stacked section really is the seismic response of a 3-
D subsurface on a two-dimensional (2-D) plane of pro-
file. Therefore, 2-D migration is not completely valid
for 3-D data from areas with complex 3-D structures.
Figure 4.0-5a is an inline stacked section from a land
3-D survey. Figure 4.0-5b is a 2-D migration of this
section, while Figure 4.0-5c is the same section after
3-D migration of the entire 3-D survey data. In particu-
lar, note the significant difference in the imaging of the
top of salt T and base of salt B. In 2-D migration, we
assume that the stacked section does not contain any
energy that comes from outside the plane of recording
(sideswipe). Three-dimensional imaging of the subsur-
face is discussed in Section 7.3.

Exploding Reflectors

When a stacked section is migrated, we use the migra-

tion theory applicable to data recorded with a coin-
cident source and receiver (zero-offset). To develop a
conceptual framework for discussing migration of zero-
offset data, we now examine two types of recording
schemes.
A zero-offset section is recorded by moving a sin-
gle source and a single receiver along the line with no
separation between them (Figure 4.0-6). The recorded
energy follows raypaths that are normal incidence to
reflecting interfaces. This recording geometry obviously
is not realizable in practice.
Now consider an alternative geometry (Figure 4.0-
6) that will produce the same seismic section. Imag-
ine exploding sources that are located along the reflect-
FIG. 4.0-5. A 2-D CMP stack (a) represents a 2-D cross-
ing interfaces (Loewenthal et al., 1976). Also, consider
section of a 3-D wavefield. Thus, it can contain energy from
one receiver located on the surface at each CMP lo- outside the plane of the 2-D line traverse. A 2-D migra-
cation along the line. The sources explode in unison tion (b) is inadequate when this kind of energy is present
and send out waves that propagate upward. The waves on the 2-D CMP-stacked section. (c) Clear imaging of the
are recorded by the receivers at the surface. The earth salt structure requires both 3-D data collection and 3-D mi-
model described by this experiment is referred to as the gration (Section 7.3). (Data courtesy Nederlandse Aardolie
exploding reflectors model. Maatschappij B.V.)
468 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.0-6. Geometry of zero-offset recording (left), and hypothetical simulation of the zero-offset experiment using exploding
reflectors (right) (Claerbout, 1985).

The seismic section that results from the exploding

reflectors model is largely equivalent to the zero-offset
section, with one important distinction. The zero-offset
section is recorded as two-way traveltime (from source
to reflection point to receiver), while the exploding re-
flectors model is recorded as one-way traveltime (from
the reflection point at which the source is located to
the receiver). To make the sections compatible, we can
imagine that the velocity of propagation is half the true
medium velocity for the exploding reflectors model.
The equivalence between the zero-offset section and
the exploding reflectors model is not quite exact, par-
ticularly in the presence of strong lateral velocity vari-
ations (Kjartansson and Rocca, 1979).
These concepts now are applied to the velocity-
depth model in Figure 4.0-7. Consider source-receiver
pairs placed along the earth’s surface at every tenth
midpoint. In this case, a zero-offset section is mod-
eled. At midpoint 130, five different arrivals are asso-
ciated with rays that are normal incidence to the first
interface. Alternatively, imagine receivers placed along
the earth’s surface at every tenth midpoint and sources
placed along the interface where the rays emerge at the
right angle to the interface (equivalent to the normal-
incidence rays of the zero-offset section). In the latter
case, the velocities indicated in Figure 4.0-7 must be FIG. 4.0-7. A velocity-depth model (top) and the zero-
halved to match the time axis with that associated with offset traveltime response (bottom) of the water-bottom re-
the zero-offset section. flector. Shown also are the normal-incidence rays used to
The interface can be sampled more densely by plac- compute the zero-offset traveltime trajectory. Note the five
ing receivers and sources at closer spacing (Figure 4.0- arrivals A, B, C, D, and E at CMP 130 — all from the water
8a). The next deeper interface can be modeled; that is, bottom.
 Migration 469

FIG. 4.0-8. Exploding-reflector modeling of zero-offset traveltimes associated with (a) a water bottom, (b) a flat, and (c)
a dipping reflector. (d) The superposition of the normal-incidence traveltime responses in (a), (b), and (c). Shown on the
velocity-depth models in the left-hand column are the normal-incidence rays used to compute the traveltime trajectories.
The time sections shown on the right-hand column are equivalent to a zero-offset traveltime section with the vertical axis in
two-way time.
470 Seismic Data Analysis

the traveltime trajectory can be computed by placing
sources along this interface and leaving the receivers
where they were on the surface (Figure 4.0-8b). Finally,
the same experiment can be repeated for the third inter-
face (Figure 4.0-8c). To derive the composite response
from the velocity-depth model in Figure 4.0-8d (the left-
hand column), individual responses shown in Figures
4.0-8a, 4.0-8b and 4.0-8c from each interface are su-
perimposed. The result is shown in Figure 4.0-8d (the
right-hand column). We can imagine that sources were
placed at all three interfaces and turned on simultane-
ously. Such an experiment would cause the rays emerg-
ing from the three interfaces to be recorded at receivers
placed on the surface, along the line.
Actually, Figure 4.0-8d (the right-hand column)
represents the modeled zero-offset traveltime section.
Seismic wavefields, however, are represented not only
by wave traveltimes but also by wave amplitudes. Figure
4.0-9a shows the modeled zero-offset wavefield section
based on the same velocity-depth model in Figure 4.0-
8d (the left-hand column). The shallow complex inter-
face (horizon 1 in Figure 4.0-8a) caused the complicated
response of the two simple interfaces (horizons 2 and 3)
in this zero-offset traveltime section.
How valid is the assumption that a stacked sec-
tion is equivalent to a zero-offset section? The conven-
tional CMP recording geometry provides the wavefield
at nonzero offsets. During processing, we collapse the
offset axis by stacking the data onto the midpoint-time
plane at zero offset. For CMP stacking, we normally as-
sume hyperbolic moveout. Figure 4.0-10 shows selected
CMP gathers modeled from the velocity-depth model
in Figure 4.0-8d (the left-hand column). Because of the
presence of strong lateral velocity variations, the hy-
perbolic assumption may not be appropriate for some
reflections on some CMP gathers (Figure 4.0-10a); how-
ever, it may be valid for others (Figure 4.0-10b). We ob-
tain a stacked section (Figure 4.0-9b) that resembles the
zero-offset section (Figure 4.0-9a) to the extent that the
hyperbolic moveout assumption is valid. The assump-
tion that a conventional stacked section is equivalent to
a zero-offset section also is violated to varying degrees
in the presence of strong multiples and conflicting dips
with different stacking velocities (Chapter 5). While mi-
gration of unstacked data is discussed in Chapter 5, our
main focus in this chapter is on migration after stack.
(b) a migration algorithm compatible with the strat-
egy,
(c) appropriate parameters for the algorithm,
(d) issues concerning the input data, and
(e) migration velocities.
Migration strategies include:
(a) 2-D versus 3-D migration,
(b) post- versus prestack migration, and
(c) time versus depth migration.
The spectrum of migration strategies extend from 2-D
poststack time migration to 3-D prestack depth migra-
tion. Depending on the nature of the subsurface geol-
ogy, any other in-between combination can be selected.
In practice, 2-D/3-D poststack time migration is used
most often for a good reason — it is the least sensitive
to velocity errors, and it often yields results acceptable
for a reliable interpretation. Table 4-1 is an overview of
different migration strategies applied to different types
of seismic data (2-D, 3-D, stacked, and unstacked).
Choice of an appropriate migration strategy re-
quires input from the interpreter as to the structural
geology and stratigraphy in an area. Dipping events on a
stacked section call for time migration. Conflicting dips
with different stacking velocities is one case in which a
conventional stacked section differs from a zero-offset
section. Thus, strictly speaking, poststack migration
Table 4-1. Migration strategies.
Case Migration
dipping events time migration
conflicting dips with prestack migration
different stacking velocities
3-D behavior of 3-D migration
fault planes and salt flanks
Case Migration

strong lateral velocity depth migration

Migration Strategies variations associated with
complex overburden structures
In practice, migration of seismic data requires decision
complex nonhyperbolic moveout prestack migration
making with regards to:
3-D structures 3-D migration
(a) an appropriate migration strategy,
 Migration
FIG. 4.0-9. (a) The zero-offset wavefield section equivalent
to the zero-offset traveltime section in Figure 4.0-8d (the
right-hand column); (b) the CMP stack generated from the
CMP gathers as in Figure 4.0-10. (Modeling by Deregowski
and Barley, 1981.)
which assumes that the stacked section is equivalent to
a zero-offset section is not valid to handle the case of
conflicting dips. Instead, one needs to do prestack time
migration.
Conflicting dips often are associated with salt
flanks and fault planes, which can have 3-D characteris-
tics. This then requires 3-D prestack time migration. In
Section 5.3, we shall discuss a practical alternative to
2-D prestack time migration strategies. The alternative
sequence includes the application of normal-moveout
(NMO) correction using velocities appropriate for flat
events followed by 2-D dip moveout correction (DMO)
to correct for the dip and source-receiver azimuth ef-
fects on stacking velocities. As a result, conflicting dips
are preserved during stacking, and thus, imaging can be
deferred until after stacking using 2-D poststack time
migration strategies. This series of processing steps is
largely equivalent to 2-D prestack time migration and
results often are comparable. The same workflow also is
applicable to 3-D prestack time migration (Section 7.4).
Accurate imaging of targets beneath complex
structures with strong lateral velocity variations re-
quires depth migration. Aside from the problem of con-
flicting dips with different stacking velocities, strong lat-
eral velocity variations associated with complex over-
burden structures usually cause conventional stacking
based on the hyperbolic moveout assumption to fail.
471
Therefore, a case of complex overburden structures calls
for depth migration before stacking the data.
Furthermore, complex overburden structures, en-
countered in areas with salt tectonics, overthrust tec-
tonics and irregular water-bottom topographies can
often exhibit 3-D characteristics. Thus, imaging such
structures may require 3-D prestack depth migration.
Field surveys are designed such that line orienta-
tions are, as much as possible, along the dominant strike
and dip directions, so as to minimize 3-D effects. Un-
der these circumstances, the 2-D assumption for migra-
tion can be acceptable. However, if the subsurface has
a truly 3-D geometry, without a dominant dip or strike
direction, then it is imperative to do 3-D migration of
3-D data. In such cases, 2-D migration (whether post-
stack or prestack, time or depth) can lead to potential
problems in interpretation.
A practical alternative to 2-D prestack depth mi-
gration can be a prestack layer replacement to cor-
rect for the complex nonhyperbolic moveout followed
by time migration after stack. This, however, is appli-
cable to situations involving a single overburden layer,
such as irregular water-bottom topography for it to be
reasonably practical.
Migration Algorithms
The one-way-in-depth scalar wave equation is the ba-
sis for common migration algorithms. These algorithms
do not explicitly model multiple reflections, converted
waves, surface waves, or noise. Any such energy present
in data input to migration is treated as primary re-
flections. Migration algorithms can be classified under
three main categories:
(a) those that are based on the integral solution to the
scalar wave equation,
(b) those that are based on the finite-difference solu-
tions, and
(c) those that are based on frequency-wavenumber im-
plementations.
Whatever the algorithm, it should desirably:
(a) handle steep dips with sufficient accuracy,
(b) handle lateral and vertical velocity variations, and
(c) be implemented, efficiently.
Figure 4.0-11 is a migrated CMP stacked section
with a major unconformity. The undermigration — in-
complete imaging of the unconformity, is not because of
472 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.0-10. Selected CMP gathers modeled from the velocity-depth model in Figure 4.0-8d (the left-hand column). (a)
Gathers from the complex part of the velocity-depth model, (b) gathers from the simpler part of the velocity-depth model.
CMP locations are indicated in Figure 4.0-8d. The CMP stack is shown in Figure 4.0-9b. (Modeling by Deregowski and Barley,
1981.)

erroneously too low velocities. Although we should al-
ways be aware of velocity errors when migrating seismic
data, the undermigration in Figure 4.0-11 is the result
of using a dip-limited algorithm. By using a steep-dip
algorithm, we can achieve a more accurate imaging of
the unconformity (Figure I-9).
The three principle migration techniques are dis-
cussed in this chapter in their historical order of devel-
opment as outlined below. The first migration technique
developed was the semicircle superposition method that
was used before the age of computers. Then came
the diffraction-summation technique, which is based on
summing the seismic amplitudes along a diffraction hy-
perbola whose curvature is governed by the medium ve-
locity. The Kirchhoff summation technique introduced
later (Schneider, 1978), but actually in use earlier, basi-
cally is the same as the diffraction summation technique
with added amplitude and phase corrections applied to
the data before summation. These corrections make the
summation consistent with the wave equation in that
they account for spherical spreading (Section 1.4), the
obliquity factor (angle-dependency of amplitudes), and
the phase shift inherent in Huygens’ secondary sources
(Section 4.1).
Another migration technique (Claerbout and Do-
herty, 1972) is based on the idea that a stacked section
can be modeled as an upcoming zero-offset wavefield
generated by exploding reflectors. Using the explod-
ing reflectors model, migration can be conceptualized
as consisting of wavefield extrapolation in the form of
downward continuation followed by imaging. To under-
stand imaging, consider the shape of a wavefield at ob-
servation time t = 0 generated by an exploding reflec-
tor. Since no time has elapsed and, thus, no propagation
has occurred, the wavefront shape must be the same as
the reflector shape that generated the wavefront. The
fact that the wavefront shape at t = 0 corresponds to
the reflector shape is called the imaging principle. To
define the reflector geometry from a wavefield recorded
at the surface, we only need to extrapolate the wave-
field back in depth then monitor the energy arriving at
t = 0. The reflector shape at any particular extrapola-
 Migration
FIG. 4.0-11. A CMP stack (a) before, and (b) after migration. Note the undermigration of the unconformity event (U)
caused by the use of a dip-limited algorithm.
tion depth directly corresponds to the wavefront shape
at t = 0.
Downward continuation of wavefields can be im-
plemented conveniently using finite-difference solutions
to the scalar wave equation. Migration methods based
on such implementations are called finite-difference mi-
gration. Many different differencing schemes applied to
the differential operators in the scalar wave equation
exist both in time-space and frequency-space domains.
Claerbout (1985) provides a comprehensive theoretical
foundation of finite-difference migration and its practi-
cal aspects.
After the developments on Kirchhoff summation
and finite-difference migrations, Stolt (1978) introduced
migration by Fourier transform. This method involves
a coordinate transformation from frequency (the trans-
form variable associated with the input time axis) to
vertical wavenumber axis (the transform variable asso-
ciated with the output depth axis), while keeping the
horizontal wavenumber unchanged. The Stolt method
is based on a constant-velocity assumption. However,
Stolt modified his method by introducing stretching
in the time direction to handle the types of velocity
variations for which time migration is acceptable. Stolt
473
and Benson (1986) combine theory with practice in the
field of migration with an emphasis on the frequency-
wavenumber methods.
Another frequency-wavenumber migration is the
phase-shift method (Gazdag, 1978). This method is
based on the equivalence of downward continuation to a
phase shift in the frequency-wavenumber domain. The
imaging principle is invoked by summing over the fre-
quency components of the extrapolated wavefield at
each depth step to obtain the image at t = 0.
A reason for the wide range of migration algorithms
used in the industry today is that none of the algorithms
fully meets the important criteria of handling all dips
and velocity variations while still being cost-effective.
Migration algorithms based on the integral solu-
tion to the scalar wave equation, commonly known as
Kirchhoff migration, can handle all dips up to 90 de-
grees, but they can be cumbersome in handling lateral
velocity variations.
Finite-difference algorithms can handle all types of
velocity variations, but they have different degrees of
dip approximations. Furthermore, differencing schemes,
if carelessly designed, can severely degrade the intended
dip approximation.
474 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.0-12. A CMP stack (a) before, and (b) after migration. Lack of any event to the right of the dotted line on the
migrated section is a result of the finite line length.
Finally, frequency-wavenumber algorithms have
limited ability in handling velocity variations, partic-
ularly in the lateral direction. As a result of limi-
tations of the three main categories of migration al-
gorithms — integral, finite-difference, and frequency-
wavenumber methods, migration software has expanded
further to additional extensions and combinations of the
basic algorithms. Residual migration — phase-shift or
constant-velocity Stolt migration followed by the appli-
cation of a dip-limited algorithm is one example.
Migration Parameters
After deciding on the migration strategy and the ap-
propriate algorithm, the analyst then needs to decide
on the migration parameters. Migration aperture width
is the critical parameter in Kirchhoff migration. A small
aperture causes removal of steep dips; it generates spu-
rious horizontal events and organizes the random noise
uncorrelated from trace to trace.
Depth step size in downward continuation is the
critical parameter in finite-difference methods. An opti-
mum depth step size is the largest depth step with the
minimum tolerable phase errors. It depends on tempo-
ral and spatial samplings, dip, velocity, and frequency.
It also depends on the type of differencing scheme used
in the algorithm.
Finally, the stretch factor is the critical parameter
for Stolt migration. A constant-velocity medium implies
a stretch factor of 1. In general, the larger the vertical
velocity gradient, the smaller the stretch factor needs
to be.
 Migration
Aspects of Input Data
When migrating seismic data, one needs to be con-
cerned with various aspects of the input data set itself:
(a) line length or areal extent,
(b) signal-to-noise ratio, and
(c) spatial aliasing.
The line length must be sufficient to allow a steeply
dipping event to migrate to its true subsurface location.
It is a fatal error to record short profiles in areas with
complex geology. Also, for 3-D migration, the surface
areal extent of a 3-D survey is almost always larger than
the target subsurface areal extent.
Random noise at late times on a stacked section,
when migrated, potentially can be hazardous for shal-
lower data. One may have to compromise on migration
aperture for deep data to prevent this problem to occur.
Trace spacing must be small enough to prevent
spatial aliasing of steep dips at high frequencies. Al-
though this is not an issue for modern prestack data, a
coarse shot-receiver spacing can degrade the fidelity of
prestack migration severely. Old data and 3-D marine
data in the crossline direction often are trace interpo-
lated prior to poststack migration.
Figure 4.0-12 is a CMP stacked section before and
after migration. From an interpretation viewpoint, the
reliable part of this migrated section is confined to the
upper central part. Lack of any reflection energy to the
right of the dotted line does not mean that there is a
structural discontinuity there. It only means that the
reflections associated with the imbricate structure have
been migrated in the updip direction from right to left.
As a result, a zone with no reflectors to the right of the
dotted line is left behind because of the truncation of
the wavefield represented by the right-hand edge of the
stacked section. The deeper part is useless, because the
noise dominates the section.
Migration Velocities
Horizontal displacement during migration is propor-
tional to migration velocity squared (equation 4-1).
Since velocities generally increase with depth, errors in
migration are usually larger for deep events than shal-
low events. Also, the steeper the dip, the more accurate
the migration velocities need to be, since displacement
is proportional to dip.
Figure 4.0-13 shows a portion of a CMP-stacked
section after 3-D poststack time migration using a per-
cent range of stacking velocities. Note the subtle under-
and overmigration effects on dipping events below the
475
major unconformity represented by the strong, near-
horizontal reflection. Events A dipping up to the left
and B dipping up to the right cross over one another
on sections that correspond to 90 percent and 95 per-
cent of stacking velocities, indicating undermigration.
The same events are split away from one another in
opposite directions on sections that correspond to 105
percent and 110 percent of stacking velocities. The most
overall acceptable image is seen on the section that cor-
responds to the 100 percent of stacking velocities.
Accuracy in event positioning after migration actu-
ally depends on the combined effects of the performance
of the migration algorithm used and the velocity errors.
For example, the inherently undermigrating character
of a 45-degree finite-difference algorithm can be, for an
event with a specific dip, coincidentally counterbalanced
by the overmigration effect of erroneously too high ve-
locities. In the presence of large vertical velocity gradi-
ents, a two-pass 3-D migration can also cause overmi-
gration of steep dips (in the form of lateral translation)
even with the correct migration velocities.
Figure 4.0-14a shows a portion of a migrated
stacked section. Although this section does not contain
steep dips, accurate imaging of the faults along the low-
relief structures can be important to the interpreter.
Note the slight undermigration, which may be caused
by any of the following: (a) error in migration veloci-
ties, (b) a dip-limited algorithm that failed to focus the
diffraction energy adequately, or (c) a possible 3-D be-
havior of the geometry of the reflector. The section in
Figure 4.0-14a has been migrated with a dip-limited al-
gorithm. Using a proper algorithm, with the same veloc-
ities, we get the migrated section in Figure 4.0-14b. The
resulting section shows slight overmigration, which can
be attributed to errors in migration velocities. Lowering
the velocities gives the improved, but not completely ac-
curate, image in Figure 4.0-14c. Perhaps, the remaining
issues in imaging may be attributed to 3-D effects.
As demonstrated by the example in Figure 4.0-14,
migration results generally are self-evident — under-
and overmigration often can be recognized on a mi-
grated section. Problems in imaging often are traced to
accuracy in migration velocities. I consider migration
velocities as the weak link between the seismic section
and the geologic cross-section.
In the next section, basic principles of migration
are presented and the Kirchhoff summation, finite-
difference, frequency-space, and frequency-wavenumber
algorithms are reviewed. Practical aspects of the migra-
tion algorithms are expounded in Sections 4.2 through
4.5. Specifically, key parameters for each category of
the migration algorithms are analyzed using appropri-
ate synthetic and field data examples. Further aspects of
476 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.0-13. A portion of a CMP-stacked section after 3-
D poststack time migration using, from top to bottom, 90,
95, 100, 105 and 110 percent of stacking velocities. Note the
subtle under- and overmigration effects on dipping events
below the major unconformity represented by the strong,
near-horizontal reflection. Note the effect of velocities used
in migration on the positioning of the event A dipping up
to the left and event B dipping up to the right.
migration in practice, including spatial aliasing, migra-
tion response to random noise, line length, and irregular
topography are discussed in Section 4.6. The problem
of conflicting dips with different stacking velocities that
requires dip-moveout (DMO) correction and prestack
time migration, and the accompanying topic on migra-
tion velocity analysis are deferred until Chapter 5. The
problem of imaging beneath complex structures that re-
quires earth imaging and modeling in depth is discussed
in Chapters 8 and 9, respectively.
FIG. 4.0-14. (a) A portion of a migrated CMP stack; note
the subtle undermigration at fault locations A and B caused
by the use of a dip-limited algorithm; (b) same data set but
migrated with an algorithm with no dip limitation; note
the subtle overmigration most likely due to erroneously too
high velocities; (c) same data set migrated with the same
algorithm as in (b) but with velocities adjusted to prevent
overmigration.
4.1 MIGRATION PRINCIPLES
Consider the dipping reflector CD of the simple ge-
ologic section in Figure 4.1-1a. We want to obtain a
zero-offset section along the profile Ox. As we move the
source-receiver pair (s, g) along Ox, the first normal-
incidence arrival from the dipping reflector is recorded
at location A. In this discussion, we assume a normal-
ized constant-velocity medium v = 1 so that time and
depth coordinates become interchangeable. The reflec-
tion arrival at location A is indicated by point C on the
zero-offset time section in Figure 4.1-1b. As we move
from location A to the right, normal-incidence arrivals
are recorded from the dipping reflector CD. The last
arrival is recorded at location B, which is indicated by
point D in Figure 4.1-1b. In this experiment, diffrac-
tions off the edges of reflector CD are excluded to sim-
plify the discussion.
 Migration
FIG. 4.1-1. Migration principles: The reflection segment
C D in the time section as in (b), when migrated, is moved
updip, steepened, shortened, and mapped onto its true sub-
surface location CD as in (a). (Adapted from Chun and
Jacewitz, 1981.)
Compare the geologic section in Figure 4.1-1a,
which is in depth, with the zero-offset seismic section
in Figure 4.1-1b, which is in time. The true subsurface
position of reflector CD is superimposed onto the time
section for comparison. Clearly the true geologic posi-
tion of reflector CD is not the same as the reflection
event position C D .
From this simple geometric construction, note that
the reflection in the time section C D must be migrated
to its true subsurface position CD in the depth section.
The following observations can be made from the geo-
metric description of migration in Figure 4.1-1:
(a) The dip angle of the reflector in the geologic section
is greater than in the time section; thus, migration
steepens reflectors.
(b) The length of the reflector, as seen in the geologic
section, is shorter than in the time section; thus,
migration shortens reflectors.
477
(c) Migration moves reflectors in the updip direction.
The example in Figure 4.0-1 demonstrates the
above observations. In particular, the dipping event (B)
has moved in the updip direction, become shorter, and
steepened after migration (A).
As mentioned in the previous section, conventional
migration output is displayed in time, as is the input
stacked section. To distinguish the two time axes, we
will denote the time axis on the stacked section as t
— event time in the unmigrated position, and the time
axis on the migrated section as τ — event time in the
migrated position.
We shall now examine the horizontal and verti-
cal displacements as seen on the migrated time section.
From Figure 4.1-2, consider a reflector segment CD. As-
sume that CD migrates to C D and that point E on
C D migrates to point E on CD. The horizontal and
vertical (time) displacements — dx and dt , and the dip
∆τ /∆x, all measured on the migrated time section (Fig-
ure 4.1-2), can be expressed in terms of medium velocity
v, traveltime t, and apparent dip ∆t/∆x as measured
on the unmigrated time section (Figure 4.1-2). Chun
and Jacewitz (1981) derived the following formulas:
v 2 t ∆t
dx = , (4 − 1)
4 ∆x
2
v∆t
dt = t 1 − 1− , (4 − 2)
2∆x
∆τ ∆t 1
= . (4 − 3)
∆x ∆x 2
v∆t
1−
2∆x
To gain a quantitative insight into these expres-
sions, we consider a numerical example. For a realis-
tic velocity function that increases with depth, consider
five reflecting segments at various depths. For simplic-
ity, assume that quantity ∆t/∆x is the same for all (10
ms per 25-m trace spacing). From equations (4-1), (4-
2), and (4-3), compute the horizontal and vertical dis-
placements dx and dt and the dips (in ms/trace) after
migration. The results are summarized in Table 4-2.
Refer to Table 4-2 and equations (4-1), (4-2), and
(4.3) and make the following observations:
(a) The time dip ∆τ /∆x on the migrated section is
always greater than the time dip ∆t/∆x on the
unmigrated section.
(b) The horizontal displacement dx increases with
event time t in the unmigrated position. At 4 s,
the horizontal displacement is more than 6 km.
478 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.1-2. Quantitative analysis of the migration process. Dipping event AB on the unmigrated section (left) is moved to
A B on the migrated section (right). The event after migration also is superimposed on the unmigrated section to compare the
position of the event before and after migration. Point C on dipping reflector AB is moved to C after migration. The amount
of horizontal displacement dx , vertical displacement dt , and the dip ∆τ /∆x after migration is calculated from equations (4-1),
(4-2) and (4-3).

Table 4-2. Horizontal and vertical displacements as a In Figure 4.1-1a, assume that the zero-offset sec-
result of migration of a series of dipping reflections with tion was recorded only between surface locations A and
the same apparent dip (10 ms/trace) as measured on B. The time section would include the event C D , but
the unmigrated stacked section at various depths, and when migrated, the event would migrate out of the sec-
changes in dip angle as measured on the migrated sec- tion, resulting in a blank migrated section (Figure 4.1-
tion in time. 1b). Therefore, the data on a stacked section are not
necessarily confined to the subsurface below the seismic
t v dx dt ∆t/∆x ∆τ /∆x
line. The converse is even more important; the structure
(s) (m/s) (m) (s) (ms/trace) (ms/trace)
below the seismic line may not be recorded on the seis-
mic section. Suppose that the data were recorded only
1 2500 625 0.134 10 11.5
between surface locations O and A. This time, the re-
2 3000 1800 0.400 10 12.5
sulting time section would be blank. So, we should not
3 3500 3675 0.858 10 14.0
record between A and B, and neither should we record
4 4000 6400 1.600 10 16.7
between O and A. Instead, we should record between O
5 4500 10125 2.820 10 23.0
and B in order to record the reflector of interest prop-
erly and also to migrate it properly.
In areas with a structural dip, line length must be
(c) The horizontal displacement dx is a function of the chosen by considering the horizontal displacements of
velocity squared. If there is a 20 percent error in dipping events from the structures causing the events.
the velocity used in migration, then the event is This is an important consideration, especially in 3-D
misplaced by an error of 44 percent. seismic work. The areal surface coverage of a survey
(d) The vertical displacement dt also increases with usually is larger than the areal subsurface coverage of
time and velocity. interest.
(e) The steeper the event dip, the more the horizontal To achieve a complete image of a dipping reflec-
and vertical displacements after migration. tor, also, the recording time must be long enough. For
 Migration 479

FIG. 4.1-3. (a) A zero-offset section modeled from the dipping reflectors shown in (b). The medium velocity is constant 3500
m/s and the trace spacing is 25 m. The true dip angles of the reflectors vary from 0 to 45 degrees at 5-degree increment.
Migration of the zero-offset section (a) yields the model of the dipping reflectors (b).

FIG. 4.1-4. A portion of a CMP stack (a) before and (b) after migration. Note the group of events with a range of dips that
fan out from a fault plane. Migration has moved them in the updip direction, made them shorter and steeper.
480 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.1-5. Curved reflecting interfaces (synclines and an-
ticlines) (a) before and (b) after migration. See text for de-
tails. (Modeling courtesy Union Oil Company.)
FIG. 4.1-6. (a) A velocity-depth model consisting of a syn-
clinal reflector; (b) selected normal-incidence arrivals on the
zero-offset section. Trace the bowtie in the time section.
example, if only OE seconds were recorded (Figure 4.1-
1), then the recorded segment C D would yield only
part of the complete image CD. An excellent example of
recording deeper in time and with longer line length for
steeper dips is shown in Figure 4.0-1. Proper imaging of
the salt dome boundary required that data be recorded
for more than 6 s.
The migration concepts described above are
demonstrated further by the dipping events model in
Figure 4.1-3. The edge diffractions are included here.
The dipping reflectors on the zero-offset section are
steepened, shortened, and moved in the updip direc-
tion as a result of migration. A field data example of a
series of dipping events on a stacked section before and
after migration is shown in Figure 4.1-4. Note that the
steeper the dip, the more the event moves after migra-
tion.
So far, only linear reflectors were considered. We
now consider a more realistic geologic situation that
involves curved reflecting interfaces. Figure 4.1-5 shows
 Migration
FIG. 4.1-7. A portion of a CMP stack (a) before and (b) after migration. Anticlines appear bigger, while synclines appear
smaller than their actual sizes on the unmigrated section (a).
three synclines and a small anticlinal feature. The syn-
clines appear as bowties on the zero-offset section. By
using the principles deduced from the geometry of Fig-
ure 4.1-1, note that as a result of migration, segment
A of the bow tie moves in the updip direction to the
left. Similarly, segment B moves to the right, while flat-
topped segment C does not move much at all. Conse-
quently, after migration the flanks of bow ties associated
with synclines are opened up. On the other hand, the
small anticline seems to be broader on the zero-offset
section than it is on the migrated section. Again note
that segment D moves updip to the right, while segment
E moves updip to the left as a result of migration. Thus,
synclines broaden and anticlines compress as a result of
migration. Migration velocities also affect the apparent
size of the structure; higher velocities mean more mi-
gration and, hence, smaller anticlinal structure.
Why does a syncline look like a bowtie on the
stacked section? The answer is in Figure 4.1-6, where
a symmetric syncline is modeled. Given the subsurface
model in Figure 4.1-6a, the normal-incidence rays can
be computed to derive the zero-offset traveltime section
in Figure 4.1-6b. Only five CMP locations are shown
for clarity. At locations 2 and 4, there are two distinct
arrivals, while at location 3, there are three distinct ar-
rivals. By filling in the intermediate raypaths, the bow
tie character of the syncline can be constructed on the
481
time section. Complete the procedure by tracing the
traveltime trajectory in Figure 4.1-6b.
Two field data examples containing synclinal and
anticlinal structures are shown in Figures 4.1-7 and
4.1-8. In Figure 4.1-7, note that the synclinal feature
broadens and the anticlinal feature narrows as a result
of migration. In Figure 4.1-8, the bow ties associated
with two small synclinal basins A and B grow larger in
depth. After migration, the bowties are untied and the
synclines are delineated.
Kirchhoff Migration
Claerbout (1985) uses the harbor example in Figure 4.1-
9 to describe the physical principles of migration. As-
sume that a storm barrier exists at some distance z3
from the beach and that there is a gap in the barrier.
Imagine a calm afternoon breeze that comes from the
ocean as a plane incident wave. The wavefront is par-
allel to the storm barrier. As we walk along the beach
line, we see a wavefront different from a plane wave.
The gap on the storm barrier has acted as a secondary
source and generated the semicircular wavefront that is
propagating toward the beach.
If we did not know about the storm barrier and the
gap, we might want to lay out a receiver cable along the
beach to record the approaching waves. This experiment
482 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.1-8. A portion of a CMP stack (a) before and (b) after migration. Migration unties the bowties and turns them into
synclines below A and B.
is illustrated in Figure 4.1-10 with the recorded time
section. Physicists call the gap on the barrier a point
aperture. It is somewhat similar to a point source, since
both generate circular wavefronts. However, the ampli-
tudes on the wavefront that propagate outward from
a point source are isotropic, while those from a point
aperture are angle-dependent. The point aperture on
the barrier acts as a Huygens’ secondary source.
From the beach experiment, we find that Huygens’
secondary source responds to a plane incident wave and
generates a semicircular wavefront in the x − z plane.
The response in the x − t plane is the diffraction hyper-
bola shown in Figure 4.1-11.
Imagine that the subsurface consists of points along
each reflecting horizon that behave much as the gap
on the storm barrier. From Figure 4.1-12, these points
act as Huygens’ secondary sources and produce hyper-
bolic traveltime trajectories. Moreover, as the sources
(the points on the reflecting interface) get closer to each
other, superposition of the hyperbolas produces the re-
sponse of the actual reflecting interface (Figure 4.1-13).
In terms of the harbor example, this is like assuming
that the barrier is wiped out by a storm so that the
primary incident plane wave reaches the beach with-
out modification. The diffraction hyperbolas, which are
caused by sharp discontinuities at both ends of the re-
flector in Figure 4.1-13, remain. These hyperbolas are
equivalent to diffractions seen at fault boundaries on
stacked sections.
In summary, we find that reflectors in the subsur-
face can be visualized as being made up of many points
that act as Huygens’ secondary sources. We also find
that the zero-offset section consists of a superposition
of the many hyperbolic traveltime responses. Moreover,
when there are discontinuities (faults) along the reflec-
tor, diffraction hyperbolas often stand out.
 Migration 483

FIG. 4.1-11. A point that represents a Huygens’ secondary

source (a) produces a diffraction hyperbola on the zero-offset
FIG. 4.1-9. The gap in the barrier acts as Huygens’ sec- time section (b). The vertical axis in this section is two-way
ondary source, causing the circular wavefronts that approach time, while the vertical axis in the time section in Figure
the beach line. (Adapted from Claerbout, 1985.) 4.1-10 is one-way time.

FIG. 4.1-12. Superposition of the zero-offset responses (b)

of a discrete number of Huygens’ secondary sources as in
(a).

FIG. 4.1-10. Waves recorded along the beach generated by

Huygens’ secondary source (the gap in the barrier in Figure FIG. 4.1-13. Superposition of the zero-offset responses (b)
4.1-9) have a hyperbolic traveltime trajectory. of a continuum of Huygens’ secondary sources as in (a).
484 Seismic Data Analysis

Diffraction Summation

Huygens’ secondary source signature is a semicircle in

the x − z plane and a hyperbola in the x − t plane.
This characterization of point sources in the subsurface
leads to two practical migration schemes. Figure 4.1-
14a shows a zero-offset section that consists of a single
arrival at a single trace. This event migrates to a semi-
circle (Figure 4.1-14b). From Figure 4.1-14, note that
the zero-offset section recorded over a constant-velocity
earth model consisting of a semicircular reflecting inter-
face contains a single blip of energy at a single trace as
in Figure 4.1-14a. Since this recorded section consists of
an impulse, the migrated section in Figure 4.1-14b can
be called the migration impulse response. An alternate
scheme for migration results from the observation that
a zero-offset section consisting of a single diffraction hy-
perbola migrates to a single point (Figure 4.1-15b).
The first method of migration is based on the su-
perposition of semicircles, while the second method is
FIG. 4.1-14. Principles of migration based on semicircle
based on the summation of amplitudes along hyperbolic
superposition. (a) Zero-offset section (trace interval, 25 m;
paths. The first method was used before the age of dig- constant velocity, 2500 m/s), (b) migration.
ital computers. The second method, which is known as
the diffraction summation method, was the first com-
puter implementation of migration.
The migration scheme based on the semicircle su-
perposition consists of mapping the amplitude at a sam-
ple in the input x − t plane of the unmigrated time sec-
tion onto a semicircle in the output x − z plane. The
migrated section is formed as a result of the superposi-
tion of the many semicircles.
The migration scheme based on diffraction sum-
mation consists of searching the input data in the x − t
plane for energy that would have resulted if a diffract-
ing source (Huygens’ secondary source) were located at
a particular point in the output x−z plane. This search
is carried out by summing the amplitudes in the x − t
plane along the diffraction curve that corresponds to
Huygens’ secondary source at each point in the x − z
plane. The result of this summation then is mapped
onto the corresponding point in the x − z plane. As
noted early in this section, within the context of time
migration, however, the summation result actually is
mapped onto the x − τ plane, where τ is the event time
in the migrated position.
The curvature of the hyperbolic trajectory for am-
plitude summation is governed by the velocity function.
The equation for this trajectory can be derived from the
FIG. 4.1-15. Principles of migration based on diffraction
geometry of Figure 4.1-15. A formal derivation also is summation. (a) Zero-offset section (trace interval, 25 m; con-
provided in Section D.2. Assuming a horizontally lay- stant velocity, 2500 m/s), (b) migration. The amplitude at
ered velocity-depth model, the velocity function used input trace location B along the flank of the traveltime hy-
to compute the traveltime trajectory is the rms veloc- perbola is mapped onto output trace location A at the apex
ity at the apex of the hyperbola at time τ (Section 3.1). of the hyperbola by equation (4-4).
 Migration
From the triangle COA in Figure 4.1-15a, we note that
2 no amplitude cancelation when they are close to one an-
4x
t2 = τ 2 + 2
. (4 − 4)
vrms
Having computed the input time t, the amplitude
at input location B is placed on the output section at
location A, corresponding to the output time τ at the
apex of the hyperbola.
From Section 3.1, reflection traveltimes in a layered
earth approximate small-spread hyperbolas. This may
seem to impose a serious restriction on the aperture
width — the lateral extent of the diffraction hyperbola,
in the summation process. However, the small-spread
approximation is valid even at large distances from the
apex, and the errors associated with it are insignificant
at late times. In practice, this approximation is not usu-
ally an issue.
Amplitude and Phase Factors
Now consider several factors associated with the am-
plitude and phase behavior of the waveform along the
diffraction hyperbola. From Figure 4.1-9, given the al-
ternative of standing at location A or B, we intuitively
think that it is safer to stand at location B. This is
because the wave amplitude at location A, which is on
the z-axis, is stronger than the wave amplitude at loca-
tion B, which is at an oblique angle from the z-axis. As
mentioned earlier, this is one difference between a point
source with uniform amplitude response at all angles
and the point aperture that produces a wavefront with
angle-dependent amplitudes. This angle dependence of
amplitudes, which is described by the obliquity factor,
should be considered before summation. To correct for
the obliquity factor, the amplitude at location B in Fig-
ure 4.1-15a is scaled by the cosine of the angle between
BC and CA before it is placed at output location A.
Another factor is the spherical divergence of wave
amplitudes. Again, from Figure 4.1-9, given the alterna-
tive of standing at location B or C, we prefer to stand at
location C. The reason for this is that the wave ampli-
tude along the wavefront at location C, which is farther
from the point aperture source, is weaker than the wave
amplitude at location B. Wave energy decays as (1/r2 ),
where r is the distance from the source to the wavefront,
while amplitudes decay as (1/r). Thus, amplitudes must
be scaled by factor (1/r) before summation for wave
propagation in three dimensions.
Finally, there is a third factor that involves the
inherent property of Huygens’ secondary source wave-
form. This factor is difficult to explain from a physical
viewpoint. Nevertheless, it is obvious from Figure 4.1-
13 that Huygens’ secondary sources must respond as a
wavelet along the hyperbolic paths with a unique phase
485
and frequency characteristic. Otherwise, there would be
other. The waveform that results from the summation
must be restored in both phase and amplitude.
In summary, we must consider the following three
factors before diffraction summation:
(a) The obliquity factor or the directivity factor, which
describes the angle dependence of amplitudes and
is given by the cosine of the angle between the di-
rection of propagation and the vertical axis z (Fig-
ure 4.1-15).
(b) The spherical spreading factor, which is propor-
tional to 1/vr for 2-D wave propagation, and
(1/vr) for 3-D wave propagation.
(c) The wavelet shaping factor, which is designed with
a 45-degree constant phase spectrum and an am-
plitude spectrum proportional to the square root of
the frequency for 2-D migration. For 3-D migration,
the phase shift is 90 degrees and the amplitude is
proportional to frequency.
Kirchhoff Summation
The diffraction summation that incorporates the obliq-
uity, spherical spreading and wavelet shaping factors
is called the Kirchhoff summation, and the migration
method based on this summation is called the Kirchhoff
migration. To perform this method, multiply the input
data by the obliquity and spherical spreading factors.
Then apply the filter with the above specifications and
sum along the hyperbolic path that is defined by equa-
tion (4-4). Place the result on the migrated section at
time τ corresponding to the apex of the hyperbola. In
practice, the order of the filter application, specified by
factor (c), and summation can be interchanged without
sacrificing accuracy because the summation is a linear
process and the filter is independent of time and space.
The velocity used in equation (4-4) is taken as the
rms velocity, which can be allowed to vary laterally.
However, lateral variation in velocity distorts the hy-
perbolic nature of the diffraction pattern and somehow
must be considered. The value for the rms velocity typi-
cally is that of the output time sample; that is, the apex
time τ of the hyperbola.
What was determined from a physical point of view
in the preceding discussion can be rigorously described
by the integral solution to the scalar wave equation.
Schneider (1978), Berryhill (1979) and Berkhout (1980)
are excellent references for the mathematical treatment
of the Kirchhoff migration method. The integral solu-
tion of the scalar wave equation yields three terms; the
far-field term which is proportional to (1/r), and two
other terms which are proportional to (1/r2 ). Hence,
486 Seismic Data Analysis
it is the far-field term that makes the most contribu-
tion to the summation that is used in practical imple-
mentation of Kirchhoff migration. The output image
Pout (x0 , z = vτ /2, t = 0) at a subsurface location (x0 , z)
using only the far-field term is computed from the 2-D
zero-offset wavefield Pin (x, z = 0, t), which is measured
at the surface (z = 0), by the following summation over
a spatial aperture
∆x cos θ
Pout = √ ρ(t) ∗ Pin , (4 − 5)
2π x
vrms r
where vrms is the rms velocity at the output point
(x0 , z) and r = (x − x0 )2 + z 2 , which is the distance
between the input (x, z = 0) and the output (x0 , z)
points. The asterisk denotes convolution of the rho fil-
ter ρ(t) with the input wavefield Pin .
The rho filter ρ(t) corresponds to the time deriva-
tive of the measured wavefield, which yields the 90-
degree phase shift and adjustment of the amplitude
spectrum by the ramp function ω of frequency (Ta-
ble A-1 of Appendix A). For 2-D migration, the half-
derivative of the wavefield is used. This is equivalent
to the 45-degree phase shift and adjustment of the am-
plitude
√ spectrum by a function of frequency defined as
ω. Since the rho filter is independent of the spatial
variables, it actually can be applied to the output of the
summation in equation (4-5). Finally, the far-field term
in equation (4-5) is proportional to the cosine of the an-
gle of propagation (the directivity term or the obliquity
factor) and is inversely proportional to vr (the spherical
spreading term) in three dimensions.
√ In two dimensions,
the spherical spreading term is vr.
Equation (4-5) can be used to compute the wave-
field at any depth z. The ouput image Pout is computed
at (x0 , z = vτ /2, t = 0) using the input wavefield Pin
at (x, z = 0, t − r/v). To obtain the migrated section at
an output time τ , equation (4-5) must be evaluated at
z = vτ /2 and the imaging principle must be invoked by
mapping amplitudes of the resulting wavefield at t = 0
onto the migrated section at output time τ . The com-
plete migrated section is obtained by performing the
summation in equation (4-5) and setting t = 0 for each
output location. The range of the summation is called
the migration aperture.
Finite-Difference Migration
To describe the physical basis of finite-difference migra-
tion, recall the harbor example of Figure 4.1-9. Instead
of taking the section recorded along the beach, which
contains the diffraction hyperbola, then collapsing it to
get the migrated section in Figure 4.1-15, consider the
following alternative procedure. Again, start with the
wavefield recorded along the beach (Figure 4.1-16a). As-
sume that the barrier is 1250 m from the beach. Now
move the recording cable into the water, 250 m from the
beach. Start recording at the instant the plane wave hits
the barrier. The recorded section is shown in Figure 4.1-
16b. Move the cable 500 m from the beach and record
the section in Figure 4.1-16c, followed by a recording
750 m from the beach to obtain the section in Figure
4.1-16d. Finally, 1000 m from the beach, record the sec-
tion shown in Figure 4.1-16e.
Note that each recording yields a hyperbola in
which the apex moves closer to zero time. The actual
extent of the recording cable is denoted by the solid line
on top of each frame. Had we recorded at the barrier
(1250 m from the beach), the apex of the hyperbola
would be positioned at t = 0.
In Kirchhoff migration, the diffraction hyperbola
is collapsed by summing the amplitudes, then placing
them at the apex. The alternative approach implied
by the result of the experiment shown in Figure 4.1-
16 is to use the hyperbola recorded a distance away
from the beach to construct the hyperbola that would
be recorded at another distance closer to the source of
the diffraction hyperbola. The process is stopped when
the hyperbola collapses to its apex. In the harbor ex-
periment, this collapse occurs when the receiver cable
coincides with the barrier, or, equivalently, when t = 0.
As stated in the introductory section, this is called the
imaging principle.
Downward Continuation
The harbor experiment described above can be simu-
lated in the computer. Pretend that moving the receiver
cable from the beach into the water closer to the barrier
is like moving the receiver cable from the surface down
into the earth closer to the reflectors. Think of the gap
on the barrier as equivalent to a point diffractor on a re-
flecting interface causing the diffraction hyperbola (Fig-
ure 4.1-17a). Start with the wavefield recorded at the
surface and move the receivers down to depth levels at
finite intervals. Downward continuation of the upcom-
ing wavefield at the surface, therefore, can be considered
equivalent to lowering the receivers into the earth.
The computer-simulated wavefields at these differ-
ent depths are shown in Figure 4.1-17. By applying the
imaging principle at each depth, the entire wavefield is
imaged. The final output from this process is the mi-
grated section. The last section (panel f ) at 1250 m
has only one arrival at t = 0. The recording cable is
on the storm barrier and the arrival from the gap oc-
curs at t = 0. As the cable moved into the ocean and
 Migration 487

FIG. 4.1-16. Moving the receiver cable in the harbor experiment (Figure 4.1-9) from the beach into the water at discrete
intervals parallel to the beach line. Numbers on top indicate the distance of the receiver cable from the beach line.

FIG. 4.1-17. Computer simulation of the experiment illustrated in Figure 4.1-16. Here, we downward continue the receivers
at discrete depth intervals. The numbers on top indicate the distance of the receiver cable from the surface, z = 0.

recorded closer to the barrier, the recorded diffraction at a time that is equivalent to the distance from the sur-
hyperbola arrived earlier, and became shorter and more face to the diffractor as shown in Figure 4.1-18b. This
compressed. It collapsed to a point when the receivers is called time retardation.
coincided with the storm barrier over which the source Reconsider the results from the computer simula-
point forms a gap. tion of the harbor experiment in Figure 4.1-17. Sup-
There is one important difference between the pose we stopped recording at a depth of 1000 m before
physical experiment in Figure 4.1-16 and the computer-
simulated downward-continuation experiment in Figure
4.1-17. The receiver cable is the same at each step in
Figure 4.1-16, whereas the effective cable length gets
shorter and shorter toward the source (the gap in the
barrier) in Figure 4.1-17. This is because we started by
recording the wavefield at the surface (Figure 4.1-16a)
with a finite cable length. The recorded information is
confined to within the two raypaths depicted on the
section in Figure 4.1-17a. As the cable moves closer to
the source, the effective receiver cable containing the
information is confined to smaller and smaller lengths.
Although receivers are lowered vertically, energy moves
down along raypaths it originally took on the way up.
To relate these recordings at different depths (Fig- FIG. 4.1-18. (a) Superposition of the time sections in Fig-
ure 4.1-17), we superimpose them as shown in Figure ure 4.1-17; (b) removing the translational effect by retar-
4.1-18a. Moreover, the recordings can be shifted so that dation to place the energy at the apex of the hyperbola
the apexes of the hyperbolas coincide and are positioned obtained initially along the beach line.
488 Seismic Data Analysis

the barrier. The original hyperbola in Figure 4.1-17a Table 4-3. Simple extrapolation of a data vector in
was partially collapsed at this depth (Figure 4.1-17e). time.
Therefore, downward continuing to a depth short of the
true depth of the source causes undermigration. Diffrac- Operator Data Time Step
tions and dipping events also are undermigrated if in- -1.1 100 0
correctly low velocities are used for migration.
1.0 x 1
Assume that the recording continues and passes
beyond barrier position z3 (Figure 4.1-9). We infer that
the focused energy on the section at this depth (Figure 100 0
4.1-17f) would propagate through the focal point and -1.1 110 1
turn into hyperbolas that are the mirror images of those 1.0 x 2
in Figures 4.1-17a through 4.1-17e. We have downward
continued more than necessary. This yields overmigra- 100 0
tion, which also is caused by incorrectly high velocities. 110 1
From these observations, note that downward continu- -1.1 121 2
ing to a wrong depth is like downward continuing with 1.0 x 3
the wrong velocity (Doherty and Claerbout, 1974).
Another important issue to consider is how often
the extrapolated wavefield should be computed. When
going from one frame to another in Figure 4.1-17, what Equation (4-6a) is generalized as
should the depth step size be? This is discussed in detail
later in Section 4.3. (1.0) × P (t + 1) + (−1.1) × P (t) = 0, (4 − 7a)

which is rewritten in the form

Differencing Schemes P (t + 1) − P (t) = (0.1) × P (t), (4 − 7b)

where t is the time variable and P is the quantity being

Finite-difference migration algorithms are based on dif-
ferential solutions to the scalar wave equation that are extrapolated. Instead of defining the time interval as
used to downward continue the input wavefield recorded one unit, we can define it as an arbitrary increment
at the surface. A simple numerical example illustrates of time ∆t. Also, assume that the inflation rate is a.
the finite-difference method of solving differential equa- Equation (4-7b) then takes the more general form
tions (Claerbout, 1985). Assume that you have $100
P (t + ∆t) − P (t) = a P (t). (4 − 8a)
today. Given an annual inflation rate of 10 percent, for
the same buying power next year, you need $110. A Alternatively, we could use the average of the
computer algorithm can determine the face value of the present and future values on the right side of this equa-
present $100 in future years. Table 4-3 shows the results tion:
of extrapolation from one year to the next.
a
Given the present value, 100, find future values in P (t + ∆t) − P (t) = P (t + ∆t) + P (t) . (4 − 8b)
the data column. The following equation solves for the 2
unknown x: Equations (4-8a) and (4-8b) now can be put into
(1.0) × x + (−1.1) × (100) = 0, (4 − 6a) the form of equation (4-6a) as

which yields x = 110. We used a two-point operator and P (t + ∆t) + −1 − a P (t) = 0, (4 − 9a)
aligned it with the data column as indicated in Table
and
4-3. Similarly, we have
a a
(1.0) × x + (−1.1) × (110) = 0, (4 − 6b) 1− P (t + ∆t) + −1 − P (t) = 0. (4 − 9b)
2 2
which yields x = 121. By using the new value for x, we
obtain By using either equation (4-9a) or equation (4-9b), we
compute the future values of P (t) from a given initial
(1.0) × x + (−1.1) × (121) = 0, (4 − 6c) value as shown in Table 4-4.
which yields x = 133, and so on. By moving the oper- The operator in which the coefficient of the future
ator down in the time direction as shown in Table 4-3, value P (t + ∆t) is unity is called the explicit operator.
we extrapolate the data column into the future. Stability of the finite-difference solution — the problem
 Migration
Table 4-4. Application of two-point implicit and ex-
plicit operators to extrapolate data P from t to t + ∆t.
Explicit Implicit Data
Operator Operator Column
−1 − a −1 − a/2 P (t)
1 1 − a/2 P (t + ∆t)
of wave amplitudes growing from one extrapolation step
to another, can be an issue with this type of operator
(Section D.6) An implicit operator produces stable re-
sults because of averaging on the right side of equation
(4-9b), known as the Crank-Nicolson scheme. For the
differential equations used in finite-difference migration
algorithms, such as the parabolic equation described in
Section D.3, scalar a becomes a matrix coefficient. Im-
plicit schemes require inversion of this matrix. However,
no inversion is needed with explicit schemes, since fu-
ture values can be written explicitly in terms of only
past values.
Equation (4-9a) is rewritten by redefining scalar a
as a ∆t to obtain
P (t + ∆t) − P (t)
= a P (t). (4 − 10)
∆t
The left side of equation (4-10) is the discrete repre-
sentation of the continuous derivative of P with respect
to time, dP/dt. Therefore, equation (4-10) is the finite-
difference equation that corresponds to the differential
equation
dP
= a P (t). (4 − 11)
dt
We have derived the differential equation that de-
scribes the inflation of money (equation 4-11). Now con-
sider the analysis in reverse order. We start with the dif-
ferential equation (4-11), and write the corresponding
difference equation (4-10), which is the equation that
is solved in the computer. This equation is written in
either the explicit (equation 4-9a) or implicit (equation
4-9b) form to extrapolate the present value of P to the
future.
This example illustrates how finite-difference
schemes can solve differential equations in the com-
puter. The scalar wave equation can be treated in a
similar, but more complicated manner. Complications
arise because it is a partial differential equation that
contains the second derivatives of the wavefield with re-
spect to depth, time, and spatial axes. Setting up the
computer algorithm is more involved and is not dis-
cussed here. Claerbout (1976, 1985) provides details of
489
various aspects of the finite-difference migration meth-
ods.
Rational Approximations for Implicit Schemes
The scalar wave equation is a two-way wave equation in
depth that describes propogation of both upcoming and
downgoing waves. If we consider the resulting wavefield
from the exploding reflectors model as the upcoming
waves, then we are really interested in a one-way wave
equation to downward continue the upcoming waves. In
fact, we normally use some rational approximation to
the one-way wave equation in finite-difference imple-
mentations.
To get the actual differential equation to be used
in downward extrapolation of the upcoming waves, and
therefore to perform a finite-difference migration, the
general strategy is as follows:
(a) Start with the two-way scalar wave equation:
∂2P ∂2P 1 ∂2P
+ − = 0, (4 − 12)
∂x2 ∂z 2 v 2 (x, z) ∂t2
where x and z are the space variables, t is the time
variable, v is the velocity of wave propagation, and
P (x, z, t) is the pressure wavefield.
(b) Assume constant velocity and perform 3-D Fourier
transform of the pressure wavefield. This is equiv-
alent to substituting the plane-wave solution
exp(ikx x + ikz z − iωt) to equation (4-12). The sub-
stitution yields the dispersion relation between the
transform variables
ω2
kz = ∓ − kx2 , (4 − 13a)
v2
where kx and kz are the wavenumbers in the x
and z directions, and ω is the angular temporal
frequency.
(c) We are interested in upcoming waves, hence we
only need one of the two solutions. We also want to
invoke the exploding reflector model by replacing v
by v/2 to obtain the following paraxial dispersion
relation
2ω vkx
2
kz = 1− , (4 − 13b)
v 2ω
where the horizontal wavenumber kx has been nor-
malized with respect to 2ω/v.
(d) Make a rational approximation to the square-root
expression in equation (4-13b) so as to derive a
differential equation (Sections D.3 and D.4). This
490
approximation imposes a dip limitation to the dif-
ferential equation. One approximation to the dis-
persion relation given by equation (4-13b) is ob-
tained by Taylor expansion of the square root and
retaining the first two terms in the series (Section
D.3)
2 shift is accounted for by the thin-lens term given
2ω 1 vkx
kz = 1− . (4 − 14a)
v 2 2ω
This dispersion equation is known as the 15-degree
approximation and is the basis for the first finite-
difference time migration algorithm developed by
Claerbout and Doherty (1972). Albeit no longer in
use, we shall review the 15-degree finite-difference
algorithm for its historical significance.
(e) Operate on the pressure wavefield P (kx , kz , ω) with
the approximate form of the dispersion relation
given by equation (4-14a), and inverse Fourier
transform in the z direction to get the differential
form of the approximate one-way wave equation.
2 of the thin-lens term cannot be negligible. If we
∂ 2ω 1 vkx
P (kx , z, ω) = −i 1− P (kx , z, ω).
∂z v 2 2ω
(4 − 14b)
(f) Recall from Figure 4.1-17 that, after each
downward-continuation step, we retard the wave-
field by translating it in time so that after migra-
tion, events appear in their correct depth locations.
The time retardation is done by applying a linear
phase shift to the pressure wavefield P
Q = P exp(−iωτ ),
where the retarded time is
z This is the parabolic equation for time migration.
dz
τ= , (4 − 15b)
0 v̄(z)
and Q is the retarded wavefield. The velocity v̄(z) is
the horizontally averaged v(x, z). Substitute equa-
tion (4-15a) into (4-14b) to obtain the differen-
tial equation associated with the 15-degree finite-
difference algorithm in two parts
∂2Q v ∂2Q
= ,
∂z∂t 4 ∂x2
and
∂Q 1 1 ∂Q
=2 − ,
∂z v̄(z) v(x, z) ∂t
where Q is the retarded wavefield. Derivation
of equations (4-16a,b) is based on the assump-
tion that velocity varies vertically. Nevertheless,
in practice, the velocity function in equations (4-
16a,b) can be varied laterally, provided the varia-
tion is smooth. Equation (4-16a) accounts for col-
Seismic Data Analysis
lapsing diffraction energy to the apex of the trav-
eltime curve only. Hence, it is referred to as the
diffraction term. When lateral velocity variations
are significant, the diffraction curve is somewhat
like a skewed hyperbola with its apex shifted later-
ally away from the diffraction source. This lateral
by equation (4-16b) (Section D.3). If the lateral
velocity variations are significant, then the thin-
lens term is not negligible. Migration algorithms
that implement both the diffraction and thin-lens
terms represented by equations (4-16a,b) generally
are two-step schemes that alternately solve these
two terms. To propagate one depth step, first apply
the diffraction term on wavefield Q. The thin-lens
term then is applied to the output from the diffrac-
tion calculation. A migration method that includes
the effects of the thin-lens term is called depth mi-
gration, since the output section is in depth. Depth
migration is warranted if there are strong lateral
variations in velocity; in this case, the coefficient
assume that velocity varies only in the vertical di-
rection, then v̄(z) = v(x, z). This makes the thin-
lens term of equation (4-16b) vanish, and we are
left with the diffraction term of equation (4-16a).
A migration method that implements the diffrac-
tion term (equation 4-16a), only, is known as time
migration, the output of which is in time τ of equa-
tion (4-15b). When recast in terms of the τ vari-
able, equation (4-16a) takes the form
(4 − 15a) ∂2Q v2 ∂ 2 Q
= . (4 − 17)
∂τ ∂t 8 ∂x2
(g) Finally, write down the difference forms of the dif-
ferential operators either in implicit form to be used
in finite-difference solution of the parabolic equa-
tion (4-17) for migration.
Boundary and initial conditions are needed to solve
the differential equations. The initial condition for mi-
gration is the recorded wavefield at the surface z = 0.
(4 − 16a)
Also, in migration we assume that the wavefield is zero
after a maximum observation time, typically the end
time of the recorded trace. Then there are the side
(4 − 16b) boundaries, beyond which assumptions must be made
about the form of the wavefield.
In the (x, z, t) coordinates, the seismic section is
represented by the x − t plane, while the migrated sec-
tion (earth) is represented by the x − z plane. Finite-
difference migration, as discussed here, extrapolates the
x − t plane in finite increments of z and outputs the
wavefield at t = 0 at each step (Figure 4.1-19).
 Migration
FIG. 4.1-19. The seismic section represented by the x − t
plane at the surface z = 0 is downward continued to obtain
the time sections at discrete depth levels. The direction of
extrapolation is indicated by the thick arrow. The migrated
section is represented by the x − z plane at t = 0.
There are two ways to downward continue the
wavefield recorded at the surface in the computer (Fig-
ure 4.1-20). Starting with the wavefield at the surface
z = 0 represented by the vectors in x — s1 , s2 , s3 , . . .,
which are perpendicular to the page, we can compute
the wavefield at different depth levels using the order of
the computation shown in Figure 4.1-20a. Assume zero
value for the bottom of the extrapolated wavefield at
each depth step. So, for example, using s7 , s8 , and 0,
compute the wavefield at position 1. Then use s6 , s7 ,
and the wavefield already computed at position 1, com-
pute that at position 2, and so on. Notice that, in this
scheme, we compute the wavefield at all times for one
depth step, then compute the wavefield at all times for
the next depth step, followed by the next depth step,
and so on. Hence, this is called the z-outer computa-
tional scheme.
The alternate scheme involves a different order of
computation (Figure 4.1-20b). First, compute the wave-
field at one time for all depths, then using those al-
ready computed values, compute the wavefield at the
next shallower time for all depths, and so on. Hence
this is called the t-outer computational scheme.
In both schemes, the output migrated section is ob-
tained by collecting the diagonal elements. Depending
on the depth step size, which can be conveniently de-
fined as the number of time samples, one collects one or
more samples at each depth level. In the example shown
491
FIG. 4.1-20. Two algorithmic schemes to downward con-
tinue wavefields in the computer: (a) z-outer, and (b) t-
outer. The midpoint axis is perpendicular to the plane of
the paper. In both schemes, the CMP-stacked data are rep-
resented by the s-column at z = 0 (Claerbout, 1976).
in Figure 4.1-20, there are two samples from each depth
step collected into the migrated section.
Reverse Time Migration
Another migration method, known as reverse time mi-
gration (Baysal et al., 1983), extrapolates an initially
zero x − z plane backward in time, bringing in the seis-
mic data P (x, z = 0, t) as a boundary condition z = 0
at each time step to compute snapshots of the x − z
plane at different times. At time t = 0, this x − z plane
contains the migration result P (x, z, t = 0) (Figure 4.1-
21).
The algorithmic structure for the reverse time mi-
gration is illustrated schematically in Figure 4.1-22.
Start with the x − t section at the surface, z = 0. Also,
consider an x − z frame at tmax . This frame is blank ex-
cept for the first row which is equal to the bottom row
of the x−t section at tmax . Extrapolate this snapshot at
t = tmax to t = tmax −∆t by using the phase-shift oper-
ator exp(iω∆t). This yields a new snapshot of the x − z
frame at t = tmax − ∆t. The first row of numbers in this
frame is identical to the row in the x − t plane — the
original unmigrated section, at t = tmax − ∆t. Hence,
replace the first row in the snapshot at t = tmax − ∆t
with the row of the x − t section at t = tmax − ∆t
and continue the extrapolation back in time. The last
snapshot is at t = 0 that represents the final migrated
section.
492 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.1-21. Reverse time migration: Start with an all-zero
x − z plane at the bottom of the data cube and extrapolate
backward in time toward t = 0 to compute snapshots of the
x − z plane at different times. These snapshots of the sub-
surface are indicated by the horizontal planes; the direction
of extrapolation — reverse in time, is indicated by the thick
arrow. At each time level, include the boundary value (x-
slice at z = 0, indicated by the dotted lines) into the x − z
plane from the seismic section. The migrated section is the
x − z plane at t = 0 (the top horizontal plane).
Frequency-Space Implicit Schemes
As discussed in Section 4.3, in practice the 15-degree
finite-difference migration can handle dips up to 35 de-
grees with sufficient accuracy. A steep-dip approxima-
tion to equation (4-13b) is achieved by continued frac-
tions expansion (Section D.4) as
2ω v 2 kx2 1 19a) and inverse Fourier transforming in time yields the
kz = 1− . (4 − 18)
v 8ω 2 v 2 kx2
1−
16ω 2
This dispersion equation is known as the 45-degree ap-
proximation and is the basis of the most common imple-
mentation of steep-dip implicit finite-difference schemes
(Kjartansson, 1979).
Refer to the steps described earlier and replace the
Taylor expansion given by equation (4-14a) with the
continued fractions expansion given by equation (4-18).
Follow the subsequent steps to derive the correspond-
ing differential equation associated with the 45-degree
diffraction term (Section D.4):
v ∂3Q ∂2Q 4ω ∂Q
i − +i = 0, (4 − 19a)
4ω ∂z∂x2 ∂x2 v ∂z
FIG. 4.1-22. An algorithmic description of reverse time
migration.
where Q(x, z, ω) is the retarded wavefield in the
frequency-space domain.
When recast for time migration, equation (4-19a)
becomes (Section D.4):
1 ∂3Q ∂2Q 8ω ∂Q
i − +i 2 = 0, (4 − 19b)
2ω ∂τ ∂x2 ∂x2 v ∂τ
where τ is the time variable associated with the mi-
grated data.
Note that dropping the first term in equation (4-
15-degree diffraction equation (4-16a). Similarly, drop-
ping the first term in equation (4-19b) yileds the 15-
degree equation (4-17) for time migration.
As for the 15-degree equation, the thin-lens equa-
tion (4-16b) also applies for the 45-degree equation.
When implemented in the frequency-space domain, the
thin-lens term is represented by the phase-shift oper-
ator of equation (4-15a). Again, the final step in the
procedure is to write down the difference forms of the
differential operators in implicit form to be used in
finite-difference solution of the 45-degree equation (4-
19) for migration. Kjartansson (1979) provides an im-
plicit scheme in which the extrapolation is in z. Never-
theless, as for the 15-degree equation (4-17), it is trivial
to adapt his scheme for time migration with the extrap-
 Migration
FIG. 4.1-23. An algorithmic description of frequency-space
migration.
olation in τ of equation (4-15b). The phase-shift op-
erator of equation (4-15a) is velocity-dependent when
implemented for depth migration, and it is velocity-
independent when implemented for time migration.
The 45-degree approximation given by equation (4-
19b) actually is fairly accurate in practice up to 60 de-
grees. As described in Section D.4, the basic 45-degree
equation (4-19b) also can be adapted to obtain extrapo-
lation schemes for imaging steeper dips up to 90 degrees.
Nevertheless, a penalty is paid for steep-dip accuracy in
terms of dispersive noise incurred by implicit schemes
(Section 4.3).
Steep-dip finite-difference algorithms may be more
conveniently implemented in the frequency-space do-
main than in the time-space domain. A general frame-
work for implementing such algorithms involve a loop
over the depth step z, and a loop over the frequency ω
(Figure 4.1-23). For each depth step:
(a) Apply the shift term (equation 4-15a).
(b) Apply the diffraction term (equation 4-19) by per-
forming implicit extrapolation of each of the fre-
quency components of the wavefield.
(c) Sum over the frequencies to invoke the imaging
principle which is equivalent to setting t = 0.
(d) Repeat the computation for all the depth steps to
complete the imaging.
Frequency-Space Explicit Schemes
Start with the paraxial dispersion relation given by
equation (4-13b) adapted to the exploding reflectors
493
model. Operate on the pressure wavefield P and in-
verse Fourier transform in z to obtain the differential
equation
∂
P (kx , z, ω) = −ikz P (kx , z, ω), (4 − 20)
∂z
whose solution can be used to extrapolate the wavefield
at the surface down in depth
P (kx , z, ω) = P (kx , 0, ω) exp(−ikz z). (4 − 21)
For a discrete depth step ∆z, equation (4-21) takes
the form
P (z + ∆z) = P (z) exp(−ikz ∆z), (4 − 22a)
where, for convenience, the variables kx and ω have been
omitted from P .
When designing extrapolation operators, whatever
the differencing scheme, the objective must be to en-
sure that the phase and amplitude of the actual op-
erator closely resembles those of the desired operator
exp(−ikz ∆z).
Discretize the one-way wave equation (4-20) and
apply differencing approximation using an explicit
scheme such as
P (z + ∆z) = P (z) 1 − ikz ∆z , (4 − 22b)
and an implicit scheme (Section D.6):
1 − ikz ∆z/2
P (z + ∆z) = P (z) . (4 − 22c)
1 + ikz ∆z/2
The explicit extrapolation operator (1 − kz ∆z) of
equation (4-22b) actually is the first two terms of the
Taylor expansion of the exact operator exp(−ikz ∆z) of
equation (4-22a). Table 4-5 provides the amplitude and
phase of the exact, explicit and implicit operators used
in equations (4-22a,b,c) for wavefield exptrapolation in
depth.
A desired property of an extrapolation operator is
that it must be stable — its amplitude should be less or
equal to unity. The implicit operator defined by equa-
tion (4-22c) is stable, while the explicit operator defined
by equation (4-22b) causes amplitudes of the extrapo-
lated wavefield grow with depth (Section D.6). In fact,
the larger the depth step ∆z, the more unstable are
the results of extrapolation. Another desired property
of an extrapolation operator is that it should yield the
least phase error. The inherently stable nature of im-
plicit schemes has been the compelling reason for their
use in practice. Recent developments in the design of
stable explicit schemes, however, now have made them
widely accepted (Holberg, 1988; Hale, 1991; Soubaras,
1992).
In principle, the exact extrapolation operator in
equation (4-22a) can be inverse Fourier transformed to
494 Seismic Data Analysis
Table 4-5. Amplitude and phase of the exact, explicit
and implicit extrapolation operators used in equations
(4-22a,b,c). See Section D.6 for details.
Operator Amplitude Phase
Exact
exp(−ikz ∆z) 1 kz ∆z
Explicit
1 − ikz ∆z 1 + (kz ∆z)2 tan−1 (kz ∆z)
Implicit
1 − ikz ∆z/2 kz ∆z
1 tan−1
1 + ikz ∆z/2 1 − (kz ∆z/2)2
frequency-space (ω − x) domain and applied to P (z) in
an explicit manner. Each output sample of P (z + ∆z)
at some x location for a frequency ω and velocity v is
computed independently by convolving an explicit fil-
ter operator of a specified length centered at the out-
put location x with the input data array P (z) in the x
direction. In contrast, implicit schemes require solving
a set of linear equations to obtain the output samples
of P (z + ∆z) — computationally more intensive than
convolution. Efficiency is an advantage of the explicit
schemes over the implicit schemes.
Another attractive property of stable explicit
schemes is their extension to 3-D extrapolation that pre-
serves circular symmetry — a feature that is relatively
more difficult to attain with implicit schemes (Section
7.3).
Whether an explicit filter is computed by inverse
transforming the exact filter exp(−ikz ∆z) of equation
(4-22a) to the frequency-space domain or by Taylor ex-
pansion as in equation (4-22b), the problem is that nei-
ther approach yields a stable filter operator. A stable ex-
plicit extrapolation filter in the frequency-space domain
can be designed using a constrained least-squares tech-
nique (Holberg, 1988), or by a modified Taylor series
expansion of the exact extrapolation filter exp(−ikz ∆z)
(Hale, 1991). Another method of explicit operator de-
sign based on on an alternative stability criterion is pre-
sented by Soubaras (1992).
By substituting for kz from equation (4-13b), the
exact extrapolation filter exp(−ikz ∆z) of equation (4-
22a) is expressed in the frequency-wavenumber domain
as
2 the bandwidth is given by the corner frequencies 6, 12
2ω vkx
D(kx ) = exp −i 1− ∆z . (4 − 23)
v 2ω
The objective is to find, for a specific frequency ω
and velocity v, a symmetric explicit filter with com-
plex coefficients h(x) in the frequency-space domain
such that, when Fourier transformed to the frequency-
wavenumber domain, the difference between the actual
transform H(kx ) and the desired transform D(kx ) of
equation (4-23) is minimum, subject to the stability
constraint that the amplitude of H(kx ) is never greater
than unity within the propagation region kx ≤ (2ω/v).
Details of the method of modified Taylor expansion
based on this design criterion by Hale (1991) are de-
scribed in Section D.5.
As for the implicit schemes (Figure 4.1-23), a mi-
gration algorithm based on an explicit extrapolation fil-
ter design involves a loop over the depth step z and a
loop over frequency ω. For each depth step:
(a) Convolve the explicit extrapolation filter h(x) with
each of the frequency components of the wavefield.
(b) Sum over the frequencies to invoke the imaging
principle which is equivalent to setting t = 0.
(c) Repeat the computation for all the depth steps to
complete the imaging.
The length of the filter coefficients h(x) determines
the dip accuracy of the explicit operator. The larger
the number of filter coefficients 2N + 1, the steeper the
dip accuracy. In practice, extrapolation filter lengths 7,
11, and 25 are often associated with 30-, 50-, and 70-
degree dip accuracies. Phase error of the extrapolation
operator at steep dips may be reduced by increasing the
number of coefficients. Also, lateral velocity variations
can be accommodated by varying the velocity at each
x location of the filter coefficient.
Frequency-Wavenumber Migration
Frequency-wavenumber (f −k) migration is not as easily
explained as the Kirchhoff or finite-difference migration
from a physical point of view. Chun and Jacewitz (1981)
provide practical insight into the principles of f − k
migration.
In Section 1.2, we learned that dipping events in
the t − x domain map onto the f − k domain along ra-
dial lines. The steeper the dip, the closer the radial line
is to the wavenumber axis. Figure 4.1-24 shows dipping
events before and after migration in the t − x and f − k
domains. The Nyquist wavenumber is 20 cycles/km and
- 36, 48 Hz for the passband region of the spectrum.
(See Figure 1.1-26 for the definition of corner frequen-
cies.) The red is associated with the flat part of the
passband region and the blue is associated with the ta-
per zone. Note that migration rotates the radial lines
Migration 495
496 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.1-25. Migration in the f − k domain. (Migration in
the t − x domain is illustrated in Figure 4.1-1.) (a) A dip-
ping reflector is represented by a radial line OB in the f − k
plane. (b) After migration, the radial line OB maps onto an-
other radial line OB , while B maps onto B . The horizontal
wavenumber is invariant under migration. For comparison,
the f − k response of the dipping event before migration (a)
has been superimposed on the f −k response after migration
(b). (Adapted from Chun and Jacewitz, 1981.)
in the 2-D amplitude spectrum outward and away from
the frequency axis. The steepest event represented by
radial line A maps onto radial line B after migration.
The feather-like energy especially prominent in the left
quadrant of the f − k spectrum is associated with the
flanks of the diffraction hyperbolas in the t − x domain.
The energy associated with the left flanks which are
dipping opposite to the dipping reflections maps onto
the left quadrant of the f − k plane. And the energy
associated with the right flanks of the diffraction hy-
perbolas that are dipping in the same direction as that
of the dipping reflections maps onto the right quadrant
of the f − k plane and is superimposed on the energy
associated with the dipping reflections themselves.
Migration of a dipping event in the f − k domain is
sketched in Figure 4.1-25. Note that this figure is the f −
k equivalent of Figure 4.1-1. In both figures, we assume
velocity equal to 1. The vertical axis in Figure 4.1-25
represents the temporal frequency ω for the event in its
unmigrated position B, and the vertical wavenumber kz
for the event in its migrated position B .
Migration in the frequency-wavenumber domain in-
volves mapping the lines of constant frequency AB in
the ω − kx plane to circles AB in the kz − kx plane.
Therefore, migration maps point B vertically onto point
B . Note that in this process, the horizontal wavenum-
ber kx does not change as a result of mapping. When
this mapping is completed, the dipping event OB is
mapped along OB after migration; thus, the dip angle
θ̄ after migration is greater than the dip angle θ before
migration. For comparison, these two radial lines are
shown on the same plane kz − kx .
We now examine the diffraction hyperbola and its
collapse to the apex after migration in the f −k domain.
A diffraction hyperbola is represented by an inverted
triangular area in the frequency domain as shown in
Figure 4.1-26. The Nyquist wavenumber is 40 cycles/km
and the bandwidth is given by the corner frequencies 6,
12 - 36, 48 Hz for the passband region of the spectrum.
As for the dipping events model in Figure 4.1-24, the red
is associated with the flat part of the passband region
and the blue is associated with the taper zone. The
two edges in the right and left quadrant of the f − k
plane correspond to the asymptotes of the flanks of the
diffraction hyperbola, the base of the inverted triangle
corresponds to the high-frequency end of the passband,
and the tip of the triangle in the proximity of the origin
of the f − k plane corresponds to the low-frequency end
of the passband. Migration turns the triangular area
into a circular shape as shown in Figure 4.1-26.
The f − k analysis of the diffraction hyperbola
shown in Figure 4.1-26 is based on the representation
of the hyperbola as a series of discrete dipping seg-
ments. Figure 4.1-27 depicts a diffraction hyperbola in
the t − x and f − k domains. We imagine that the hy-
perbola is made up of a series of dipping segments, such
as A, B, C, D and E. The zero-dip segment A is at the
apex, while the steepest dip segment E is along the
asymptotes. In the f − k domain, the zero-dip segment
A maps along the frequency axis, while the dipping seg-
ments B, C and D map along the radial lines, increas-
ingly further away from the frequency axis. Finally, the
asymptotic tail E maps along the radial line that rep-
resents the boundary between the propagation and the
evanescent region. The evanescent region corresponds
Migration 497
498 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.1-27. A hyperbola on the t − x plane maps onto an inverted triangular area on the f − k plane. (See text for details.)
to the energy that is located at or greater than 90 de-
grees from the vertical. The opposite side of the hyper-
bola maps onto the second quadrant (negative kx ) in
the f − k domain. In the continuous case, a diffraction
hyperbola is represented by a series of continuous radial
lines that constitute an inverted triangular area in the
f − k domain (Figure 4.1-26).
A curious fact emerges from the f − k spectrum of
the migrated section in Figure 4.1-26. We expect migra-
tion to collapse the diffraction hyperbola to a point at
the apex. The spectrum of this migrated section really
should be more like that in Figure 4.1-28 — a rectangle.
Why is there a difference between this spectrum and the
spectrum after migration in Figure 4.1-26?
If you start with a point and model it, you get the
diffraction hyperbola in Figure 4.1-28. However, in re-
ality we deal with a diffraction hyperbola as shown in
Figure 4.1-26. The hyperbolas do not look different in
the t − x domain, but note the difference in their f − k
spectra. The f − k spectrum of the real-life diffraction,
which is always subjected to bandpass filtering (Figure
4.1-26), is missing the energy above the 48-Hz line that
is present in the f − k spectrum of the modeled diffrac-
tion curve (Figure 4.1-28). These missing high frequen-
cies cause the difference between the spectra after mi-
gration.
Phase-Shift Migration
Theory of the frequency-wavenumber (f − k) migration
techniques is left to Section D.7. For now, we briefly
review the f − k migration algorithms as follows:
(a) Just as any other migration algorithm, start with
the two-way scalar wave equation (4-12).
(b) Assume constant velocity and perform 3-D Fourier
transform and obtain the dispersion relation be-
tween the transform variables (equation 4-13a).
(c) Then, adapt the dispersion relation to the explod-
ing reflectors model by halving the velocity for the
upcoming waves (equation 4.13b).
(d) Operate on the pressure wavefield P and inverse
transform in z to obtain the differential equation
(4-20).
(e) Obtain the solution given by equation (4-21).
The discrete form of this solution given by equation
(4-22) is the basis for phase-shift migration in which
velocity can be varied at each depth step in the vertical
direction.
The phase-shift method involves the following
steps:
(a) Start with the stacked section — an approximation
to the zero-offset section P (x, z = 0, t), and per-
form 2-D Fourier transform to get P (kx , z = 0, ω).
(b) By using equation (4-22), for each frequency ω, ex-
trapolate the transformed wavefield P (kx , z, ω) at
depth z with a phase-shift operator exp (−ikz ∆z)
to get the wavefield P (kx , z + ∆z, ω) at depth
z + ∆z. At each z step, a new extrapolation op-
erator with the velocity defined for that z value is
computed.
(c) As for any other migration, invoke the imaging
principle t = 0 at each extrapolation step to ob-
tain the migrated section P (kx , z, t = 0) in the
 Migration 499

4.1-28. (a) A diffraction hyperbola modeled from an impulse in the t − x domain, (b) the f − k spectrum of (a), (c) migration
of (a), (d) the f − k spectrum of (c); (e) bandpass-filtered version of (a), (f) the f − k spectrum of (e), (g) migration of (e),
and (h) the f − k spectrum of (g).
500 Seismic Data Analysis

transform domain. The imaging condition t = 0

is met by summing over all frequency components
of the extrapolated wavefield at each depth step.
This is easily shown from the integral representing
the inverse Fourier transform of the extrapolated
wavefield (equation D-84).
(d) Repeat steps (b) and (c) for downward continua-
tion and imaging, respectively, for all depth steps to
get the migrated section in the transform domain
P (kx , z, t = 0).
(e) Final step involves inverse transforming in the x
direction to get the migrated section P (x, z, t = 0).

Figure 4.1-29 shows a flowchart of the phase-shift

method.
The phase-shift method (Gazdag, 1978) can only
handle vertically varying velocities. A way to accommo-
date lateral velocity variations judged to be acceptable
for time migration is to first stretch the CMP-stacked
section in the time direction so as to make it correspond
to a velocity field v̄(z) that only varies vertically. This
velocity field is obtained by averaging the original veloc-
ity field associated with the unstretched CMP-stacked FIG. 4.1-29. Flowchart for Gazdag’s phase-shift method of
section in the x direction. Following the stretching op- migration.
eration, the stacked section is migrated using the veloc-
ity function v̄(z) in the standard phase-shift migration
scheme. Finally, the migrated section is unstretched.
Gazdag and Squazzero (1984) extended the phase-
shift method to handle lateral velocity variations. To
achieve this, first the input wavefield is extrapolated by
the phase-shift method using a multiple number of lat-
erally constant velocity functions and a series of refer-
ence wavefields are created. The imaged wavefield then
is computed by interpolation from the reference wave-
fields. This migration method is known as phase-shift-
plus-interpolation. An alternative extension of phase-
shift migration to handle lateral velocity variations is
presented by Kosloff and Kessler (1987).

Stolt Migration

If the medium velocity is constant, migration can

be expressed as a direct mapping (Stolt, 1978) from
temporal frequency ω to vertical wavenumber kz FIG. 4.1-30. Flowchart for Stolt’s constant-velocity migra-
(Figure 4.1-25). Figure 4.1-30 is a flowchart of the tion method in the f − k domain.
Stolt algorithm; the mathematical details are left
to Section D.7. The equation for Stolt mapping is

where P (kx , z = 0, ω) is the zero-offset section and

v kz P (kx , kz , t = 0) is the migrated section in the frequency-
P (kx , kz , t = 0) =
2 kx + kz2
2
wavenumber domain.
v Note that Stolt migration involves, first, mapping
P kx , 0, ω = ky2 + kz2 ,
2 from ω to kz for a specific kx by using the dispersion
(4 − 24a) relation of equation (4-13a) recast as
 Migration
v finite-difference and Kirchhoff migrations. In practice,
ω= kx2 + kz2 . (4 − 24b)
2 mapping in the f − k domain really is from ω − kx to
The output of mapping is then scaled by the quantity
S v/2 (Section D.3):
v kz
S= . (4 − 24c)
2 kx2
+ kz2
Stolt’s algorithm for constant velocity thus involves
the following steps:
(a) Start with the input wavefield P (x, z = 0, t) ap-
proximated by the CMP stack, and apply 2-D
Fourier transform to get P (kx , z = 0, ω).
(b) Map the wavefield from ω to kz using the dispersion
relation given by equation (4-24b).
(c) Apply the scaling factor S of equation (4-24c) as
part of the mapping procedure (Section D.7).
(d) Invoke the imaging principle by setting t = 0 and
obtain P (kx , kz , t = 0).
(e) Finally, apply 2-D inverse transform to get the mi-
grated section P (x, z, t = 0).
It may be questionable as to whether the constant-
velocity Stolt method has value on its own as a practical
migration algorithm. Nevertheless, Stolt’s method can
be used efficiently to perform a constant-velocity mi-
gration as the first step in a residual migration scheme
(Section 4.5). Additionally, the method constitutes an
essential procedural step for migration velocity analysis
as described in Section 5.4.
Stolt extended his method to handle velocity vari-
ations (Section D.7). For the variable-velocity case,
Stolt’s extension consists of
(a) modifying the input wavefield to make it appear as
if it were the response of a constant-velocity earth,
(b) applying the constant-velocity algorithm outlined
in Figure 4.1-30, and
(c) reversing the original modification of the input
wavefield.
This modification essentially is a type of stretching
of the time axis (Section D.7) to make the reflection
times approximately equivalent to those recorded for a
constant-velocity earth. The nature of stretching is de-
scribed by the stretch factor W . The constant-velocity
case is equivalent to W = 1.
Note that the phase-shift and Stolt migration out-
puts normally are displayed in two-way vertical zero-
offset time τ = 2z / v, as are the outputs from the
501
ωτ − kx rather than to kz − kx , where ωτ is the Fourier
dual of τ and is simply kz of equation (4-13b) scaled by
2
vkx
ωτ = ω 1− . (4 − 25)
2ω
One important concept must be pointed out from
equation (4-25). Note that for a constant kx , ωτ < ω;
thus, migration shifts the bandwidth to lower frequen-
cies. This is analogous to the conclusion derived in rela-
tion to the NMO correction, since the latter also causes
data stretching to lower frequencies (Section 3.1). The
implication from equation (4-25) is demonstrated by
the dipping events model in Figure 4.1-24. While the
bandwidth of the zero-dip event is retained after mi-
gration, the bandwidth of the event with steepest dip
has shifted from approximately 40 Hz to 36 Hz at the
high-frequency end of the spectrum. In fact, the shift in
bandwidth is dip-dependent; events with different dips
which have the same bandwidth before migration will
have different bandwidths after migration.
Summary of Domains of Migration Algorithms
Migration algorithms described in this section are based
on the assumption that the input stacked section rep-
resents a zero-offset acoustic wavefield. As such, these
algorithms are all based on the scalar wave equation
(4-12). Table 4-6 provides a list of the migration al-
gorithms described in this section with the associated
design and application domains. While there exist sev-
eral other migration algorithms, those listed in Table
4-6 are the most widely used in practice.
Also included in Table 4-6 are the types of velocity
fields and dips each migration algorithm can accommo-
date. It is clear that each algorithm is limited by either
the type of velocity variations or dip ranges. Therefore,
each has an appropriate usage in practice depending
on field data and velocity characteristics (Section 4.0).
Note that the lateral velocity variations implied by the
velocity fields in Table 4-6 are mild to moderate and
are within the bounds of time migration. Additionally,
the choice of migration algorithm depends on whether
your objective is imaging or migration velocity analysis.
While imaging is the subject of this chapter, migration
velocity analysis is discussed in Chapter 5.
502 Seismic Data Analysis

Table 4-6. Domains of migration algorithms. the phase-shift method was a compromise; it handles
dips of up to 90 degrees and velocities that can only
Algorithm Domain Dips and vary vertically.
Velocities Before a migration algorithm is used on field data,
Kirchhoff t−x up to 90 deg its impulse response must be tested. A band-limited im-
Summation time-space rms v(x, τ ) pulse response is generated by using an input that con-
tains an isolated wavelet on one trace only To also limit
the spatial bandwidth, this trace is replicated on either
Finite-Difference t−x up to 35 deg
side with the wavelet amplitude halved. The ideal mi-
15-deg Implicit time-space int v(x, τ )
gration algorithm should produce an impulse response
that has the shape of a semicircle. Kirchhoff migration
Finite-Difference ω−x up to 65 deg
produces the section shown in Figure 4.2-1d. The im-
45-deg Implicit frequency-space int v(x, τ )
pulse response indicates that Kirchhoff migration can
accurately handle dips up to 90 degrees. The dip on
Finite-Difference ω−x up to 80 deg
a migration impulse response is measured as the angle
70-deg Explicit frequency-space int v(x, τ )
θ between the vertical and a specified radial direction.
Note that migration can be limited to smaller dips (Fig-
Phase-Shift ω − kx up to 90 deg ure 4.2-1).
freq.-wavenumber int v(τ )

Stolt Method ω − kx up to 90 deg

with Stretch freq.-wavenumber rms v(x, τ ) Aperture Width

From the previous section, we know that Kirchhoff

migration involves a summation of amplitudes along
diffraction hyperbolas. Given the rms velocity at a par-
ticular time sample of a particular input trace, a hyper-
bolic traveltime trajectory associated with a fictitious
diffractor is overlaid on the input section with its apex
4.2 KIRCHHOFF MIGRATION
at that time sample. In theory, a diffraction hyperbola
IN PRACTICE extends to infinite time and distance. In practice, we
have to deal with a truncated hyperbolic summation
In this and the following three sections, the parameters path. The spatial extent that the actual summation
that affect performance of Kirchhoff summation, finite- path spans, called the migration aperture, is measured
difference, and f −k migration methods are discussed. In in terms of the number of traces the hyperbolic path
Kirchhoff migration, the important parameters are the spans.
aperture width used in summation and the maximum
dip to migrate. In finite-difference and phase-shift mi-
grations, the depth step size needs to be selected prop-
erly. The stretch factor is important in Stolt migration.
The responses of these methods to velocity errors also
are examined. All practical aspects are discussed using
synthetic models of two zero-offset sections — a model
of dipping-events and a model of a diffraction hyper-
bola. Real data examples also are used to evaluate the
choice of optimum parameters.
In Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5, migration re-
sults of different algorithms using various parameters
are compared with a desired migration. In all cases,
this desired migration was obtained using the phase-
shift method with appropriate parameters and veloci-
ties. This does not imply that the phase-shift method FIG. 4.2-1. Migration can be confined to a range of dips
always provides a desirable output; it only means that present on a seismic section. The impulse response for the
the data examples in this section were chosen so that dip-limited migration operator is a truncated semicircle. Dip
the phase-shift algorithm is appropriate. The choice of angle θ is measured from the vertical axis.
 Migration
FIG. 4.2-2. Summation paths for Kirchhoff migration in a medium with (a) low velocity (2000 m/s), (b) high velocity (4000
m/s), and (c) vertically varying velocity. Migration aperture is small for low velocities and large for high velocities.
The curvature of the diffraction hyperbola is gov-
erned by the velocity function. Figure 4.2-2a shows
a number of low-velocity diffraction hyperbolas, while
Figure 4.2-2b shows a number of high-velocity hyper-
bolas. A low-velocity hyperbola has a narrower aper-
ture when compared to a high-velocity hyperbola. This
agrees with our intuition — high velocity means more
migration. In practice, we deal with a velocity function
that at least varies with depth. The diffraction hyperbo-
las can have different curvatures depending on the ve-
locity value at a given time sample (Figure 4.2-2c). Be-
cause of the vertical variation in velocity, aperture width
generally is time variant. For the usual case in which
velocity increases with depth, migration of the shallow
part of the section requires a narrow aperture, while
migration of the deep portion requires a wider aperture
(Figure 4.2-2c). This implies that, given the same dip,
deep events migrate farther than shallow events.
Figure 4.2-3 shows a zero-offset diffraction hyper-
bola (8 ms/trace dip along the asymptotes) and migra-
tions using four different aperture widths. The smaller
the aperture, the less capable the migration is in col-
lapsing the diffraction hyperbola. In this case, use of an
aperture width that is equal to the width of the input
section (half aperture, 256 traces) yields the best result.
Figure 4.2-4 shows a synthetic zero-offset section
that consists of a number of dipping events ranging from
0 to 45 degrees in increments of 5 degrees. Aperture
width is related closely to the horizontal displacement
dx that takes place in migration as defined by equa-
tion (4-1). The number of traces an event migrates is
503
nx = dx /∆x, where ∆x is the CMP interval. Therefore,
the aperture width that is required is 2nx +1. Figure 4.2-
4 also shows Kirchhoff migrations of the dipping events
using four different aperture widths. Small-aperture mi-
gration eliminates steeply dipping events on the output
section. Increasing the aperture width allows proper mi-
gration of the steeply dipping events. From this we see
that using too small an aperture width causes a dip fil-
tering action during migration, because a small aperture
excludes the steeper flanks of the diffraction hyperbola
from the summation.
For any given event position in time t before mi-
gration, the optimal value for the aperture width is de-
fined by twice the maximum horizontal displacement in
migration for the steepest dip of interest in the input
section. In this case, the horizontal displacement asso-
ciated with the 45-degree dipping event is computed by
substituting the values for v = 3500 m/s, ∆x = 25 m,
∆t / ∆x = 12 ms/trace, where t = 2 s in equation (4-1).
The value for the horizontal displacement is 118 traces,
giving an aperture width of 237 traces. Typically, we
consider somewhat larger values to allow for velocity
errors.
A good way to determine aperture width is to gen-
erate diffraction hyperbolas as shown in Figure 4.2-2c
using the regionally averaged, vertically varying veloc-
ity. Clearly, the larger the aperture width, the more
traces are used in the summation. For the dipping
events in Figure 4.2-4, the optimal value of the half-
aperture width is 150 traces; increasing the width to
300 traces resulted in no further improvement.
504 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.2-3. Tests for aperture width in Kirchhoff migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains a diffraction hyperbola with
2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration using the phase-shift method; Kirchhoff migration using (c) 35-trace, (d) 70-trace,
(e) 150-trace, and (f) 256-trace half-aperture width.
 Migration 505

FIG. 4.2-4. Tests for aperture width in Kirchhoff migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains dipping events with
3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration using the phase-shift method; Kirchhoff migration using (c) 35-trace, (d) 70-trace,
(e) 150-trace, and (f) 256-trace half-aperture width.
506 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.2-5. Tests for aperture width in Kirchhoff migration: Insufficient aperture width causes removal of steeply dipping
events.
 Migration 507

FIG. 4.2-6. Tests for aperture width in Kirchhoff migration: Insufficient aperture width causes spurious horizontal events in
deep, noisy part of a stacked section.
508 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.2-7. Tests for aperture width in Kirchhoff migration: Input to migration is a section (a) that contains band-limited
random noise uncorrelated from trace to trace. Note the spurious horizontal events in the deeper part of the section after
migration using small aperture (60 traces); these gradually disappear at increasingly larger apertures.

A test of aperture width on the CMP stacked data
example is shown in Figure 4.2-5. The small-aperture
migration causes smearing in the deeper part of the sec-
tion. This smearing effect destroys the dipping events
and produces spurious horizontally dominant events.
Smearing is reduced gradually with increasing aperture.
Figure 4.2-6 is the deeper portion of a stacked sec-
tion with migrations using different aperture sizes. The
smearing effect is much more noticeable at small aper-
ture. The main difference between the stacked sections
in Figures 4.2-5 and 4.2-6 is that the latter, being deeper
in time, contains a large amount of noise. This smearing
phenomenon was not noticed in the noise-free synthetic
model in Figure 4.2-4. We now see that choice of aper-
ture width is more critical than we originally thought.
In particular, a small aperture changes the noise char-
acteristics of the section.
Why do we see horizontally dominant smearing
with small-aperture migration? To answer this, we must
do a simple experiment with a section that contains only
random noise and the velocity function used in migra-
tion increases in time (Figure 4.2-7a). We see two inter-
esting phenomena on the migrated sections using three
different apertures. First, in all three cases there is more
smearing of noise in the deeper part of the data, where
the velocities generally are higher than in the shallower
part. Second, there is relatively more smearing in the
small-aperture migration compared with others at a
given time in the section. Moreover, this smearing is
characterized by horizontally dominant spurious events,
especially in the deeper part of the section. Note that
even with a large aperture, some smearing still is present
in the deepest part of the section in Figure 4.2-7d. As
indicated in Figure 4.2-2b, because summation stops at
the bottom of the section, the effective aperture (CD)
at late times is much smaller than that used in other
parts of the section (AB). Remember that summation
using very small aperture includes only the apex por-
tion of the diffraction hyperbola, where dips are nearly
flat. Therefore, the small aperture with a dip filtering
 Migration
action passes flat or nearly flat events — those hori-
zontal wavenumber components that are zero or nearly
zero.
In conclusion, the following assessments are made
concerning the choice of aperture width.
(a) Excessively small aperture width causes destruc-
tion of steeply dipping events and rapidly varying
amplitude changes.
(b) Excessively small aperture width organizes random
noise, especially in the deeper part of the section,
as horizontally dominant spurious events.
(c) Excessively large aperture means more computer
time. More importantly, large apertures can de-
grade the migration quality in poor signal-to-noise
ratio conditions. Use of large aperture will cause
random noise at late times to creep into the good
shallow data. Aperture width always is a compro-
mise with noise.
(d) Sometimes it is better to use a smaller aperture
than would theoretically be required to avoid the
adverse effect of noise on the migrated event. Noise
considerations may even require a time-dependent
aperture width.
(e) It is recommended that the aperture width be kept
constant in migrating all lines from a particular
survey so that an overall uniformity in amplitude
characteristics on the migrated sections is main-
tained.
In practice, a regional velocity function and the steepest
dip in a survey area are used to compute the optimal
aperture width that can be used over the entire set of
data from the area (equation 4-1).
Maximum Dip to Migrate
During migration, we can specify the maximum dip
we want migrated in the section. This may be useful
when we need to suppress the steeply dipping coher-
ent noise. Figure 4.2-8 shows migrations of the dipping
events with four different maximum allowable dips. For
a 4 ms/trace dip limit, events with dips greater than
this value are suppressed. Similarly, for an 8 ms/trace
dip value, events with dips greater than this value are
suppressed. When the dip value is 12 ms/trace, no sup-
pression occurs, since all events in the input section have
dips less than this value. Limiting the dip parameter is
a way to reduce computational cost, since it is related
to aperture width (equation 4-1), which determines the
cost.
From Figure 4.2-1, note that the Kirchhoff migra-
tion impulse response can be limited to various max-
509
imum dips. The smaller the maximum allowable dip,
the smaller the aperture. This combination of maximum
aperture width and maximum dip limit determines the
actual effective aperture width used in migration. In
particular, diffraction hyperbolas along which summa-
tion is done are truncated beyond the specified maxi-
mum dip limit.
A field data example of testing the maximum dip
parameter is shown in Figure 4.2-9. Some steep dips are
lost on the section that corresponds to the 2 ms/trace
maximum allowable dip. The 8 ms/trace dip appears
to be optimum. The maximum dip parameter must be
chosen carefully so that the steep dips of interest in the
input section are preserved. Finally, dip value can be
changed spatially and in time; however, practical im-
plementation can be cumbersome.
Velocity Errors
We now examine the response of Kirchhoff migration
to velocity errors. Figure 4.2-10 shows the diffraction
hyperbola and migrations using the 2500 m/s medium
velocity, and 5, 10, and 20 percent lower velocities. With
increasingly lower velocities, the diffraction hyperbola is
collapsed less and less taking the shape of a frown — it
is undermigrated.
Figure 4.2-11 shows the same diffraction hyperbola
and migrations using the 2500 m/s medium velocity,
and 5, 10, and 20 percent higher velocities. With in-
creasingly higher velocities, the the diffraction hyper-
bola is inverted more and more taking the shape of a
smile — it is overmigrated.
The under-and overmigration effects resulting from
the use of erroneously low or high velocities on the dip-
ping events model are seen in Figures 4.2-12 and 4.2-
13, respectively. Label the correct position of the event
with the steepest dip from the desired migration on the
results of migrations with different velocities and note
the event mispositioning caused by erroneously low and
high velocities. Compare with the desired migration and
also note that the steeper the dip the more the under-
and overmigration effect. Sensitivity of migration to ve-
locity errors can be measured quantitatively via equa-
tions 4-1 and 4-2.
From the migrated sections in Figure 4.2-14, note
that the bow tie becomes increasingly less resolved at
lower velocities; this indicates undermigration.
Figure 4.2-15 shows a CMP-stacked section and
the desired migration. The steep left flank of the salt
dome has been imaged with acceptable accuracy. The
accuracy of the imaging of the slightly overturned right
(text continues on p. 520)
510 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.2-8. Tests for maximum dip to migrate in Kirchhoff migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains a diffraction
hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; Kirchhoff migration using (c) 4-ms/trace, (d) 8-ms/trace, (e) 12-
ms/trace, and (f) 24-ms/trace maximum dip.
 Migration 511

FIG. 4.2-9. Tests for maximum dip to migrate in Kirchhoff migration: A low value for maximum dip to migrate can be
hazardous. All dips of interest must be preserved during migration.
512 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.2-10. Tests for velocity errors in Kirchhoff migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains a diffraction hyperbola
with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; Kirchhoff migration using (c) the medium velocity of 2500 m/s, (d) 5 percent
lower, (e) 10 percent lower, and (f) 20 percent lower velocity.
 Migration 513

FIG. 4.2-11. Tests for velocity errors in Kirchhoff migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains a diffraction hyperbola
with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; Kirchhoff migration using (c) the medium velocity of 2500 m/s, (d) 5 percent
higher, (e) 10 percent higher, and (f) 20 percent higher velocity.
514 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.2-12. Tests for velocity errors in Kirchhoff migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains dipping events with
3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; Kirchhoff migration using (c) the medium velocity of 3500 m/s, (d) 5 percent lower,
(e) 10 percent lower, and (f) 20 percent lower velocity.
 Migration 515

FIG. 4.2-13. Tests for velocity errors in Kirchhoff migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains dipping events with
3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; Kirchhoff migration using (c) the medium velocity of 3500 m/s, (d) 5 percent higher,
(e) 10 percent higher, and (f) 20 percent higher velocity.
516 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.2-14. Tests for velocity errors in Kirchhoff migration: Undermigration manifested as inadequate handling of the
bowtie is caused by the use of velocities lower than those considered to be medium velocities.
 Migration 517

FIG. 4.2-15. (a) A CMP-stacked section, and (b) migration using the phase-shift method. Event A is the water-bottom
multiple, and Event B is the peg-leg multiple associated with the top-salt boundary. These multiples are respectively denoted
by Events C and D on the migrated section.
518 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.2-16. Tests for velocity errors in Kirchhoff migration using, from top to bottom, 100, 95, 90, and 80 percent of rms
velocities. The input stacked section is shown in Figure 4.2-15a and the desired migration using the phase-shift method is
shown in Figure 4.2-15b.
 Migration 519

FIG. 4.2-17. Tests for velocity errors in Kirchhoff migration using, from top to bottom, 100, 105, 110, and 120 percent of
rms velocities. The input stacked section is shown in Figure 4.2-15a and the desired migration using the phase-shift method
is shown in Figure 4.2-15b.
520 Seismic Data Analysis
flank can only be inferred by the lateral positioning of
the gently dipping reflections in the vicinity of the salt
flank.
Figure 4.2-16 shows results of Kirchhoff migration
of the stacked section in Figure 4.2-15 using velocities
lower than what may be optimum for imaging. While
the undermigration of the left flank of the salt dome
is not so evident, the steeply dipping reflection off the
right flank intersects the gently dipping reflections as-
sociated with the surrounding strata, thus providing a
clue for undermigration.
Figure 4.2-17 shows results of Kirchhoff migration
of the stacked section in Figure 4.2-15 using velocities
higher than what may be optimum for imaging. While
overmigration effects may be marginal on the section
with a small velocity error (105 percent of optimum ve-
locities), migration with higher velocity errors (110 and
120 percent of optimum velocities) shows signs of over-
migration in the form of crossing events along the left
flank of the salt diapir. Under- and overmigration effects
caused by large velocity errors often are detectable; nev-
ertheless, small velocity errors can cause subtle effects
making it difficult to judge whether there is under- or
overmigration. Uncertainties in migration velocities in-
evitably cause uncertainties in the interpretation made
from migrated sections or volumes of data. For instance,
the shape of the salt diapir inferred from the results
shown in Figures 4.2-16 and 4.2-17 varies significantly
depending on the percent velocity errors.
4.3 FINITE-DIFFERENCE MIGRATION
IN PRACTICE
As described in Section 4.1, finite-difference migration
is implemented using implicit and explicit schemes. In
this section, we shall include in our discussion the 15-
degree finite-difference algorithm because of its histori-
cal significance. Nevertheless, we shall primarily discuss
practical aspects of the steep-dip implicit and explicit
schemes in the frequency-space domain. Specifically, we
shall deal with the impulse responses, depth step size
and response to velocity errors in implicit and explicit
schemes.
The first finite-difference migration algorithm that
was introduced to the seismic industry was based on
the parabolic approximation to the scalar wave equation
(Claerbout and Doherty, 1972). The algorithm was im-
plemented in the time-space domain and designed using
an implicit scheme. The parabolic approximation theo-
retically limits the algorithm to handling dips up to 15
degrees (Section D.3). Nevertheless, in practice, it can
handle dips up to 35 degrees with sufficient accuracy
due to the bandlimited nature of seismic data. Steeper
dips, in principle, can be migrated by a cascaded appli-
cation of the 15-degree algorithm (Larner and Beasley,
1990).
Finite-difference migration of stacked data cur-
rently is performed using steep-dip algorithms based
on the continued fractions expansion to the scalar wave
equation. This approximation provides a theoretical dip
accuracy up to 45 degrees. The basic 45-degree scheme
can be improved to handle steeper dips up to 80 de-
grees with reasonable accuracy (Section D.4). The 45-
degree finite-difference algorithm commonly is imple-
mented using an implicit scheme in the frequency-space
domain.
First, as we did for the Kirchhoff migration, we ex-
amine the impulse response of the 15-degree implicit
scheme. The shape of the impulse response of a desired
migration algorithm with no dip limitation is a semicir-
cle. The shape of the impulse response of the 15-degree
equation is, in theory, an ellipse (Claerbout, 1985) as
seen in Figure 4.3-1. The nature of the dispersive noise
pattern inside the ellipse is discussed in the next section
on depth step size. Isolated noise spikes in field data can
introduce such noise patterns on migrated sections.
The parts of the responses above the small circles in
Figure 4.3-1 correspond to the evanescent energy, while
the parts below the circles correspond to the propagat-
ing energy (Claerbout, 1985). The parts below the cir-
cles are the useful part of the response. The evanescent
FIG. 4.3-1. Desired impulse response of a 90-degree mi-
gration algorithm is a semicircle (top), while the impulse
response of the 15-degree migration algorithm is an ellipse
(bottom). The propagation zone is defined by the portion of
the ellipse below the small circles, and the evanescent zone
is defined by the portions above the small circles. For com-
parison, the desired response has been superimposed on the
impulse response of the 15-degree equation.
 Migration 521

FIG. 4.3-2. (a) CMP stack, (b) desired migration by phase-shift method, (c) 15-degree finite-difference migration. The
finite-difference migration based on the parabolic equation has the inherent property of undermigrating the steep flank of the
diffraction and the steeply dipping event. See Figure 4.3-3 for a sketch of the migration results.

energy travels horizontally and is characterized by imag-
inary wavenumbers kz , which occur when the quantity
in the square root in equation (4-13b) becomes nega-
tive. This means that the evanscent region corresponds
to horizontal wavenumbers kx > 2ω/v. For negative kz ,
the exact extrapolator exp(−ikz z) is no longer a wave
propagator; instead, it causes waves to decay rapidly in
depth. Thus, evanescent energy is not expected to be
present in recorded wavefields. The impulse response of
the 15-degree finite-difference algorithm, however, sug-
gests propagation in the region of evanescence. This is
not desirable; the parts of the elliptical wavefront above
the small circles should be removed. Use of a depth step
size that is greater than the input sampling rate tends
to suppress the response in the evanescent region. Ex-
cessively large depth steps, however, cause truncation of
the wavefront further into the propagating zone below
the small circles in Figure 4.3-1.
The impulse response (Figure 4.3-1) is used to
estimate the maximum dip that the implicit finite-
difference algorithm can handle without serious ampli-
tude distortions or phase errors. This is done by super-
imposing the desired semicircular response and measur-
ing the angle between the indicated lines. Note from the
measured angle in Figure 4.3-1 that the 15-degree im-
plicit scheme can be used to migrate dips up to approx-
imately 35 degrees with sufficient accuracy. This is pri-
marily because errors associated with finite-difference
approximations used in particular implementations of
the 15-degree equation usually are adjusted to cancel
some of the theoretical error associated with the 15-
degree differential equation.
The dip-limited nature of the parabolic equation
causes undermigration of steeply dipping events and
steep flanks of diffractions. This is demonstrated by the
field data example in Figure 4.3-2. The two prominent
features, diffraction D and dipping event B, are located
as shown in Figure 4.3-3 before and after migration.
Depth Step Size
Finite-difference migration involves downward continu-
ation of the wavefield at the surface, such as a stacked
522 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.3-3. A sketch of the diffraction D and steeply dip-
ping event before (B) and after (A) desired migration from
the sections in Figure 4.3-2. The diffraction and the dipping
event after finite-difference migration using the parabolic
equation are denoted by F D − D and F D − B, respectively.
section, and invoking the imaging principle so as to cre-
ate an image of the subsurface at t = 0. The downward
continuation takes place in the computer at discrete
depth intervals (Section 4.1). Depth step size governs
performance of finite-difference migration. Inappropri-
ate specification of this parameter can cause artifacts in
the migrated section. We want to choose an optimum
depth step size that is large for computational savings,
yet yields a tolerable error in positioning the events af-
ter migration.
Figure 4.3-4 shows the constant-velocity diffraction
hyperbola and the 15-degree implicit finite-difference
migrations using four different depth steps. Large depth
steps cause severe undermigration as well as kinks along
the flank of the diffraction curve (especially apparent in
the 60- and 80-ms cases). At smaller depth steps, such
as the 20- and 40-ms cases, more energy collapses to the
apex, but the 15-degree scheme fails to achieve a com-
plete focusing of the energy at the apex of the hyper-
bola. Note also the dispersive noise that trails the unfo-
cused energy. The dip-limited nature of the 15-degree al-
gorithm, however, causes undermigration whatever the
depth step size (Figure 4.3-5).
Undermigration of the diffraction energy along the
steep flanks of the hyperbola is caused by the parabolic
approximation to the scalar wave equation. The dis-
persive noise that accompanies the undermigrated en-
ergy is an effect of approximating differential operators
with difference operators. The accuracy of this approxi-
mation decreases at large frequencies and wavenumbers
(Claerbout, 1985). Thus, the dispersive noise becomes
less with smaller trace spacing and sampling in depth
and time. For example, the difference operator of equa-
tion (4-10) becomes an increasingly better approxima-
tion to the differential operator of equation (4-11) as ∆t
is made smaller. To emphasize more strongly the pres-
ence of the dispersive noise, migrated sections in Fig-
ures 4.3-4 and 4.3-5 have been displayed with the same
display gain level as the input section. The dispersion
normally is much less pronounced on field data.
Figure 4.3-6 shows the dipping events model and
the 15-degree implicit finite-difference migration results
using four different depth step sizes. We can make the
following inferences:
(a) Increasing depth step size causes more and more
undermigration at increasingly steep dips.
(b) The waveform along reflectors is dispersed at steep
dips and large depth steps.
(c) Kinks occur along reflectors at discrete intervals
that correspond to the depth step size. Kinks are
more pronounced at increasingly steeper dips.
The first inference results from the parabolic ap-
proximation, the second from differencing approxima-
tions, and the third from gradual undermigration to-
ward the base of each depth step. The kinks are good
for diagnostics; their presence indicates that the depth
step size that is used is too coarse for the dips present in
the data. In that case, smaller depth step size should be
used; then the kinks disappear altogether (Figure 4.3-
7). Nevertheless, kinks that characterize undermigra-
tion can be eliminated by a local adjustment of migra-
tion velocities or interpolation between the wavefields
at the adjacent depth steps.
It is apparent from Figure 4.3-6 that migration
with 20-ms depth step, which corresponds to one-half of
the typical dominant period of recorded seismic waves,
has the least dispersion with the least undermigration
— optimum accuracy in event positioning. Further de-
creasing depth step size does not improve migration sig-
nificantly (Figure 4.3-7). The 15-degree implicit scheme
causes precursive dispersion at large depth steps greater
than 20 ms (Figure 4.3-6) and postcursive dispersion at
small depth steps less than 20 ms (Figure 4.3-7). Hence,
taking smaller depth steps does not necessarily mean a
 Migration 523

FIG. 4.3-5. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 15-

degree finite-difference migration: (a) a zero-offset section
that contains a diffraction hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity,
FIG. 4.3-4. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 15- (b) desired migration; 15-degree finite-difference migration
degree finite-difference migration: (a) a zero-offset section using (c) 4-ms (d) 8-ms, (e) 12-ms, and (f) 16-ms depth step.
that contains a diffraction hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity,
(b) desired migration; 15-degree finite-difference migration
using (c) 20-ms (d) 40-ms, (e) 60-ms, and (f) 80-ms depth
step.
524 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.3-7. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 15-

degree finite-difference migration: (a) a zero-offset section
that contains dipping events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) de-
FIG. 4.3-6. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 15-
sired migration; 15-degree finite-difference migration using
degree finite-difference migration: (a) a zero-offset section
(c) 4-ms (d) 8-ms, (e) 12-ms, and (f) 16-ms depth step.
that contains dipping events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) de-
sired migration; 15-degree finite-difference migration using
(c) 20-ms (d) 40-ms, (e) 60-ms, and (f) 80-ms depth step.
 Migration
better quality migration free of the artifacts that occur
with the finite-difference method.
Figures 4.3-8 and 4.3-9 show the migrations of the
stacked section in Figure 4.3-2a with five different depth
steps using the 15-degree implicit scheme. Note that
as the depth step size is increased, the dipping event
off the flank of the salt diapir is more undermigrated
and the diffraction off the tip of the diapir is less col-
lapsed. Dispersion along the diffraction hyperbola is ap-
parent at larger depth steps (Figure 4.3-9). Again, this
phenomenon is caused by the differencing approxima-
tions to the differential operators used in the design of
a finite-difference algorithm.
Velocity Errors
Figure 4.3-10 shows the diffraction hyperbola and its
migration using the 2500 m/s medium velocity and 5,
10, and 20 percent lower velocities. When velocities
lower than medium velocity are used, the diffraction
hyperbola gets undermigrated by the 15-degree algo-
rithm more than it would be by an algorithm with no
dip limitation (compare with Figure 4.2-10).
Figure 4.3-11 shows the diffraction hyperbola and
its migration using the 2500 m/s medium velocity and
5, 10, and 20 percent higher velocities. When velocities
higher than medium velocity are used, the diffraction
hyperbola gets overmigrated less by the 15-degree al-
gorithm than it would be by an algorithm with no dip
limitation (compare with Figure 4.2-11). Moreover, note
the increase in dispersive noise as a result of overmigra-
tion.
Figure 4.3-12 is the dipping events model with mi-
grations using the 3500 m/s medium velocity, and 5,
10, and 20 percent lower velocities. For comparison, la-
bel the correct position of the event with the steepest
dip from the desired migration on the results of migra-
tion with different velocities. As in any other migration
method, velocity errors cause events to be mispositioned
at increasingly steeper dips. The undermigration effect
of lower velocities is reinforced by the inherently un-
dermigrating nature of the 15-degree algorithm. As a
result, dipping events are undermigrated more by the
15-degree algorithm in contrast than by an algorithm
with no dip limitation (compare with Figure 4.2-12).
Figure 4.3-13 is the dipping events model with mi-
grations using the 3500 m/s medium velocity, and 5,
10, and 20 percent higher velocities. For comparison,
again, label the the correct position of the event with
the steepest dip from the desired migration on the re-
sults of migration with different velocities. The overmi-
gration effect of higher velocities is counteracted by the
inherently undermigrating nature of the 15-degree algo-
rithm. As a result, dipping events are not overmigrated
525
by the 15-degree algorithm as much as they would be
by an algorithm with no dip limitation (compare with
Figure 4.2-13).
Velocity error test results on field data using the
15-degree implicit scheme are shown in Figures 4.3-14
and 4.3-15. Figure 4.3-16 is a sketch of the under- and
overmigration effects. As noted above with the dipping
events model (Figures 4.3-12 and 4.3-13), when using
velocities greater than medium velocities, overmigration
is not as pronounced with the 15-degree finite-difference
migration as it is with a 90-degree algorithm, such as
the Kirchhoff or phase-shift method. On the other hand,
when using velocities lower than medium velocities, the
undermigration effect is more pronounced with the 15-
degree finite-difference migration in comparison with a
90-degree algorithm (compare Figure 4.3-16 with Figure
4.5-13).
At first, it may appear to be sensible to compensate
for the undermigration caused by a low-dip algorithm
by adjusting migration velocities. For example, the best
match between the desired migration and the 15-degree
finite-difference results for the dipping event in Figure
4.3-16 occurs when 10 percent higher velocities are used
in the finite-difference migration. While for one dip this
adjustment may be acceptable, for another dip it may
not be. Therefore, deficiencies of a migration algorithm
should not be compensated for by making modifications
to the velocity field for migration.
Cascaded Migration
To compensate for the inherent undermigration by
the 15-degree finite-difference migration, Larner and
Beasley (1990) proposed performing migration using
the 15-degree equation, repeatedly — the input to the
next migration stage being the output from the previ-
ous stage. Such cascaded application of the 15-degree
migration is demonstrated in Figure 4.3-17. Migration
of the constant-velocity diffraction hyperbola using the
15-degree equation only once yields the familiar re-
sult of unfocused energy accompanied with dispersive
noise (Figure 4.3-17c). A cascaded application of the
15-degree equation produces improved focusing of the
energy at the apex of the hyperbola. The more the num-
ber of stages in the cascaded migration the more the im-
provement in focusing the energy (Figures 4.3-17d,e,f).
An interesting theoretical observation is that cas-
caded migration using a dip-limited algorithm, such as
the 15-degree finite-difference scheme, actually requires
a depth step size that is greater than the optimal depth
size for a single-stage application of the algorithm. In
(text continues on p. 530)
526 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.3-8. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 15-degree finite-difference migration: (a) Desired migration using the
phase-shift method, (b) 4-ms depth step, and (c) 20-ms depth step. The input CMP stack is shown in Figure 4.3-2a.

FIG. 4.3-9. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 15-degree finite-difference migration: (a) 40-ms depth step, (b) 60-ms
depth step, and (c) 80-ms depth step. The input CMP stack is shown in Figure 4.3-2a and the desired migration is shown in
Figure 4.3-2b.
 Migration 527

FIG. 4.3-10. Tests for velocity errors in 15-degree finite-
difference migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains
a diffraction hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired
migration; 15-degree finite-difference migration using (c) the
medium velocity of 2500 m/s, (d) 5 percent lower, (e) 10
percent lower, and (f) 20 percent lower velocity. Depth step
size is 20 ms.
FIG. 4.3-11. Tests for velocity errors in 15-degree finite-
difference migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains
a diffraction hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired
migration; 15-degree finite-difference migration using (c) the
medium velocity of 2500 m/s, (d) 5 percent higher, (e) 10
percent higher, and (f) 20 percent higher velocity. Depth
step size is 20 ms.
528 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.3-12. Tests for velocity errors in 15-degree finite-
difference migration: (a) a zero-offset section that con-
tains dipping events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired mi-
gration; 15-degree finite-difference migration using (c) the
medium velocity of 3500 m/s, (d) 5 percent lower, (e) 10
percent lower, and (f) 20 percent lower velocity. Depth step
size is 20 ms.
FIG. 4.3-13. Tests for velocity errors in 15-degree finite-
difference migration: (a) a zero-offset section that con-
tains dipping events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired mi-
gration; 15-degree finite-difference migration using (c) the
medium velocity of 3500 m/s, (d) 5 percent higher, (e) 10
percent higher, and (f) 20 percent higher velocity. Depth
step size is 20 ms.
 Migration 529

FIG. 4.3-14. Tests for velocity errors in 15-degree finite-difference migration using (a) 95 percent, (b) 90 percent, and (c) 80
percent of rms velocities. The input stacked section is shown in Figure 4.3-2a and the desired migration using the phase-shift
method is shown in Figure 4.3-2b. Depth step size is 20 ms.

FIG. 4.3-15. Tests for velocity errors in 15-degree finite-difference migration using (a) 105 percent, (b) 110 percent, and
(c) 120 percent of rms velocities. The input stacked section is shown in Figure 4.3-2a and the desired migration using the
phase-shift method is shown in Figure 4.3-2b. Depth step size is 20 ms.
530 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.3-16. The undermigration and overmigration ef-
fects from Figures 4.3-14 and 4.3-15. B = dipping event
before and A = dipping event after desired migration, D =
diffraction before and D = diffraction after 15-degree finite-
difference migrations, and L = percent lower velocities, and
H = percent higher velocities.
fact, the more the number of stages in the cascade, the
coarser the depth step size to achieve better focusing of
the energy (Figure 4.3-17).
Cascaded migration of the constant-velocity zero-
offset section that contains dipping events is shown
in Figure 4.3-18. Again, the 15-degree finite-difference
migration yields the familiar result of undermigrated
steeply dipping events accompanied by the dispersive
noise. When applied in a cascaded manner, the algo-
rithm positions the steeply dipping events more accu-
rately. With a sufficient number of cascades (Figure 4.3-
18f), the 15-degree algorithm can actually position the
events as accurately as a 90-degree algorithm applied
only once (Figure 4.3-18b). For comparison, the event
with the steepest dip (AB) is labeled on the desired
migration (Figure 4.3-18b) and the cascaded migration
(Figure 4.3-18f).
Unfortunately, the encouraging results from cas-
caded migration using the 15-degree algorithm shown
in Figures 4.3-17 and 4.3-18 are only attainable for a
constant-velocity medium. In case of a medium with
vertically varying velocity, the cascaded application of
the 15-degree algorithm causes overmigration (Figure
4.3-19). While this observation can be verified by the-
ory, the situation can also be remedied by a cleverly
implemented form of cascaded migration with a con-
stant velocity used in each stage (Larner and Beasley,
1990).
Actually, it turns out that cascaded migration the-
ory dictates constant velocity to be used in each stage.
If a variable velocity is used, then a 90-degree algorithm
such as the phase-shift method is required in lieu of a
dip-limited algorithm for each stage. While the cascaded
application of a dip-limited finite-difference algorithm
with a variable velocity causes overmigration (Figure
4.3-19c), the cascaded application of the phase-shift al-
gorithm with no dip limit yields an accurate image (Fig-
ure 4.3-20e).
Since the advancements made in practical im-
plementation of steep-dip implicit and explicit finite-
difference schemes, practical use of cascaded migration,
however, has been limited.
Reverse Time Migration
In Section 4.1, a migration algorithm based on extrap-
olation back in time while using the stacked section to
be the boundary condition at z = 0 was discussed. The
impulse response of this algorithm, which is known as
reverse time migration, is shown in Figure 4.3-21. Note
that the algorithm can handle dips up to 90 degrees
with the accuracy of phase-shift migration. The impor-
tant consideration is that the extrapolation step ∆t in
reverse time migration must be taken quite small, usu-
ally a fraction of the input temporal sampling interval.
This then makes the algorithm computationally inten-
sive.
Figure 4.3-22 shows a portion of a CMP-stacked
section and its reverse time migration. The steep flanks
of the salt diapirs have been imaged accurately, enabling
delineation of the geometry of the top-salt boundary
with confidence. Reverse time migration, albeit its sim-
ple and elegant implementation (Section 4.1), has not
been used widely in practice. Again, this is primar-
ily because it requires very small extrapolation step in
time, which increases the computational cost of the al-
gorithm.
4.4 FREQUENCY-SPACE MIGRATION
IN PRACTICE
The basis of the steep-dip implicit algorithms is the
dispersion relation of equation (4-18). Finite-difference
schemes with steep-dip accuracy are implemented con-
veniently in the frequency-space domain. An important
 Migration 531

FIG. 4.3-17. (a) A zero-offset section that contains a diffraction hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration
using the phase-shift method, (c) 15-degree finite-difference migration using a depth step of 20 ms; cascaded application of the
15-degree migration using (d) 4 cascades with 80-ms depth step, (e) 10 cascades with 200-ms depth step, and (f) 20 cascades
with 400-ms depth step.
532 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.3-18. (a) A zero-offset section that contains dipping events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration using the
phase-shift method, (c) 15-degree finite-difference migration using a depth step of 20 ms; cascaded application of the 15-degree
migration using (d) 4 cascades with 80-ms depth step, (e) 10 cascades with 200-ms depth step, and (f) 20 cascades with 400-ms
depth step. For comparison, event AB with the steepest dip is labeled on the desired migration (b) and the cascaded migration
(f).
 Migration 533

FIG. 4.3-19. (a) A zero-offset section that contains three diffraction hyperbolas with a vertically varying velocity, (b) 15-
degree finite-difference migration using a depth step of 20 ms; the output from the last stage of cascaded application of the
15-degree migration using (c) 4 cascades with 80-ms depth step, (d) 10 cascades with 200-ms depth step, (e) 20 cascades with
400-ms depth step, and (f) desired migration using the phase-shift method.
534 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.3-20. (a) A zero-offset section that contains three diffraction hyperbolas with a vertically varying velocity; four-stage
cascaded migration using the phase shift-method with 80-ms depth step: (b) first-stage, (c) second stage, (d) third stage, (e)
fourth stage, and (f) desired migration using the phase-shift method only once with 20-ms depth step. Compare the fourth
stage (e) with the output of the four-stage cascaded migration using a dip-limited algorithm as in Figure 4.3-19c.
 Migration
FIG. 4.3-21. Impulse response of a reverse time migration
algorithm.
advantage of the implicit method is its exceptional abil-
ity to handle velocity variations, whether vertical or
lateral. Its accuracy for the lateral velocity problem re-
sults from the fact that the time shift associated with
the thin-lens term (equation 4-16b) can be implemented
exactly in the frequency domain. For these reasons, the
algorithm is most appropriate for depth migration to
image targets beneath complex structures (Chapter 8).
The frequency-space, sometimes referred to as ω−x
or f − x, migration also has the important operational
advantage that each frequency can be processed sep-
arately. This property can reduce computer memory
requirements significantly and, thus, decrease input-
output operations for large data sets. Also, in frequency-
space migration, some accuracy features can be conve-
niently implemented. For example, wave extrapolation
can be limited to a specified signal bandwidth. Each fre-
quency component can, in principle, be downward con-
tinued using an optimum depth step size that yields a
minimum acceptable phase error, leading to a minimum
amount of dispersive noise on the migrated section.
Steep-Dip Implicit Methods
Figure 4.4-1 shows the impulse responses of a series of
implicit frequency-space finite-difference schemes with
different degrees of dip accuracy. Whether it is im-
plemented in the time-space domain (Figure 4.3-1) or
frequency-space domain (Figure 4.4-1), the 15-degree
algorithm yields an elliptic impulse response. The 45-
degree algorithm yields an impulse response in the
shape of a heart.
The 15-degree equation is derived from the Tay-
lor expansion of the dispersion relation (equation 4-
14a). The 45-degre equation is based on the continued
fractions expansion (equation 4-18), which allows wider
angle approximations. Kjartansson (1979) implemented
the 45-degree equation for migration of stacked data.
The 45-degree equation (4-18) can be upgraded to
535
be accurate for dips up to 65 degrees by tuning some co-
efficients (Section D.4). Higher-order operators can be
obtained by the successive application of a number of
operators like the 45-degree operator (Ma, 1981) with
a different set of coefficients (Lee and Suh, 1985). As
shown in Figure 4.4-1, with increasing dip accuracy,
the impulse responses of the algorithms approach the
shape of a semicircle. However, branches in the impulse
response associated with evanescent energy remain.
Figure 4.4-2 shows migration of a constant-velocity
diffraction hyperbola using the 65-, 80-, 87-, and 90-
degree implicit schemes (Section D.4). While the fo-
cusing is better than that achieved by the 15-degree
implicit scheme (Figure 4.3-4c), note that the disper-
sive noise still persists in the image obtained from the
65-degree implicit scheme (Figure 4.4-2c). It is evident
that the quality of focusing from the 80-degree im-
plicit scheme is superior (Figure 4.4-2d). The 87- and
90-degree schemes have caused overmigration of the
diffraction hyperbola (Figures 4.4-2e,f).
The overmigration effect also can be observed on
the results from the constant-velocity dipping events
model in Figure 4.4-3. In fact, the dispersive noise that
accompanies the steeply dipping events is present in all
cases. The response of an implicit scheme is the product
of a complicated interplay of various parameters (Sec-
tion D.6) — depth step size, sampling intervals in space
and time, dip angle, velocity and frequency. Dispersive
noise, and under- or overmigration characteristics of im-
plicit schemes depend on the specific implementation.
Figure 4.4-4 shows the stacked data migrated us-
ing three different approximations in frequency-space
domain — 15, 45, and 65 degrees. Note that by higher-
degree approximation, the collapse of the diffraction be-
comes complete, and the steeply dipping event is mi-
grated more accurately. Compare these results with the
desired migration in Figure 4.3-2b. Also note the similar
results obtained from the 15-degree time-space (t − x)
algorithm (Figure 4.3-2c) and the 15-degree frequency-
space (ω − x) algorithm (Figure 4.4-4a).
Figure 4.4-5 shows a field data example of
frequency-space implicit finite-difference migrations
with different degrees of accuracy. Compare the re-
sults with the desired migration in Figure 4.2-15b and
note that the 80-degree scheme probably produces the
most preferred image of the salt dome as compared
to that from the 65-degree scheme. The schemes with
steeper dip accuracy (87- and 90-degree schemes), how-
ever, yield marginal improvements over the 80-degree
scheme. Often the 65-degree scheme produces accept-
able results, and the 80-degree scheme, which requires
twice the computational effort, is used occasionally in
practice.
536 Seismic Data Analysis
 Migration 537

FIG. 4.4-1. Impulse responses of the frequency-space implicit schemes with various degrees of approximations to the one-way
scalar wave equation. (See Section D.4 for the theoretical basis of these responses.)

Depth Step Size typical of finite-difference schemes, persists to varying

Figure 4.4-6 shows the constant-velocity diffraction hy-
perbola and the steep-dip implicit 65-degree finite-
difference migrations using four different depth steps.
Large depth steps cause undermigration as well as kinks
along the flank of the diffraction curve (especially ap-
parent in 60- and 80-ms cases). The dispersive noise,
degrees irrespective of the depth step size. At smaller
depth steps, more energy collapses to the apex (Figure
4.4-7f).
As in the case of the parabolic approximation (Fig-
ure 4.3-5), the dispersive noise that accompanies the
undermigrated energy (Figures 4.4-6 and 4.4-7) is an
effect of approximating differential operators with dif-
538 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.4-2. (a) A zero-offset section that contains a diffraction hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration using
the phase-shift method; frequency-space finite-difference migrations using (c) the 65-degree, (d) 80-degree, (e) 87-degree, and
(f) 90-degree implicit scheme.
 Migration 539

FIG. 4.4-3. (a) A zero-offset section that contains dipping events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration using the
phase-shift method; frequency-space finite-difference migrations using (c) the 65-degree, (d) 80-degree, (e) 87-degree, and (f)
90-degree implicit scheme.
540 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.4-4. Frequency-space finite-difference migrations of the CMP stack in Figure 4.3-2a using implicit finite-difference
schemes based on (a) the 15-degree, (b) 45-degree, and (c) 65-degree approximation. Note the increasingly better imaging
obtained using higher angle approximations. The desired migration is shown in Figure 4.3-2b.

ference operators. With reasonable depth steps (20 ms),
the undermigration caused by the dip limitation of the
65-degree algorithm (Figure 4.4-7f) is less pronounced
as compared to that of the 15-degree algorithm (Figure
4.3-4c). At large depth steps, the steep-dip accuracy is
compromised, and the difference between the two algo-
rithms becomes less distinguishable (compare Figures
4.4-6f and 4.3-4f).
The response of a finite-difference algorithm to a
diffraction or a dipping event depends upon the type
of differencing scheme and dip limitation. At large
depth steps, the steep-dip algorithm undermigrates the
diffraction hyperbola (Figure 4.4-6) as does the 15-
degree scheme (Figure 4.3-4). At small depth steps, the
steep-dip algorithm causes slight overmigration of the
diffraction hyperbola (Figure 4.4-7c,d), unlike the 15-
degree scheme which causes undermigration whatever
the depth step size (Figure 4.3-5).
Figure 4.4-8 shows the constant-velocity dipping
events model and the steep-dip implicit finite-difference
migration results using four different depth step sizes.
The response of the steep-dip implicit scheme is quite
similar to that of the 15-degree scheme. Specifically, in-
creasing depth step size causes more and more undermi-
gration at increasingly steep dips. The waveform along
reflectors is dispersed at steep dips and large depth
steps. Kinks occur along reflectors at discrete intervals
that correspond to the depth step size. Note that the
kinks are more pronounced at increasingly steeper dips.
It is apparent from Figure 4.4-9 that migration
with 20-ms depth step has the least dispersion with the
least undermigration — optimum accuracy in event po-
sitioning. Further decreasing depth step size actually
causes overmigration as for the diffraction hyperbola
(Figure 4.4-7).
The response of a finite-difference algorithm to dip-
ping events depends again on the approximation made
to the scalar wave equation. For instance, with small
depth steps less than one-half the dominant period
of the reflection events, the steep-dip implicit scheme
causes overmigration of the reflection with the steep-
est dip (Figure 4.4-9c). The 15-degreee implicit scheme,
on the other hand, causes postcursive dispersion along
the steeply dipping reflectors (Figure 4.3-7c). Hence,
taking smaller depth steps does not necessarily mean
a better quality migration free of the artifacts that oc-
 Migration 541

FIG. 4.4-5. Frequency-space finite-difference migrations of the CMP stack in Figure 4.2-15a using, from top to bottom, the
65-degree, 80-degree, 87-degree, and 90-degree implicit schemes. The desired migration using the phase-shift method is shown
in Figure 4.2-15b.
542 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.4-6. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 65-
degree frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration:
(a) a zero-offset section that contains a diffraction hyperbola
with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; 65-degree
finite-difference migrations using (c) 32-ms, (d) 40-ms, (e)
60-ms, and (f) 80-ms depth step.
FIG. 4.4-7. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 65-
degree frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration:
(a) a zero-offset section that contains a diffraction hyperbola
with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; 65-degree
finite-difference migrations using (c) 8-ms, (d) 12-ms, (e)
16-ms, and (f) 20-ms depth step.
 Migration 543

FIG. 4.4-9. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 65-

degree frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration:
(a) a zero-offset section that contains dipping events with
3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; 65-degree finite-
difference migrations using (c) 8-ms, (d) 12-ms, (e) 16-ms,
and (f) 20-ms depth step.
FIG. 4.4-8. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 65-
degree frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration:
(a) a zero-offset section that contains dipping events with
3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; 65-degree finite-
difference migrations using (c) 32-ms, (d) 40-ms, (e) 60-ms,
and (f) 80-ms depth step.
544 Seismic Data Analysis
cur with the finite-difference method. With large depth
steps, both schemes cause undermigration accompanied
by precursive dispersion along the dipping events (Fig-
ures 4.3-6 and 4.4-8).
Theoretically, the 65-degree differential equation
is more accurate than the 15-degree differential equa-
tion. However, once discretized, the difference in per-
formance between these two equations can be less (Diet
and Lailly, 1984). A good finite-difference migration
program uses differencing schemes that maintain the
dip accuracy implied by the corresponding differential
equation.
The main point to remember is that migration of
steep dips generally requires a small depth step size.
Practical considerations suggest that depth step size
should be between one-half and one-full dominant pe-
riod of the seismic data to be migrated (from 20 to 40
ms), depending on the steepness of the dips in the data.
A higher order approximation, such as the 65-
degree equation, provides a smaller range of choice for
optimum depth size as compared to the 15-degree equa-
tion. In particular, note that the optimum depth step
size is 20 ms for the dipping events model shown in
Figures 4.4-8 and 4.4-9; any departure from this value
causes either undermigration or overmigration. The re-
sults with the 20-ms depth step in Figures 4.3-4 and
4.4-9 convincingly show that the 65-degree algorithm
can migrate steeper dips and collapse diffractions more
accurately than the 15-degree equation.
Figures 4.4-10 and 4.4-11 show migrations of the
stacked section in Figure 4.2-15a with eight different
depth steps using a steep-dip implicit scheme. Note that
as the depth step size is increased, more undermigra-
tion occurs. Dispersion along the undermigrated event
associated with the steep left flank of the salt dome
is apparent at larger depth steps. A 20-ms depth step
size, which is equivalent to the usual case of one-half
the dominant period of seismic data, generally is an ac-
ceptable choice for most of the implicit finite-difference
schemes.
Velocity Errors
We now examine the response of a steep-dip implicit
algorithm to velocity errors. Figure 4.4-12 shows the
constant-velocity diffraction hyperbola and its migra-
tions using the medium velocity, and 5, 10, and 20
percent lower velocities. When velocities lower than
medium velocity are used, the diffraction hyperbola is
undermigrated (Figure 4.4-12d,e,f), but not as much
as in the case of the 15-degree equation (Figure 4.3-
10d,e,f). On the other hand, the diffraction hyperbola
gets undermigrated by the steep-dip algorithm more
than it would be by an algorithm with no dip limitation
(compare with Figure 4.2-10).
Figure 4.4-13 shows the constant-velocity diffrac-
tion hyperbola and its migrations using the medium
velocity, and 5, 10, and 20 percent higher velocities.
When velocities higher than medium velocity are used,
the diffraction hyperbola is overmigrated (Figure 4.4-
13d,e,f), more so than with the 15-degree equation (Fig-
ure 4.3-11d,e,f). On the other hand, the diffraction hy-
perbola gets overmigrated by the steep-dip algorithm
less than it would be by an algorithm with no dip limi-
tation (compare with Figure 4.2-11). Whatever the ve-
locity used for migration, dispersive noise is present per-
sistently in finite-difference results (Figures 4.4-12 and
4.4-13).
Figure 4.4-14 shows the constant-velocity dipping
events model with migrations using the medium veloc-
ity, and velocities that are 5, 10, and 20 percent lower.
For comparison, label the correct position of the event
with the steepest dip from the desired migration on the
results of migration with different velocities. As in any
other migration method, velocity errors cause events to
be increasingly more mispositioned at steeper dips. The
undermigration effect of lower velocities is reinforced by
the inherently undermigrating nature of the steep-dip
algorithm, although not as much as in the case of the
15-degree algorithm (Figure 4.3-12). As a result, dip-
ping events are more undermigrated by the steep-dip
algorithm in contrast to an algorithm with no dip limi-
tation (compare with Figure 4.2-12).
Figure 4.4-15 is the dipping events model with mi-
grations using the 3500 m/s medium velocity, and 5,
10, and 20 percent higher velocities. For comparison,
again, label the correct position of the event with the
steepest dip from the desired migration on the results
of migration with different velocities. The overmigration
effect of higher velocities is counteracted by the inher-
ently undermigrating nature of the steep-dip algorithm,
although not as much as in the case of the 15-degree al-
gorithm (Figure 4.3-13). As a result, dipping events are
not overmigrated by the steep-dip algorithm as much as
they would be by an algorithm with no dip limitation
(compare with Figure 4.2-13).
The nature of the precursive and postcursive dis-
persion along steeply dipping events in the output from
finite-difference migration, theoretically depends on the
type of differencing scheme used in approximating the
differential operators associated with the scalar wave
equation. In principle, an implicit finite-difference mi-
gration implemented in the frequency-space domain
yields less dispersion compared to an implicit scheme
implemented in the time-space domain. This is because
the former requires differencing in x and z, while the
 Migration 545

FIG. 4.4-10. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 65-degree frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration using,
from top to bottom, 32-ms, 40-ms, 60-ms, and 80-ms depth steps. The input CMP stack is shown in Figure 4.2-15a, and the
desired migration using the phase-shift method is shown in Figure 4.2-15b.
546 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.4-11. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in 65-degree frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration using,
from top to bottom, 8-ms, 12-ms, 16-ms, and 20-ms depth steps. The input CMP stack is shown in Figure 4.2-15a, and the
desired migration using the phase-shift method is shown in Figure 4.2-15b.
 Migration 547

FIG. 4.4-13. Tests for velocity errors in 65-degree

frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration: (a) a
FIG. 4.4-12. Tests for velocity errors in 65-degree
zero-offset section that contains a diffraction hyperbola with
frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration: (a) a
2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; 65-degree finite-
zero-offset section that contains a diffraction hyperbola with
difference migration using (c) the medium velocity of 2500
2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; 65-degree finite-
m/s, (d) 5 percent higher, (e) 10 percent higher, and (f) 20
difference migration using (c) the medium velocity of 2500
percent higher velocity. Depth step size is 20 ms.
m/s, (d) 5 percent lower, (e) 10 percent lower, and (f) 20
percent lower velocity. Depth step size is 20 ms.
548 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.4-15. Tests for velocity errors in 65-degree

FIG. 4.4-14. Tests for velocity errors in 65-degree
frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration: (a)
a zero-offset section that contains dipping events with
3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; 65-degree finite-
difference migration using (c) the medium velocity of 3500
m/s, (d) 5 percent lower, (e) 10 percent lower, and (f) 20
percent lower velocity. Depth step size is 20 ms.
frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration: (a)
a zero-offset section that contains dipping events with
3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; 65-degree finite-
difference migration using (c) the medium velocity of 3500
m/s, (d) 5 percent higher, (e) 10 percent higher, and (f) 20
percent higher velocity. Depth step size is 20 ms.
 Migration
latter requires differencing in t in addition to x and
z. In practice, however, dispersive noise contaminates
migration results from implicit schemes almost without
exception.
Velocity error tests on field data using the 65-
degree implicit scheme are shown in Figures 4.4-16 and
4.4-17. With velocities erroneously too low, note the
pronounced undermigration of the steep salt flank. With
velocities erroneously too high, note the overmigration
of the steep salt flank and the crossing of reflections at
the vicinity of the crest of the salt structure.
Steep-Dip Explicit Methods
Although implicit schemes are always stable and nat-
urally suitable to accommodate lateral velocity varia-
tions, they have been known to have some unfavorable
aspects. Specifically, dispersive noise caused by the dif-
ferencing approximations to differential operators does
indeed deteriorate the quality of migration of real data
(Figures 4.3-8, 4.3-9, 4.4-10, and 4.4-11). An equally im-
portant concern about implicit schemes is the fact that
they never meet the expected theoretical dip accuracy.
A 45-degree algorithm can actually provide only a 5-
degree acccuracy for certain frequencies and velocities.
Because of a complex interaction of temporal and spa-
tial sampling rates, dip, velocity, and frequency, an op-
timum depth step size that yields minimum phase and
amplitude errors for an entire data set is never easy to
specify (Section D.6).
While implicit schemes are guaranteed to be sta-
ble whatever the depth step size, stability of explicit
schemes requires a depth step that is sufficiently small
(Section D.6). Putting aside the stability issue, explicit
schemes implemented in the frequency-space domain
(Section D.5) can alleviate some of these deficiencies
of implicit schemes.
Refer to the impulse responses shown in Figure 4.4-
18 and note that explicit schemes do not produce any
visible dispersion along steep dips. Explicit schemes in-
volve convolution of a symmetric complex filter in the
frequency-space domain with the wavefield to perform
extrapolation in depth. In contrast, implicit schemes
can be computationally intensive for large volumes of
data since they require solving complex tridiagonal
equations associated with the differencing in the x di-
rection.
Steep-dip accuracy in explicit schemes is attained
by increasing the extrapolation filter length. The im-
pulse responses shown in Figure 4.4-18 are associated
with three different extrapolators — a 7-point filter with
a 30-degree accuracy, an 11-point filter with a 50-degree
549
accuracy, and a 25-point filter with a 70-degree accu-
racy. Note that the explicit extrapolation filter cuts off
beyond the specified dip limit. In contrast, the implicit
extrapolation treats the evanescent energy as though it
is part of the propagating energy (Figure 4.4-1).
Dip Limits of Extrapolation Filters
Figure 4.4-19 shows a zero-offset section that contains a
diffraction hyperbola and its migrations using the 30-,
50- and 70-degree explicit schemes. Also shown is the
desired migration using the phase-shift method. Note
that the low-dip algorithm causes undermigration of the
diffraction hyperbola, while the steep-dip algorithm fo-
cuses the energy at the apex better than a steep-dip
implicit scheme with equivalent dip accuracy (Figure
4.4-7).
Explicit schemes are designed based on a specified
cutoff wavenumber kx (Section D.5), beyond which the
amplitude spectrum of the filter is set to zero. Figure
4.4-20 shows the f − k spectra of the results of migra-
tion of the diffraction hyperbola as shown in Figure 4.4-
19 using the three explicit extrapolators. Note that the
lower the dip limit, the lower the cutoff wavenumber.
The steep-dip algorithm with a 70-degree dip limit is
able to replicate the amplitude response characteristics
of the desired migration using the phase-shift method.
This of course is at the expense of using a long, complex
convolutional filter.
Figure 4.4-21 shows a zero-offset section that con-
tains a set of dipping events and its migrations using
the 30-, 50- and 70-degree explicit schemes. Also shown
is the desired migration using the phase-shift method.
For comparison, label the the correct position of the
event with the steepest dip from the desired migration
on the results of migration with different velocities. The
steep-dip algorithm positions the events nearly as good
as the desired migration using the phase-shift method
and better than a steep-dip implicit scheme with equiv-
alent dip accuracy (Figure 4.4-9).
Figure 4.4-22 shows the f − k spectra of the results
of migration of the dipping events as shown in Figure
4.4-21 using the three explicit extrapolators. The ex-
trapolation filter with the 30-degree dip limit has trun-
cated the steeply dipping events at high wavenumbers
kx . Except for very high wavenumbers, the extrapola-
tion filter with the 70-degree dip limit is able to repli-
cate the amplitude response characteristics of the de-
sired migration using the phase-shift method. Keep in
mind that we achieve stability of explicit schemes at the
expense of truncating the response at wavenumbers kx
above a specified cutoff value (Section D.5).
550 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.4-16. Tests for velocity errors in 65-degree frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration using interval velocities
derived from, from top to bottom, 100, 95, 90, and 80 percent of rms velocities. The input stacked section is shown in Figure
4.2-15a, and the desired migration using the phase-shift method is shown in Figure 4.2-15b. Depth step size is 20 ms.
 Migration 551

FIG. 4.4-17. Tests for velocity errors in 65-degree frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration using interval velocities
derived from, from top to bottom, 100, 105, 110, and 120 percent of rms velocities. The input stacked section is shown in
Figure 4.2-15a, and the desired migration using the phase-shift method is shown in Figure 4.2-15b. Depth step size is 20 ms.
552 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.4-18. (a) Impulse response of a desired migration algorithm using the phase-shift method; impulse responses of (b)
a 30-degree, (c) 50-degree, and (d) 70-degree frequency-space explicit scheme for migration.

A field data example of a stacked section which Velocity Errors

has been migrated using the 30-degree, 50-degree and
70-degree extrapoaltion filters is shown in Figure 4.4-23.
The steep flanks of the salt diapirs are clearly better im-
aged by the steep-dip extrapolation filter. For compari-
son, Figure 4.4-24 shows the desired migration using the
phase-shift method. Although the length of the extrap-
olation filter for a steep-dip algorithm is much longer
than that for a low-dip extrapolation filter, the benefit
of using the former is indisputably demonstrated by the
field data example shown in Figure 4.4-23.
Figure 4.4-25 shows migrations of a zero-offset section
that contains a diffraction hyperbola using a frequency-
space explicit algorithm based on 30-degree, 50-degree
and 70-degree extrapolation filters and a velocity that
is 90 percent of the medium velocity. For comparison,
desired migration using the phase-shift method with the
medium velocity and 90 percent of the medium velocity
are also shown in the same figure. Migration with an
 Migration 553

FIG. 4.4-19. (a) A zero-offset section that contains a

diffraction hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired
migration using the phase-shift method; migrations using
frequency-space explicit schemes with (c) 30-degree, (d) 50-
degree, and (e) 70-degree accuracy.

FIG. 4.4-20. The f −k spectra of the sections in Figure 4.4-

19: (a) A zero-offset section that contains a diffraction hy-
perbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration using
the phase-shift method; migrations using frequency-space
explicit schemes with (c) 30-degree, (d) 50-degree, and (e)
70-degree accuracy.
554 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.4-21. (a) A zero-offset section that contains dipping
events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration using
the phase-shift method; migrations using frequency-space
explicit schemes with (c) 30-degree, (d) 50-degree, and (e)
70-degree accuracy.
erroneously low velocity yields the undermigrated form
of the diffraction hyperbola as seen in Figure 4.4-25c.
Note, however, the dip-limited explicit schemes appear
to cause less undermigration compared to the phase-
shift method with 90-degree accuracy. This behavior is
in contradiction to intuition — the undermigration ef-
fect of an erroneously low velocity is reinforced by a
dip-limited algorithm. In fact, this intuitive effect was
demonstrated by the steep-dip implicit scheme (Figure
4.4-12).
The deceptive behavior of the explicit schemes
that contradicts our intuition can be explained by the
fact that these schemes filter out the energy at high
wavenumbers (Figures 4.4-19 and 4.4-20). As a result,
FIG. 4.4-22. The f − k spectra of the sections in Fig-
ure 4.4-21: (a) A zero-offset section that contains dipping
events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration using
the phase-shift method; migrations using frequency-space
explicit schemes with (c) 30-degree, (d) 50-degree, and (e)
70-degree accuracy.
the steep limbs of the undermigrated diffraction hyper-
bola are truncated (Figure 4.4-25). This in turn makes
the result of migration using lower velocity appear less
undermigrated in case of an explicit scheme compared
to the case of the phase-shift method with 90-degree ac-
curacy. In fact, if we apply a wavenumber filter to reject
the high wavenumbers from the output of phase-shift
migration (Figure 4.4-25c), the result would resemble
Migration 555
556 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.4-24. Migration of the CMP stack shown in Figure 4.3-22a using the phase-shift method.
 Migration
FIG. 4.4-25. Tests for velocity errors in frequency-space
explicit migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains a
diffraction hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired mi-
gration using the phase-shift method, and (c) phase-shift
migration using 10 percent lower velocity; migrations us-
ing 10 percent lower velocity and frequency-space explicit
schemes with (d) 30-degree, (e) 50-degree, and (f) 70-degree
accuracy.
the output of an explicit scheme (Figures 4.4-25d,e,f).
Also note from Figure 4.4-25 that the low-dip ex-
plicit scheme manifests the effect of undermigration
much less than the steep-dip explicit scheme. This is
because the wavenumber filtering effect is more se-
vere for the low-dip explicit scheme (Figure 4.4-20).
Figure 4.4-26 shows migrations of a zero-offset
section that contains a diffraction hyperbola using a
557
FIG. 4.4-26. Tests for velocity errors in frequency-space
explicit migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains a
diffraction hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired mi-
gration using the phase-shift method, and (c) phase-shift
migration using 10 percent lower velocity; migrations us-
ing 10 percent higher velocity and frequency-space explicit
schemes with (d) 30-degree, (e) 50-degree, and (f) 70-degree
accuracy.
frequency-space explicit algorithm based on 30-degree,
50-degree and 70-degree extrapolation filters and a ve-
locity that is 110 percent of the medium velocity. Again,
for comparison, desired migration using the phase-shift
method with the medium velocity and 110 percent of
the medium velocity are also shown in the same figure.
558 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.4-27. Tests for velocity errors in frequency-space ex-
plicit migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains dip-
ping events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration
using the phase-shift method, and (c) phase-shift migration
using 10 percent lower velocity; migrations using 10 percent
lower velocity and frequency-space explicit schemes with (d)
30-degree, (e) 50-degree, and (f) 70-degree accuracy.
FIG. 4.4-28. Tests for velocity errors in frequency-space
explicit migration: (a) A zero-offset section that contains
dipping events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration
using the phase-shift method, and (c) phase-shift migration
using 10 percent higher velocity; migrations using 10 percent
higher velocity and frequency-space explicit schemes with
(d) 30-degree, (e) 50-degree, and (f) 70-degree accuracy.
 Migration
Migration with an erroneously high velocity yields the
overmigrated form of the diffraction hyperbola as seen
in Figure 4.4-26c.
We make the following observations from Figure
4.4-26:
(a) The dip-limited explicit schemes, much like the im-
plicit schemes (Figure 4.4-13), cause less overmi-
gration compared to the phase-shift method with
90-degree accuracy.
(b) The low-dip explicit scheme manifests the effect of
overmigration much less than the steep-dip explicit
scheme.
(c) The wavenumber filtering effect (Figure 4.4-20) fur-
ther truncates the steep limbs of the overmigrated
hyperbola.
The interplay of the three factors results in the
response to velocity errors by the explicit schemes as
shown in Figure 4.4-26.
Tests for velocity errors are repeated for a zero-
offset section that contains a set of dipping events as
shown in Figures 4.4-27 and 4.4-28. For comparison, la-
bel the correct position of the event with the steepest
dip from the desired migration on the results of migra-
tion with different velocities. The residual diffractions
off the end of the dipping reflectors on the migrated
sections from the explicit schemes have been truncated
by the wavenumber filtering effect of the extrapolation
filters. This filtering effect is most prominent in the case
of the explicit scheme with the low-dip limit and erro-
neously high velocity (Figure 4.4-28d).
Field data examples for tests of velocity errors for
the explicit schemes are shown in Figures 4.4-29, 4.4-
30, and 4.4-31. First, note the better imaging of the
salt flanks by the steep-dip explicit scheme compared
to the low-dip explicit scheme (Figure 4.4-29). The un-
dermigration effect of erroneously low velocities (Figure
4.4-30) and the overmigration effect of erroneously high
velocities (Figure 4.4-31) may be compared with the
results of migration using optimum velocities (Figure
4.4-29).
We shall complete this section by reviewing the
performance of Kirchhoff summation, finite-difference
frequency-space implicit, and frequency-space explicit
schemes with various dip limits. Figure 4.4-32 shows the
compilation of the results of migration of a zero-offset
section that contains a diffraction hyperbola. For com-
parison, desired migration using the phase-shift method
is included in the panel. The dip-limited nature of the
implicit and explicit schemes is manifested by the in-
complete focusing of the energy at the apex of the
diffraction hyperbola (Figures 4.4-32c,g,h). The under-
migration effect caused by the dip limitation is allevi-
559
ated by using a steep-dip explicit scheme (Figure 4.4-
32j). A steep-dip implicit scheme, on the other hand,
can actually overshoot in the opposite direction and
cause overmigration (Figure 4.4-32f). The differencing
approximations are manifested by the dispersive noise
(Figure 4.4-32c).
Figure 4.4-33 shows the compilation of the results
of migration of a zero-offset section that contains a set
of dipping events. Again, for comparison, desired mi-
gration using the phase-shift method is included in the
panel. The dip-limited nature of the implicit and ex-
plicit schemes is manifested by the undermigration of
the steeply dipping events (Figures 4.4-33c,g,h). This
effect is alleviated by using a steep-dip explicit scheme
(Figure 4.4-33j). A steep-dip implicit scheme, on the
other hand, can actually overshoot in the opposite di-
rection and cause overmigration (Figure 4.4-33f).The
differencing approximations are manifested by the dis-
persive noise accompanying the steeply dipping events
(Figure 4.4-33c,d,e,f).
4.5 FREQUENCY-WAVENUMBER
MIGRATION IN PRACTICE
Two different methods of migration are implemented in
the frequency-wavenumber domain. The Stolt method is
exact for a constant-velocity medium, while the phase-
shift method is exact for a medium with vertical ve-
locity variations. The Stolt method can be extended
to the case of a medium with lateral velocity varia-
tions judged to be acceptable for time migration. The
phase-shift method also can be extended to handle
lateral velocity variations. One extension, phase-shift-
plus-interpolation scheme, accommodates lateral varia-
tions in velocity by interpolating between the results
of migration using a group of vertically-varying ve-
locity functions. Another extension, phase-shift-plus-
correction, applies an additional extrapolation opera-
tor at each depth step to account for differences be-
tween the laterally varying velocity field and vertically
varying-only velocity function used for phase-shift mi-
gration. The phase-shift method also has been extended
to image turning waves associated with salt overhang
structures.
Maximum Dip to Migrate
The phase-shift method of migration (Section 4.1 and
Section D.7) allows vertical variations in velocity and
is accurate for up to dips of 90 degrees. Figure 4.5-1
shows the impulse response of the phase-shift algorithm.
(text continues on p. 565)
560 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.4-29. From top to bottom, desired migration as in Figure 4.2-15b and frequency-space explicit migration with 30-
degree, 50-degree, and 70-degree accuracy, and using interval velocities derived from 100 percent of the rms velocities. The
input CMP stack is shown in Figure 4.2-15a.
 Migration 561

FIG. 4.4-30. From top to bottom, desired migration as in Figure 4.2-15b and tests for velocity errors in frequency-space
explicit migration with 30-degree, 50-degree, and 70-degree accuracy, and using interval velocities derived from 90 percent of
rms velocities. The input CMP stack is shown in Figure 4.2-15a.
562 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.4-31. From top to bottom, desired migration as in Figure 4.2-15b and tests for velocity errors in frequency-space
explicit migration with 30-degree, 50-degree, and 70-degree accuracy, and using interval velocities derived from 110 percent
of rms velocities. The input CMP stack is shown in Figure 4.2-15a.
 Migration 563

FIG. 4.4-32. Summary of the results of migration of a zero-offset section that contains a diffraction hyperbola with 2500-
m/s velocity as in (a): (b) Kirchhoff migration; frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration with (c) 65-degree, (d)
80-degree, (e) 87-degree, and (f) 90-degree accuracy; frequency-space explicit migration with (g) 30-degree, (h) 50-degree, and
(i) 70-degree accuracy; and (j) frequency-wavenumber phase-shift migration.
564 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.4-33. Summary of the results of migration of a zero-offset section that contains a set of dipping events with 3500-
m/s velocity as in (a): (b) Kirchhoff migration; frequency-space implicit finite-difference migration with (c) 65-degree, (d)
80-degree, (e) 87-degree, and (f) 90-degree accuracy; frequency-space explicit migration with (g) 30-degree, (h) 50-degree, and
(i) 70-degree accuracy; and (j) frequency-wavenumber phase-shift migration.
 Migration 565

FIG. 4.5-1. Impulse response of phase-shift migration has

a semicircular shape.

FIG. 4.5-2. The impulse response of the f −k migration op-

erator has a truncated semicircular shape when a maximum
dip limit is imposed. For comparison, the desired response
shape has been superimposed on the f − k responses.

Clearly, for a constant-velocity medium, this respone is

equivalent to that of the Stolt migration. The impulse
response shown in Figure 4.5-1 is considered to be the
desired impulse response for 2-D zero-offset migration,
and as such, responses of all migration algorithms dis-
cussed in this chapter are benchmarked against it.
As with the Kirchhoff summation method, migra-
tion with the phase-shift method can be limited to
smaller dips by truncating the semicircular wavefront
(Figure 4.5-2). This dip filtering capability is useful in
rejecting coherent noise from the stacked section while
migrating the data. If migration is constrained to small
dip values, then the steeply dipping reflectors may be
filtered out unintentionally. Edge effects also are pro-
nounced when a very narrow range of dips is passed.
Note the linear streaks on the impulse response with a
dip limit of 2 ms/trace (Figure 4.5-2).
The dip-filtering action caused by imposing a dip
limit on the impulse response also is visible on the re-
FIG. 4.5-3. Tests for maximum dip to migrate in phase-
shift migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains dip-
ping events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration;
phase-shift migrations using (c) 2-ms/trace, (d) 4-ms/trace,
(e) 8-ms/trace, and (f) 16-ms/trace maximum dip limit.
sults shown in Figure 4.5-3. Note that steep dips greater
than the specified maximum dip to migrate have been
annihilated. On the field data example shown in Figure
4.5-4, severe dip filtering action of the 2 ms/trace max-
imum dip has caused smearing and eliminated virtually
all of the signal contained in the section.
566 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.5-4. Tests for maximum dip to migrate in phase-shift migration: A low value for maximum dip to migrate can be
hazardous. All dips of interest must be preserved during migration.

Depth Step Size
Figure 4.5-5 shows a zero-offset section that contains
a set of dipping events migrated with the phase-shift
method using different depth step sizes. Since the phase-
shift method is based on the dispersion relation given by
equation (4-13b) of the exact one-way wave equation,
we do not expect undermigration. However, we see dis-
continuities along the reflectors at intervals equal to the
depth step size, which is similar to the finite-difference
results (Figure 4.4-8). As with the finite-difference algo-
rithms, the problem occurs along the steeper dips first;
therefore, the steep dips require smaller depth steps
(Figure 4.5-5).
Because of the band-limited nature of seismic data,
very small depth steps are not needed. From Figure
4.5-5, note that migration with a 20-ms depth step pro-
duces a section without spurious kinks along the reflec-
tors; this is comparable to the desired migration using
a depth step equal to the temporal sampling interval.
 Migration
FIG. 4.5-5. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in phase-
shift migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains dip-
ping events with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration;
phase-shift migrations using (c) 20-ms (d) 40-ms, (e) 60-ms,
and (f) 80-ms depth step.
Depth step size tests on field data are shown in
Figure 4.5-6. Unlike the finite-difference results (Figure
4.4-10), the phase-shift migration with different depth
step sizes produces equally adequate results in terms of
567
the positioning of events. The only problem with large
depth steps is the kinks along the steep dips. In prin-
ciple, as long as there is no aliasing in the z-direction,
the depth step kinks can be eliminated by a local inter-
polation process. In practice, as for the implicit finite-
difference methods, the depth step size used in migra-
tion with the phase-shift method typically is taken be-
tween the half-and full-dominant period of the wave-
field — 20 to 40 ms, depending on steepness of the dips
present in the section.
Velocity Errors
We now examine the response of phase-shift migration
to velocity errors. Figure 4.5-7 shows the diffraction hy-
perbola and phase-shift migrations using the 2500 m/s
medium velocity, and 5, 10, and 20 percent lower ve-
locities. The lower the velocity, the more the diffrac-
tion hyperbola is undermigrated. These results are used
as a benchmark to evaluate the response of the other
migration algorithms discussed in this chapter. Specif-
ically, compare Figure 4.5-7 with Figures 4.2-10 (the
case of Kirchhoff migration), 4.3-10 (the case of implicit
finite-difference migration), 4.4-12 (the case of implicit
frequency-space migration), and 4.4-25 (the case of ex-
plicit frequency-space migration), note how the various
algorithms respond to velocity errors with significant
differences.
Figure 4.5-8 shows the same diffraction hyperbola
and phase-shift migrations using the 2500 m/s medium
velocity, and 5, 10, and 20 percent higher velocities.
The higher the velocity, the more the diffraction hyper-
bola is overmigrated. These results are used to bench-
mark the response to velocity errors by the other migra-
tion algorithms — Figures 4.2-11 (the case of Kirchhoff
migration), 4.3-11 (the case of implicit finite-difference
migration), 4.4-13 (the case of implicit frequency-space
migration), and 4.4-26 (the case of explicit frequency-
space migration).
The under- and overmigration effects caused by the
use of erroneously low or high velocities on the dip-
ping events model are seen in Figures 4.5-9 and 4.5-
10, respectively. Label the correct position of the event
with the steepest dip from the desired migration on
the results of migrations with different velocities, and
note the event mispositioning caused by erroneously low
and high velocities. Recall that sensitivity of migration
to velocity errors can be measured quantitatively via
equations 4-1 and 4-2. The test results shown in Fig-
ures 4.5-9 and 4.5-10 are used to benchmark the re-
sponse to velocity errors by the other migration algo-
rithms — Figures 4.2-12 and 4.2-13 (the cases of Kirch-
hoff migration), 4.3-12 and 4.3-13 (the cases of implicit
568 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.5-6. Tests for extrapolation depth step size in phase-shift migration: Note the kinks along steep dips with large depth
steps.

finite-difference migration), 4.4-14 and 4.4-15 (the cases
of implicit frequency-space migration), and 4.4-27 and
4.4-28 (the cases of explicit frequency-space migration).
An aspect of phase-shift migration uniquely dif-
ferent from others is its exceptional quality of output.
As noted from Figures 4.5-7, 4.5-8, 4.5-9, and 4.5-10,
phase-shift migration produces no dispersive noise since
it does not involve any differencing of differential oper-
ators. Instead, the entire design of extrapolation oper-
ator and application of migration are in the frquency-
wavenumber domain. The results do not suffer from any
dip limitation since the phase-shift method is based on
an extrapolation filter that is exact for all dips up to 90
degrees (Figure 4.5-1). Of course, we must also remind
ourselves of the fact that the phase-shift method is lim-
ited to velocities that vary only in the vertical direction.
Figures 4.5-11 and 4.5-12 are field data examples
of phase-shift migration using erroneously low and high
velocities, respectively. Figure 4.5-13 shows a sketch of
the combined results of these migrations. Clearly, ve-
locities that are too low cause undermigration of the
steeply dipping event that defines the flank of the salt
diapir and incomplete collapse of the diffraction off the
tip of the salt diapir. Velocities that are too high cause
overmigration as manifested by the crossing events at
the vicinity of the crest of the salt diapir.
 Migration
FIG. 4.5-7. Tests for velocity errors in phase-shift migra-
tion: (a) a zero-offset section that contains a diffraction
hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration;
phase-shift migration using (c) the medium velocity of 2500
m/s, (d) 5 percent lower, (e) 10 percent lower, and (f) 20
percent lower velocity.
Figure 4.5-14 shows the results of phase-shift mi-
gration of the stacked section in Figure 4.2-15 using
velocities lower than what may be optimum for imag-
ing. The under-migration of the left flank of the salt
dome is not so evident. However, the steeply dipping
reflection off the right flank intersects the gently dip-
ping reflections associated with the surrounding strata
— an indication of undermigration.
569
FIG. 4.5-8. Tests for velocity errors in phase-shift migra-
tion: (a) a zero-offset section that contains a diffraction
hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration;
phase-shift migration using (c) the medium velocity of 2500
m/s, (d) 5 percent higher, (e) 10 percent higher, and (f) 20
percent higher velocity.
Figure 4.5-15 shows results of phase-shift migration
of the stacked section in Figure 4.2-15 using velocities
higher than what may be optimum for imaging. Migra-
tion with erroneously high velocities (110 and 120 per-
cent of optimum velocities) shows signs of overmigration
in the form of crossing events along the left flank of the
salt diapir.
570 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.5-9. Tests for velocity errors in phase-shift migra-
tion: (a) a zero-offset section that contains dipping events
with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; phase-shift
migration using (c) the medium velocity of 3500 m/s, (d) 5
percent lower, (e) 10 percent lower, and (f) 20 percent lower
velocity.
FIG. 4.5-10. Tests for velocity errors in phase-shift migra-
tion: (a) a zero-offset section that contains dipping events
with 3500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration; phase-shift
migration using (c) the medium velocity of 3500 m/s, (d)
5 percent higher, (e) 10 percent higher, and (f) 20 percent
higher velocity.
 Migration 571

FIG. 4.5-11. Tests for velocity errors in phase-shift migration using interval velocities derived from (a) 95 percent, (b) 90
percent, and (c) 80 percent of rms velocities. The input stacked section is shown in Figure 4.3-2a, and the desired migration
using the phase-shift method is shown in Figure 4.3-2b.

FIG. 4.5-12. Tests for velocity errors in phase-shift migration using interval velocities derived from (a) 105 percent, (b) 110
percent, and (c) 120 percent of rms velocities. The input stacked section is shown in Figure 4.3-2a, and the desired migration
using the phase-shift method is shown in Figure 4.3-2b.
572 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.5-13. The combined results of migrations from Fig-
ures 4.5-11 and 4.5-12. B = dipping event before and A =
dipping event after desired migration; D = diffraction, and
L = percent lower velocities and H = percent higher veloc-
ities.
Stolt Stretch Factor
As discussed in Section 4.1, the generalized Stolt
method of migration involves converting the time sec-
tion to an approximately constant-velocity section,
which then is migrated by the constant-velocity Stolt
algorithm. This conversion is essentially stretching in
the vertical (time) direction. Once the section is mi-
grated in the stretched domain, it is converted back to
the original time domain. The generalized Stolt method
must be distinguished from the constant-velocity algo-
rithm. The constant-velocity algorithm is accurate for
dips up to 90 degrees for a constant-velocity medium.
The generalized method approximately accounts for ve-
locity variations by stretching the section.
Stretching is defined by the stretch factor W . In his
original paper, Stolt (1978) discusses implementation of
the W factor. Although W is a complicated function of
velocity and stretch coordinate variables, it often is set
to a scalar (Section D.7). The theoretical range of W is
between 0 and 2.
To understand the effects of the stretch factor, re-
fer to the impulse responses in Figure 4.5-16, where a
single, isolated wavelet on a single trace is migrated us-
ing various stretch factors. Here, W = 1 corresponds
to the exact constant-velocity Stolt algorithm. So, set-
ting W < 1 compresses the impulse response inward
along its steep flanks, while setting W > 1 opens it up.
Thus, the value of W partially controls the aperture of
the generalized Stolt algorithm. The farther W is from
1, the more limited the aperture becomes. A value of
W < 1 implies undermigration at steeper dips, while a
value of W > 1 implies overmigration at steeper dips,
if the medium velocity is constant.
Although not strictly implied by the impulse re-
sponses in Figure 4.5-16, when using a stretch factor
different from 1, the Stolt algorithm tries to emulate a
wavefront in a variable velocity medium (Stolt, 1978),
while compromising on the ability to migrate steeper
dips. Experience has proven that the Stolt migration
with stretch produces acceptable results provided ve-
locity variations are within limits of time migration.
Consider the zero-offset section and the migration
results in Figure 4.5-17. Stretch factor W = 1 produces
the best migrated section because the zero-offset sec-
tion was modeled using a constant-velocity value. For
0 < W < 1, the algorithm produces an undermigrated
section, while for 1 < W < 2, it produces an over-
migrated section. These observations are in agreement
with the impulse responses in Figure 4.5-16. The near-
vertical streaks in the section with W = 1.95 represent
wraparound artifacts.
The generalized Stolt algorithm produces the best
result when W = 1, provided the medium velocity is
constant. Since this is never the case, we should examine
the algorithm for a vertically varying velocity medium.
Figure 4.5-18 shows the impulse responses for different
values of W . Velocity varies linearly from t = 0 to t = 4 s
between 2000 and 4000 m/s. For different W values, the
portions of the wavefronts that best match the desired
migration using the phase-shift method are between the
solid lines. For a vertically varying velocity medium,
W = 1 is no longer the desired factor. In Figure 4.5-18,
accuracy over the widest range of dip angles with the
Stolt method is attained when W = 0.6. In general, the
larger the velocity gradient, the farther the optimum W
is from 1. Strictly speaking, the optimum value for W
is even different at different times.
In practice, wavefront plots, like those in Figure
4.5-18, can be generated using both the phase-shift and
Stolt methods for a vertically varying regional velocity
function. The W factor that yields the best fit at the
largest angular aperture is used then to migrate the
data with the Stolt method.
 Migration 573

FIG. 4.5-14. Tests for velocity errors in phase-shift migration using interval velocities derived from 100, 95, 90, and 80 percent
of rms velocities (from top to bottom). The input stacked section is shown in Figure 4.2-15a, and the desired migration using
the phase-shift method is shown in Figure 4.2-15b.
574 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.5-15. Tests for velocity errors in phase-shift migration using interval velocities derived from 100, 105, 110, and 120
percent of rms velocities (from top to bottom). The input stacked section is shown in Figure 4.2-15a, and the desired migration
using the phase-shift method is shown in Figure 4.2-15b.
 Migration
FIG. 4.5-16. Tests for the stretch factor in Stolt migration:
By varying the stretch factor W , the impulse response of the
exact 90-degree migration operator (semicircle) is modified.
For comparison, the desired response has been superimposed
on the Stolt migration impulse responses.
To circumvent the difficulty of defining an optimum
stretch factor W , Beasley and Lynn (1992) suggested
applying the constant-velocity Stolt migration in a cas-
caded manner. The idea is based on a clever represen-
tation of a vertically varying velocity function by a set
of constant velocities, which are then used to perform
cascaded migration (Section 4.3). Since each migration
stage is done by using a constant velocity, the stretch
factor W is by default set to 1. Of course, representa-
tion of a vertically varying velocity function by a set of
constant velocities is only an approximation that can
be valid for small vertical gradients.
Figures 4.5-19 and 4.5-20 show Stolt migrations of
the CMP stack in Figure 4.3-2a using different values
of the W factor. Migration velocities are varied only
in the vertical direction. Figure 4.5-21 is a sketch of
the migration results for the diffraction D off the tip
of the salt diapir and steeply dipping event B off the
flank of the salt diapir. The best match between the
desired migration and the Stolt method with stretch is
for W = 0.5.
Wraparound
Wraparound is the effect of finite data length in time
and space on a migration algorithm implemented in
the Fourier transform domain. A migration algorithm
implemented in the time-space domain does not suffer
from wraparound effect. But a migration algorithm im-
plemented in the frequency-space domain suffers from
wraparound along the time axis. Similarly, a migration
algorithm implemented in the frequency-wavenumber
575
domain suffers from wraparound effects both along the
time and space axes.
Figure 4.5-22 shows a zero-offset section that con-
tains a diffraction hyperbola and its migration using
frequency-wavenumber migration based on the phase-
shift method. When plotted with a very high display
gain, we observe the energy in the migrated section
bouncing off the edges of the section both in the time
and space directions.
A field data example of the wraparound effect on
frequency-wavenumber migration is shown in Figure
4.5-23. This is the same section as in Figure 4.2-15b,
except that it has been displayed using a very high gain.
The energy above the water bottom is associated with
the wraparound effect in the time and space directions.
The wraparound noise actually exists within the im-
age portion of the section, also. A way to reduce the
wraparound effect is to pad the data with zeros along
the axis of Fourier transformation. For frequency-space
migration, data must be padded along the time axis;
and for frequency-wavenumber migration, data must be
padded along both the time and space axes.
A field data example of the wraparound effect on
frequency-space migration is shown in Figure 4.5-24.
This is the same section as in Figure 4.4-11d, except
that it has been displayed using a very high gain. The
energy above the water bottom is associated with the
wraparound effect in the time direction.
Residual Migration
The constant-velocity Stolt algorithm has useful ap-
plications in residual migration as described here and
migration velocity analysis as described in Chapter 5.
Consider a zero-offset section that contains a set of dip-
ping events as shown in Figure 4.5-25a. The desired
migration is obtained by using the medium velocity
of v = 3500 m/s as shown in Figure 4.5-25b. Sup-
pose, instead, that you migrate using a velocity of 3000
m/s. The resulting migrated section is shown in Fig-
ure 4.5-25c. Label the event with the steepest dip (AB)
from the desired migration on the migrated section with
v1 = 3000 m/s, and note the undermigration of the dip-
ping events. By migrating the already migrated section
using a velocity of v2 = v 2 − v12 = 1802 m/s (Section
D.8), we get the section shown in Figure 4.5-25d. Note
that this section obtained from the two-stage migration
using velocities 3500 m/s and 1802 m/s is equivalent to
the one-stage migration using a velocity of 3500 m/s.
The second stage of the two-stage migration using a ve-
locity of 1802 m/s is called residual migration (Rothman
et al., 1985).
576 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.5-17. Tests for the stretch factor in Stolt migration: W < 1 causes undermigration, and W > 1 causes overmigration.
(Modeling courtesy Union Oil Company.)

So, what is the practical use of residual migration?
It can improve upon the result of migration using a dip-
limited finite-difference algorithm. Figure 4.5-26a shows
a zero-offset section that consists of three point scatter-
ers in a layered earth model with vertically varying ve-
locity field. A 15-degree dip-limited finite-difference mi-
gration has difficulty collapsing these diffractions (Fig-
ure 4.5-26b). Now, first migrate the zero-offset section
with the constant-velocity Stolt algorithm using the
lowest value, 2000 m/s, in the vertically varying ve-
locity function. The result is shown in Figure 4.5-26d.
Then, take this section and migrate it again (Figure
4.5-26e) using the appropriate residual velocity (Sec-
tion D.8) and the 15-degree finite-difference algorithm.
When compared with the single-stage finite-difference
migration (Figure 4.5-26b), note the superior perfor-
mance of the residual migration. Also compare this
with the desired migration using the phase-shift method
(Figure 4.5-26c). The important point to keep in mind
is that input to residual migration (the second stage)
must be data which have been migrated (first stage)
using a constant velocity (Rothman et al., 1985).
A field data example is shown in Figure 4.5-27
with a sketch of the migration results in Figure 4.5-28.
 Migration
FIG. 4.5-18. Tests for the stretch factor in Stolt migration: The medium velocity varies vertically from 2000 m/s at t = 0
to 4000 m/s at t = 4 s.
The single-stage 15-degree finite-difference result shows
the typical undermigrated character (Figure 4.3-3). The
1500-m/s constant-velocity Stolt migration followed by
the finite-difference migration seems to produce an out-
put that is reasonably close to the desired migration.
A limitation of residual migration is that an ade-
quate migration is not always achieved since the first-
stage migration requires constant velocity which may be
far off from the velocity field associated with the data.
This is the case in Figure 4.5-27, since after residual mi-
gration, the dipping event still is slightly undermigrated
(see the sketch in Figure 4.5-28). Undermigration occurs
because the apparent dip perceived by the second-stage
migration still may be too large to be handled accu-
rately. From equation (D-8c) note that the lower the
velocity used in migration, the smaller the dip that is
perceived by migration. If the residual velocity func-
tion given by equation (D-96b) is not too different from
the original velocity function because of a large vertical
gradient, then residual migration may not be adequate.
Residual migration is different from cascaded mi-
gration that is discussed in Section 4.3. The latter in-
577
volves application of a dip-limited algorithm, such as an
implicit finite-difference scheme, repeatedly. Whereas
residual migration involves the application of a dip-
limited algorithm only once to data which already have
been migrated using a constant-velocity Stolt migra-
tion. In practice, Stolt migration can be replaced with
phase-shift migration and a vertically varying velocity
function with a gently varying gradient to accommodate
the constant-velocity requirement for the first-stage mi-
gration.
Whether it is residual or cascaded migration, the
theoretical requirement is for constant velocity to be
used at each stage preceding the last stage. Departure
from this restriction will always limit the implementa-
tion of residual and cascaded migration. Figure 4.5-29
shows a zero-offset section that contains a set of dipping
events with 3500-m/s constant velocity. First, migrate
with a constant velocity of 2500 m/s; then, perform a
cascade of four migrations with appropriate residual ve-
locities (Section D.8) to obtain the accurate image that
is equivalent to the result from the desired migration us-
ing the phase-shift method applied only once with the
578 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.5-19. Tests for the stretch factor W in Stolt migration: (a) Desired migration, (b) W = 0.001, and (c) W = 0.5. The
input CMP stack is shown in Figure 4.3-2a.

FIG. 4.4.5-20. Tests for the stretch factor W in Stolt migration: (a) W = 0.7, (b) W = 1, and (c) W = 1.5. The input CMP
stack is shown in Figure 4.3-2a and the desired migration is shown in Figure 4.5-19a.
 Migration
FIG. 4.5-21. The combined results of the migrations from
Figures 4.5-19 and 4.5-20. B = dipping event before and A
= dipping event after desired migration, D = diffraction be-
fore and D = diffraction after Stolt migration with stretch.
Numbers represent different stretch factors W .
medium velocity. When the same exercise is repeated
using a dip-limited implicit finite-difference algorithm,
results are not satisfactory even with constant velocity
(Figure 4.5-30). When a variable velocity is used at each
stage preceding the last stage the dip-limited algorithm
causes overmigration (Figure 4.3-19), while the phase-
shift method with no dip limit yields accurate result
(Figure 4.3-20).
Despite the limitations mentioned above, residual
migration is used in practice in the following mode:
(a) Perform phase-shift migration using a vertically
varying velocity function v̄(z), which is obtained
by averaging the spatially varying velocity field
v(x, z) and modifying it to meet the requirement
that v̄(z) < v(x, z).
(b) Follow with a residual migration using a dip-
limited implicit or explicit frequency-space finite-
difference migration with a residual velocity field
equal to v 2 (x, z) − v̄ 2 (z) (Section D.8).
579
FIG. 4.5-22. Wraparound effect in frequency-wavenumber
migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains a diffrac-
tion hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, (b) desired migration
using the phase-shift method, and (c) the same as in (b) but
with a display gain that is 100 times greater than that used
in (b).
4.6 FURTHER ASPECTS OF MIGRATION
IN PRACTICE
In this section, we shall discuss the effects of spatial
aliasing, random noise and profile length on migration,
and migration from topography. Spatial aliasing is a
direct result of undersampling of recorded data (Section
1.2). Because of spatial aliasing, migration can perceive
events with steep dips at high frequencies as different
from the actual dips in ms/trace. As a result, migration
mispositions the aliased frequency components of the
dipping events.
Random noise usually is more prominent in the
deep part of a stacked section, just where velocities also
580 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.5-23. Wraparound effect in frequency-wavenumber migration: The input stacked section is shown in Figure 4.2-15a
and the desired migration using the phase-shift method is shown in Figure 4.2-15b.

FIG. 4.5-24. Wraparound effect in frequency-space migration: The input stacked section is shown in Figure 4.2-15a and the
desired migration using the phase-shift method is shown in Figure 4.2-15b.
 Migration
FIG. 4.5-25. Principle of residual migration: (a) a zero-
offset section that contains dipping events with 3500-m/s
velocity, (b) desired migration using the phase-shift method
with the medium velocity of 3500 m/s, (c) first-pass mi-
gration of (a) using constant-velocity Stolt migration with
3000-m/s velocity, and (d) second-pass migration of the out-
put from the first-pass migration as in (c) using a 15-degree
finite-difference migration with the residual velocity of 1802
m/s (equation D-96b).
are generally higher. This results in random noise or-
ganized along wavefront arches, commonly referred to
as smiles. This organized noise corrupts the migrated
primary energy not just in the deep part of the sec-
tion but also has detrimental effect on shallow data in
a migrated section.
Line length and location of the line traverse at the
surface relative to the location of the target in the sub-
surface have a direct effect on the useability of the a mi-
grated section. Usually a line traverse longer than the
spatial extent of the subusrface target is needed (Figure
4.1-1). Keep in mind that your target does not neces-
sarily lie directly beneath the CMP location where the
581
reflection from that target appears on your unmigrated
stacked section.
Irregular topography associated with areas sub-
jected to overthurst tectonics has to be accounted for
during migration if surface elevation changes are rapid
along the line traverse. Migration algorithms, with the
exception of the Kirchhoff summation and the constant-
velocity Stolt method, are all based on wave extrapo-
lation from one flat depth level to another. A CMP-
stacked section is assumed to be equivalent to a zero-
offset wavefield and usually is referenced to a flat da-
tum. In the presence of severe topography, one needs
to account for the difference between the elevation pro-
file and the reference datum. Otherwise, if the reference
datum is above the surface elevation, to a migration al-
gorithm, events appear deeper than they are, and thus
are overmigrated. If, on the other hand, the reference
datum is below the surface elevation, events appear to
a migration algorithm shallower than they actually are,
and thus are undermigrated.
Migration and Spatial Aliasing
The concept of spatial aliasing is presented in Section
1.2. Here, we shall examine the effect of spatial aliasing
on migration. Figure 4.6-1 shows a zero-offset section
that contains a diffraction hyperbola with 2500-m/s ve-
locity and 12.5-m trace spacing. By discarding every
other trace, obtain another zero-offset section with 25-
m trace spacing. Repeat the procedure to obtain the
zero-offset sections with 50-m and 100-m trace spacings
(Figure 4.6-1).
The f − k spectra of the zero-offset sections with
the four different trace spacings are displayed in Fig-
ure 4.6-2. The diffraction hyperbola with 12.5-m trace
spacing maps onto an inverted triangular area in the
f − k plane (Section 4.1). The Nyquist wavenumber is
40 cycles/km and the bandwidth is given by the corner
frequencies 6, 12 - 36, 48 Hz for the passband region
of the spectrum. (See Figure 1.1-26 for the definition of
corner frequencies.) The red is associated with the flat
part of the passband region and the blue is associated
with the taper zone.
The f − k spectrum of the zero-offset section with
25-m trace spacing (Figure 4.6-1) indicates spatial alias-
ing beyond approximately 24 Hz (Figure 4.6-2). Conse-
quently, the triangular shape of the passband region
in the f − k plane that defines the diffraction hyper-
bola is corrupted around the edges near the Nyquist
wavenumber of 20 cycles/km. At a coarser trace spacing
of 50 m, which corresponds to a Nyquist wavenumber
of 10 cycles/km, the triangular shape in the spectrum
is preserved below the threshold frequency for aliasing,
582 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.5-26. Principle of residual migration: (a) a zero-offset section with vertically varying velocities, (b) 15-degree finite-
difference migration, (c) desired migration using the phase-shift method, (d) first-pass migration of (a) using constant-velocity
Stolt migration with 2000-m/s velocity, and (e) second-pass migration of the output from the first-pass migration as in (d)
using a 15-degree finite-difference migration with the residual velocity function computed by equation (D-96b).

approximately 12 Hz, only. Finally, at trace spacing of
100 m, which correpsonds to a Nyquist wavenumber of
5 cycles/km, the triangular shape is obliterated, com-
pletely (Figure 4.6-2).
Figure 4.6-3 shows the results of Kirchhoff migra-
tion of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-1. Fre-
quency components that are spatially aliased are per-
ceived by migration with a dip different from the actual
dip along the diffraction hyperbola. Normally, energy is
moved in the up-dip direction along the diffraction hy-
perbola and is mapped onto the apex. However, in each
migrated section, the spatially aliased part of the energy
is split away from the flanks of the diffraction hyperbola
and mapped onto the regions to the left and right of the
flanks. The aliased energy is dispersed. Since each fre-
quency component of the aliased energy is perceived to
have a different dip by migration, the displacement of
the energy after migration is frequency dependent. The
unaliased portion of the energy is of course mapped onto
the apex. The more frequency components are spatially
aliased, the less energy at lower frequencies is mapped
onto the apex.
As discussed in Section 4.1, the triangular area on
the f −k plane associated with the diffraction hyperbola
(Figure 4.6-2) is mapped onto the circular area on the
f −k plane associated with the migrated section (Figure
4.6-4). Ideally the area in the f −k plane of the migrated
section should be semicircular in shape. Because the
diffraction hyperbola is defined within a finite spatial
aperture (Figure 4.6-1), there is an implicitly imposed
dip limit on migration. As a result, the semicircular area
is notched on either side (Figure 4.6-4).
Spatial aliasing corrupts the semicircular shape of
the f − k spectrum on both ends of the spectrum at the
vicinity of the Nyquist wavenumber. In case of severe
 Migration 583

FIG. 4.5-27. Residual migration applied to field data: first pass using constant-velocity Stolt migration (1500 m/s), and
second pass using a 15-degree finite-difference migration of the result from the first pass.
584 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 4.5-28. The combined migration results from Figure
4.5-27. B = dipping event before and A = dipping event
after desired migration; D = diffraction; A1, D1 = after the
first pass; A2, D2 = after the second pass.
undersampling, spatially aliased frequency components
invade much of the f −k plane as shown in Figure 4.6-4.
Aside from the spatial aliasing noise, dispersive
noise also is seen on data migrated with a dip-limited
finite-difference algorithm (Section 4.3). Figure 4.6-5
shows migration of a zero-offset section that contains
a diffraction hyperbola using the 15-degree implicit
finite-difference method. Note the undermigration of
the diffraction hyperbola that is caused by the 15-degree
dip limitation, the dispersive noise A that is caused by
the finite-difference approximations, and the spatially
aliased energy B that splits away from the unaliased
part that collapses to the apex.
Figure 4.6-6 shows the results of migration of the
zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-1 using an implicit
frequency-space finite-difference scheme (Section 4.4).
Note the dispersive noise caused by the finite-difference
approximations in the section with 12.5-m trace spac-
ing. The dispersive noise in the sections with 25-m,
50-m, and 100-m trace spacings, however, is attributed
largely to spatial aliasing.
It is instructive to note that the diffraction energy
appears slightly undermigrated with 12.5-m trace spac-
ing, but is overmigrated with 25-m and 50-m trace spac-
ings. As discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the fidelity of
migration by finite-difference schemes is dictated by an
intricately complex interplay between the various pa-
rameters — spatial and temporal sampling intervals,
dip, frequency, and velocity. Depending on the values
of these parameters, one scheme may cause undermi-
gration in one case and overmigration in another case.
Figure 4.6-7 shows the f −k spectra of the migrated
sections in Figure 4.6-6. Note that implicit frequency-
space migration can create high-frequency noise beyond
the passband of the input data. Note also that spatial
aliasing combined with the inherent dispersive effect of
finite-difference schemes corrupt the semicircular shape
of the f − k spectrum on both ends of the spectrum.
Figure 4.6-8 shows the results of the migration of
the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-1 using an explicit
frequency-space finite-difference scheme (Section 4.4).
There appears to be no aliasing noise in either sections
with 12.5-m and 25-m trace spacings. Also note that,
compared to the results of Kirchhoff migration (Figure
4.6-2), there is less aliasing noise in the sections with 50-
m and 100-m trace spacings. These observations can be
verified by referring to the f − k spectra shown in Fig-
ure 4.6-9. Explicit schemes, by the design criterion, at-
tenuate energy associated with wavenumbers kx above
a specified cutoff wavenumber defined by a fraction of
the Nyquist wavenumber. This effectively removes part
of the aliased energy that maps onto the spectral re-
gion above the cutoff wavenumber associated with the
extrapolation filter for the explicit scheme. Note from
the f −k spectrum in Figure 4.6-9 that almost all of the
aliased energy has been filtered out for the case of the
25-m trace spacing. This is why aliasing noise is absent
in the corresponding migrated section in Figure 4.6-8.
Despite the wavenumber filtering effect of the explicit
scheme, however, much of the aliased noise remains in
the sections with the 50-m and 100-m trace spacings.
Figure 4.6-10 shows the results of phase-shift mi-
gration of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-1, and
Figure 4.6-11 shows the corresponding f − k spectra.
These results are used as a benchmark to evaluate the
results obtained from the other migration algorithms
(Figures 4.6-3 through 4.6-9). Except for the aliasing
noise, phase-shift migration produces no artifacts.
The experiments described above clearly demon-
strate that all migration algorithms suffer from saptial
aliasing. We now examine the effect of spatial alias-
ing on migration using a dipping events model. Figure
4.6-12 shows a zero-offset section that contains a set of
dipping events with 3500-m/s velocity and 25-m trace
(text continues on p. 609)
 Migration 585

FIG. 4.5-29. Multiple passes of residual migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains dipping events with 3500-m/s
velocity, (b) desired migration using the phase-shift method with the medium velocity of 3500 m/s, (c) first-pass migration
of the zero-offset section in (a) using the phase-shift method with a constant velocity of 2500 m/s, (d) second-pass migration
of the output from the first-pass migration as in (c) using the phase-shift method with a constant residual velocity of 1145
m/s, (e) third-pass migration of the output from the second-pass migration as in (d) using the phase-shift method with a
constant residual velocity of 1198 m/s, (f) fourth-pass migration of the output from the third-pass migration as in (e) using
the phase-shift method with a constant residual velocity of 1250 m/s, and (g) fifth-pass migration of the output from the
fourth-pass migration as in (f) using the phase-shift method with a constant residual velocity of 1299 m/s.
586 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.5-30. Multiple passes of residual migration: (a) a zero-offset section that contains dipping events with 3500-m/s
velocity, (b) desired migration using the phase-shift method with the medium velocity of 3500 m/s, (c) first-pass migration
of the zero-offset section in (a) using the 65-degree implicit method with a constant velocity of 2500 m/s, (d) second-pass
migration of the output from the first-pass migration as in (c) using the 65-degree implicit method with a constant residual
velocity of 1145 m/s, (e) third-pass migration of the output from the second-pass migration as in (d) using the 65-degree
implicit method with a constant residual velocity of 1198 m/s, (f) fourth-pass migration of the output from the third-pass
migration as in (e) using the 65-degree implicit method with a constant residual velocity of 1250 m/s, and (g) fifth-pass
migration of the output from the fourth-pass migration as in (f) using the 65-degree implicit method with a constant residual
velocity of 1299 m/s.
 Migration 587

FIG. 4.6-1. Zero-offset sections, which contain a diffraction hyperbola with 2500-m/s velocity, with trace spacings, from top
to bottom, 12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
588 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-2. The f − k spectra of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-1 with trace spacings, from top to bottom, 12.5 m,
25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 589

FIG. 4.6-3. Kirchhoff migrations of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-1 with trace spacings, from top to bottom, 12.5 m,
25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
590 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-4. The f − k spectra of the outputs from the Kirchhoff migrations in Figure 4.6-3 with trace spacings, from top to
bottom, 12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 591

FIG. 4.6-5. 15-degree finite-difference migrations of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-1 with trace spacings, from top to
bottom, 12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
592 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-6. 65-degree implicit frequency-space migrations of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-1 with trace spacings, from
top to bottom, 12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 593

FIG. 4.6-7. The f − k spectra of the outputs from the 65-degree implicit frequency-space migrations in Figure 4.6-6 with
trace spacings, from top to bottom, 12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
594 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-8. 70-degree explicit frequency-space migrations of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-1 with trace spacings, from
top to bottom, 12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 595

FIG. 4.6-9. The f − k spectra of the outputs from the steep-dip explicit frequency-space migrations in Figure 4.6-8 with
trace spacings, from top to bottom, 12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
596 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-10. Phase-shift migrations of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-1 with trace spacings, from top to bottom,
12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 597

Hz
60

40

20

-40 0 40
cycles/km
Hz
60

40

20

-20 0 20
Hz
60

40

20

-10 0 10
Hz
60

40

20

-5 0 5

FIG. 4.6-11. The f − k spectra of the outputs from the phase-shift migrations in Figure 4.6-10 with trace spacings, from
top to bottom, 12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
598 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-12. Zero-offset sections, which contain dipping events with 3500-m/s velocity, with trace spacings, from top to
bottom, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 599

FIG. 4.6-13. The f − k spectra of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-12 with trace spacings, from top to bottom, 25 m,
50 m, and 100 m.
600 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-14. Kirchhoff migrations of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-12 with trace spacings, from top to bottom, 25 m,
50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 601

FIG. 4.6-15. The f − k spectra of the outputs from the Kirchhoff migrations in Figure 4.6-14 with trace spacings, from top
to bottom, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
602 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-16. 15-degree finite-difference migrations of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-12 with trace spacings, from top
to bottom, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 603

FIG. 4.6-17. 65-degree implicit frequency-space migrations of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-12 with trace spacings,
from top to bottom, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
604 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-18. The f − k spectra of the outputs from the 65-degree implicit frequency-space migrations in Figure 4.6-17 with
trace spacings, from top to bottom, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 605

FIG. 4.6-19. 70-degree explicit frequency-space migrations of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-12 with trace spacings,
from top to bottom, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
606 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-20. The f − k spectra of the outputs from the steep-dip explicit frequency-space migrations in Figure 4.6-19 with
trace spacings, from top to bottom, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 607

FIG. 4.6-21. Phase-shift migrations of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-12 with trace spacings, from top to bottom,
25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
608 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-22. The f − k spectra of the outputs from the phase-shift migrations in Figure 4.6-21 with trace spacings, from
top to bottom, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration
spacing. By discarding every other trace, obtain another
zero-offset section with 50-m trace spacing. Repeat the
procedure to obtain the zero-offset section with 100-m
trace spacing (Figure 4.6-12).
The f − k spectra of the zero-offset sections with
the three different trace spacings are displayed in Figure
4.6-13. The dipping events with 25-m trace spacing map
onto a series of radial lines in the f − k plane (Section
4.1). The Nyquist wavenumber is 20 cycles/km and the
bandwidth is given by the corner frequencies 6, 12 - 36,
48 Hz for the passband region of the spectrum. As for
the diffraction hyperbola model (Figure 4.6-3), the red
is associated with the flat part of the passband region
and the blue is associated with the taper zone.
The f − k spectrum of the zero-offset section with
50-m trace spacing (Figure 4.6-12), which corresponds
to a Nyquist wavenumber of 10 cycles/km, indicates
spatial aliasing beyond approximately 24 Hz (Figure
4.6-13). Consequently, the aliased segments of the radial
lines map onto the left quadrant of the f − k spectrum.
At a coarser trace spacing of 100 m, which corresponds
to a Nyquist wavenumber of 5 cycles/km, spatial alias-
ing occurs first at approximately 12 Hz. Then, some
of the energy already aliased becomes aliased for the
second time at approximately 36 Hz. Moreover, part of
the aliased energy is remapped onto the right quadrant
(Figure 4.6-13).
Figure 4.6-14 shows the results of Kirchhoff mi-
gration of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-12. No
aliasing noise is present on the migrated section with
25-m trace spacing. Next, consider the migrated sec-
tion with 50-m trace spacing. Frequency components
that are spatially aliased are perceived by migration to
dip in the direction opposite to the actual dips of the
events. Normally, energy is moved in the up-dip direc-
tion, in this case from right to left as seen in the mi-
grated section with 25-m trace spacing. However, in the
migrated section with 50-m trace spacing, the spatially
aliased part of the energy is split away from the dip-
ping events and moved from left to right. Note that the
aliased energy is dispersed. As for the diffraction hyper-
bola model (Figure 4.6-2), each frequency component of
the aliased energy is perceived to have a different dip
by migration, the displacement of the energy after mi-
gration is frequency dependent. The unaliased portion
of the energy is of course moved from right to left and
positioned accurately. The more frequency components
are spatially aliased, the less energy at lower frequencies
is mapped to the correct position.
Finally, consider the case of the migrated section
with 100-m trace spacing (Figure 4.6-14). Note that
there exists aliasing noise not only to the right of the
dipping events but also in the left-most portion of the
section. The latter is associated with the energy that has
609
been aliased twice (Figure 4.6-3). Because of the com-
plexity of aliasing, the noise essentially disperses over
the whole of the section.
An interesting observation on the migrated sections
in Figure 4.6-14 relates to the energy in the region above
1 s. In Kirchhoff migration, amplitudes in the input sec-
tion are summed along a hyperbolic summation path
and placed at the apex of the hyperbola. Imagine a sum-
mation path whose apex is situated at a time less than 1
s. There will be some energy placed at this apex location
since the flanks of the summation path under consider-
ation will intersect through traces with nonzero sample
values. This situation is encountered when migrating
marine data using Kirchhoff summation. Normally, the
migrated section is muted above the water bottom to
remove the noise created by migration within the water
layer.
Besides data aliasing, there is also the problem of
operator aliasing. In particular, for a low-velocity hy-
perbola or for a hyperbola with its apex situated at
shallow times, Kirchhoff summation may require more
than one sample per trace. This results in some energy
in the form of precursors above the migrated sea-bottom
reflection, when only one point per trace is included in
the summation.
Figure 4.6-15 shows the f − k spectra of the mi-
grated sections in Figure 4.6-14. As discussed in Section
4.1, migration rotates the radial lines on the f − k plane
associated with the dipping events.
Figure 4.6-16 shows migration of a zero-offset sec-
tion that contains a set of dipping events using the 15-
degree implicit finite-difference method. Note the un-
dermigration of the steeply dipping events caused by the
15-degree dip limitation, the dispersive noise A caused
by the finite-difference approximations, and the spa-
tially aliased energy B that splits away from the un-
aliased part and moves in the opposite direction.
Figure 4.6-17 shows the results of migration of the
zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-12 using an implicit
frequency-space finite-difference scheme (Section 4.4).
Note the dispersive noise caused by the finite-difference
approximations in the section with 25-m trace spacing.
In the sections with 50-m and 100-m trace spacings, two
sets of dispersive noise can be distinguished — one that
is caused by the finite-difference approximations and
the other caused by spatial aliasing. At coarse spatial
sampling, the steeply dipping events are faintly detected
on the migrated section.
Figure 4.6-18 shows the f − k spectra of the mi-
grated sections in Figure 4.6-17. As in the case of the
diffraction hyperbola (Figure 4.6-7), implicit frequency-
space migration can create high-frequency noise beyond
the passband of the input data.
Figure 4.6-19 shows the results of the migration of
the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-12 using an explicit
610 Seismic Data Analysis
frequency-space finite-difference scheme (Section 4.4).
There is no aliasing noise in the section with 25-m trace
spacing. But there is precursive dispersion along the
steeply dipping events because of the inherent nature
of the explicit scheme used here. This dispersion is not
as severe as that observed on the result from the implicit
scheme (Figure 4.6-17).
The corresponding f − k spectra shown in Figure
4.6-20 explains why there is less aliasing noise on the
migrated sections in Figure 4.6-19 compared to those
from Kirchhoff summation (Figure 4.6-14). As for the
case of the diffraction hyperbola (Figure 4.6-9), explicit
schemes attenuate energy associated with wavenumbers
kx above a specified cutoff wavenumber. This effectively
removes part of the aliased energy that maps onto the
spectral region above the cutoff wavenumber associated
with the extrapolation filter for the explicit scheme.
Note from the f − k spectrum in Figure 4.6-20 that
a significant portion of the aliased energy in the left
quadrant has been filtered out for the case of the 50-m
trace spacing. Despite the wavenumber filtering effect of
the explicit scheme, however, much of the aliased noise
remains in the section with the 100-m trace spacing.
Figure 4.6-21 shows the results of the phase-shift
migration of the zero-offset sections in Figure 4.6-12,
and Figure 4.6-22 shows the corresponding f −k spectra.
These results are used as a benchmark to evaluate the
results obtained from the other migration algorithms
(Figures 4.6-14 through 4.6-20). Except for the aliasing
noise, phase-shift migration produces no artifacts.
The effect of spatial aliasing on migration of field
data, to begin with, is demonstrated in Figures 4.6-23
and 4.6-24. We see the original stacked section and its
resampled versions at coarser trace spacings. From the
migrations of these four stacked sections with coarser
trace spacings, note the loss of spatial resolution. The
nearly flat events are not adversely affected by spatial
aliasing, while the steeply dipping reflection off the right
flank of the salt diapir can only be detected on the
migrated section with very coarse sampling by a low-
frequency, weak-amplitude event. The diffraction en-
ergy off the tip of the salt diapir is largely dispersed
into the region with nearly flat events to the right of
the diapir.
We now examine the response of the various migra-
tion algorithms to spatial alaising using the data shown
in Figures 4.6-25 and 4.6-26. The stacked data are asso-
ciated with the same line sampled at four different trace
spacings — 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 m. Figure 4.6-27 shows
migrations of the stacked sections using Kirchhoff sum-
mation. The section with 12.5-m trace spacing provides
a crisp image of the salt diapir, while the sections with
coarser trace spacings degrade gradually. Specifically, it
is almost impossible to delineate the salt boundary on
the section with 50-m trace spacing, and the section
with 100-m trace spacing does not even provide an im-
age of the gently dipping reflections. This is because of
the aliasing noise associated with the steep flanks of the
salt diapir corrupting the surrounding reflections. Spa-
tial aliasing not only adversely affects the quality of the
image associated with a dipping event that is aliased,
but it also can obliterate other nonaliased events in the
data.
Figure 4.6-28 through 4.6-30 show migrations of
the stacked sections in Figures 4.6-25 and 4.6-26 using
steep-dip frequency-space implicit and explicit schemes,
and the phase-shift method. Similar conclusions are
drawn for the Kirchhoff summation results shown in
Figure 4.6-27. Differences in terms of delineation of
the salt boundary and the surrounding strata are at-
tributable to the manner in which these algorithms are
implemented and how they treat the velocity field for
migration. For instance, when examining the results
from the frequency-space implicit scheme (Figure 4.6-
28), one must keep in mind the effect of spatial aliasing
combined with the effect of undermigration caused by
the dip-limited nature of the algorithm and the effect of
dispersion caused by finite-difference approximations.
What is the remedy for spatial aliasing noise in
migration? Arrange the sequence of the sections in Fig-
ures 4.6-27 through 4.6-30 from a coarser to a finer trace
spacing. Note that the deleterious effect of spatial alias-
ing in migration disappears as we go to finer trace spac-
ings. To avoid spatial aliasing, we must record with suf-
ficiently fine CMP trace interval or interpolate the data
that have been recorded with coarse spatial sampling.
Most modern surveys are conducted using spatial
sampling rates that are perfectly adequate to meet ex-
ploration and development objectives. If we are dealing
with vintage data with coarse spatial sampling, there
are two ways to circumvent the effect of spatial alias-
ing. The first approach would be to filter out the aliased
frequencies. This is undesirable, since it severely limits
vertical and lateral resolutions (Section 11.1). The sec-
ond approach would be to do trace interpolation before
migration. In Sections 7.2 and G.5, we discuss interpo-
lation of aliased data. Note from section 1.3 that the
smaller the trace interval, the higher the Nyquist in
the spatial wavenumber direction (Figures 1.3-10 and
1.3-11), and thus, the less likelihood of aliasing high-
frequency data.
A schematic illustration of the spatial aliasing phe-
nomenon is shown in Figure 4.6-31. Start with the
spectral bandwidth that spans COA in the spatial
wavenumber axis, where A is the location of the Nyquist
wavenumber, and ON in the temporal frequency axis,
where N is the location of the Nyquist frequency. Dip
(text continues on p. 619)
 Migration 611

FIG. 4.6-23. A portion of a CMP-stacked section spatially sampled at four different trace spacings.
612 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-24. Phase-shift migrations of the stacked sections in Figure 4.6-23 sampled at four different trace spacings.
 Migration 613

FIG. 4.6-25. A CMP-stacked section spatially sampled at 12.5-m (top) and 25-m (bottom) trace spacings.
614 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-26. A CMP-stacked section as in Figure 4.6-25 spatially sampled at 50-m (top) and 100-m (bottom) trace spacings.
 Migration 615

FIG. 4.6-27. Kirchhoff migrations of the stacked sections in Figure 4.6-25 and 4.6-26 with trace spacings, from top to bottom,
12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
616 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-28. 65-degree implicit frequency-space migrations of the stacked sections in Figure 4.6-25 and 4.6-26 with trace
spacings, from top to bottom, 12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 617

FIG. 4.6-29. 70-degree explicit frequency-space migrations of the stacked sections in Figure 4.6-25 and 4.6-26 with trace
spacings, from top to bottom, 12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
618 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-30. Phase-shift migrations of the stacked sections in Figure 4.6-25 and 4.6-26 with trace spacings, from top to
bottom, 12.5 m, 25 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
 Migration 619

FIG. 4.6-31. Two dipping events in the f − k domain. See

text for details.

components 1 and 2 are aliased beyond frequency val-

ues AT and AS, respectively. Extend the wavenumber
axis to DOB by making the trace interval half of the
original. Event 1 no longer is spatially aliased within
the frequency bandwidth ON. Event 2 still is aliased
beyond the frequency value BV. However, at this point
FIG. 4.6-32. Response of migration to random noise: (a)
and beyond, there may be no significant energy, so fur- zero-offset section with random noise, only, (b) frequency-
ther extension of the wavenumber axis may not be nec- wavenumber migration.
essary. Another important point is that if the temporal
frequency band only extended up to OG to start with,
extension of the wavenumber axis to DOB also would
result in Event 2 being unaliased. Thus, the amount
of trace interpolation that is required also depends on
temporal bandwidth as well as on structural dip.
Trace interpolation often is necessary when dealing
with 3-D data and old data recorded with a large group
interval. In a typical 3-D survey, the inline trace interval
may be as little as 12.5 m, while the trace interval in the
crossline direction, for some old data, may be as much
as 100 m. Therefore, interpolation is required before mi-
gration in the crossline direction. You do not necessarily
interpolate down to the inline trace spacing; instead, de-
pending on the maximum structural dip and velocity in
the area, the optimum trace spacing for interpolation in
the crossline direction can be computed using equation
(1-8). Section 7.2 provides more information on trace
interpolation in relation to 3-D migration.

Migration and Random Noise

Figure 4.6-32 shows a section that contains band-

limited random noise uncorrelated from trace to trace
and its migration using the phase-shift method. Veloc-
ity increases linearly from 2000 m/s at the top to 4000
m/s at the bottom of the section. The amplitude and
frequency characteristics of the input section in Figure
FIG. 4.6-33. (a) A deeper portion of a CMP-stacked sec-
tion with significant noise level, (b) the same portion after
migration.
620 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-34. Migrations of a portion of a CMP stack with different lateral extents.

FIG. 4.6-35. Edge effects in migration: (a) a portion of a CMP stack, (b) the same portion after migration, and (c) a sketch
that illustrates the edge effect problem using the semicircle superposition method of migration. See text for A, B, C, and D.
 Migration
FIG. 4.6-36. A CMP stack (a) before and (b) after migration.
4.6-32 are virtually unchanged in the interior portion
of the migrated section. However, note the smearing
of amplitudes at the bottom and side boundaries after
migration.
Ambient noise commonly dominates the deep por-
tion of a stacked section where velocities are high.
Therefore, organization of random noise caused by mi-
gration generally is more severe in the deeper part of a
stacked section. A field data example is shown in Fig-
ure 4.6-33. In addition to smearing effects, the migrated
section also has smiles, which are caused by sparsely dis-
tributed bursts of amplitude in the input section. Keep
in mind that a single spike on the time section migrates
to a semicircle on the depth section.
We already have seen the adverse effect of an im-
proper choice of aperture width in Kirchhoff summation
(Figure 4.2-7). A narrow aperture can introduce strong
smearing as spurious, nearly horizontal events. A similar
effect occurs for all types of migration algorithms if the
maximum dip to migrate is severely restricted (Figure
4.5-4). It is a misconception to imagine that migration
attenuates random noise and improves signal-to-noise
ratio. Instead, one must keep in mind that migration
621
organizes random noise, it does not attenuate it. A dip-
limited migration algorithm acts upon the random noise
like a dip filter and removes the noise energy beyond
the dip limit much like shown in Figure 6.2-2. The dip-
limited algorithm also attenuates unaliased linear noise
with a dip steeper than the dip limit.
Migration and Line Length
For one reason or another, a seismic line may have to
be recorded in the field with a shorter length than de-
sired. To see the effect of line length on migration, we
will examine the migrations of the decreasing lengths of
the same CMP stack (Figure 4.6-34). Migration of the
smaller portions, BD and CD, results in an increasingly
smeared section, particularly in the deeper parts. We
conclude that short seismic lines really are not suited
for migration.
If the line traverse is too short, two effects occur.
First, there is not enough space in the section for dip-
ping events to move during migration. This problem
may be alleviated by padding the stacked section with
622 Seismic Data Analysis
Migration 623
624 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 4.6-39. A sketch of the events after migration from the flat reference datum level as in Figure 4.6-37 denoted by the
dotted segments and migration from the floating datum as in Figure 4.6-38 denoted by the solid segments. The area covered
corresponds to the upper central portions of the sections in Figures 4.6-37 and 4.6-38 between midpoints A and B.

zero traces on both sides before migration. Second, side
boundary effects contaminate a significant portion of
the migrated section. The real solution to circumvent
the boundary effects is to record data with sufficient
line length.
With a general idea of structural dip in an area,
the geophysicist must consider the additional spatial
extent that is required by migration. (Refer to the dis-
cussion on Figure 4.1-1.) This is especially important in
3-D surveys in which the surface areal coverage must be
extended beyond the subsurface areal coverage so that
steep dips and structural discontinuities can be recorded
and imaged properly (Section 7.1). The problem with
3-D is that cost increases as the square of the survey
dimension, so that temptation to record too small a
survey is great.
Regardless of line lengths, there are additional
problems associated with the side boundaries of the
stacked section input to migration. All migration al-
gorithms implicitly make some assumption about the
nature of data outside the side boundaries of the input
stacked section. The simple assumptions, zero ampli-
tude or zero gradient at the side boundaries of the sec-
tion, cause data that should migrate past the edge to be
reflected back into the section. To prevent this, traces of
zero amplitude often are appended to the edges of the
input section. This allows the dipping events to move
freely into the zero-amplitude region during migration.
If the events that would migrate off the input section are
not needed, they often are suppressed by using absorb-
ing side boundary conditions (Clayton and Engquist,
1980).
Figure 4.6-35 shows a section with significant
smearing caused by side boundary effects. The wave-
front character that dominates the left boundary of the
migrated section down to the bottom of the mute zone
can be explained using the principle of semicircle super-
position for migration. Consider a dipping event A that
extends down to the edge of the section as in the sketch
in Figure 4.6-35. After migration B, note the remainder
of the semicircular wavefront C on the left side. This
wavefront did not cancel out during superposition be-
cause no data were available beyond the left boundary
of the section.
Another source of edge effects is the presence of am-
plitude bursts at or near the edge of the stacked section
associated with a low signal-to-noise ratio that results
from low fold. The edge effects on the left boundary
below the mute zone in the migrated section (Figure
4.6-35) probably stem from the lack of amplitude bal-
ance on the CMP stacked section. The latter is caused
by changes in fold at the end of the line.
Figure 4.6-36 shows a CMP stack with an imbri-
cate structure associated with overthrust tectonics. Af-
ter migration, note that there are two zones with no
reflections. The zone to the left of CMP 100 resulted
from finite line length. Specifically, the events on the
left flank of the imbricate structure are migrated to the
right in the up-dip direction, thus leaving behind a zone
of no events into which no energy is moved since the line
ends to the left of the structure. The zone of no events
between CMP 200 and 300 is a direct consequence of
the overthrusting that has given rise to a culminating
structure with very steep, almost overturned events. Mi-
 Migration 625

FIG. 4.6-40. Principles of migration from topography. See text for details.
626 Seismic Data Analysis
gration of such steep dips is possible only if they exist
in the recorded data and are imaged using algorithms
which handle dips beyond 90 degrees.
Migration from Topography
A CMP-stacked section is assumed to be equivalent to
a zero-offset wavefield and usually is referenced to a flat
datum. Figure 4.6-37 shows a migrated CMP stacked
section associated with a seismic line that follows a tra-
verse with severe topography from an area with over-
thrust tectonics. Migration was done from a flat refer-
ence datum. When migrating data recorded over such
an irregular and severe topography, however, one needs
to account for the difference between the elevation pro-
file and the reference datum. Otherwise, events appear
to a migration algorithm shallower than they actually
are if the flat reference datum is below the elevation
profile, and thus are undermigrated. If the flat reference
datum is above the elevation profile, then events appear
to a migration algorithm deeper than they actually are,
and thus are overmigrated.
Figure 4.6-38 shows the same data as in Figure
4.6-37 with migration from the floating datum which
is a smooth form the elevation profile. A sketch of key
events between midpoints A and B from both sections
is provided in Figure 4.6-39. The flat reference datum in
this case is above the elevation profile. Hence, migration
from the flat datum causes overmigration as denoted by
the dotted interpretation segments. By migrating the
data from the floating datum and interpreting the re-
sulting section, we obtain the solid segments in Figure
4.6-39.
Migration algorithms, with the exception of Kirch-
hoff summation and the constant-velocity Stolt method,
are all based on wave extrapolation from one flat depth
level to another. To accommodate an irregular topog-
raphy, the following formal approach can be used:
(a) Stack the data referenced to the floating datum and
assume it to be the zero-offset wavefield recorded
along the floating datum profile.
(b) Apply wave-equation datuming (Section 8.1) to ex-
trapolate the zero-offset wavefield as defined in (a)
from the floating datum to a flat datum above using
a velocity the same as that just below the floating
datum.
(c) Migrate the output wavefield from (b) using a pre-
ferred migration algorithm.
The stacking velocity field required in step (a) is
referenced to the floating datum. The migration ve-
locity field required in step (c) would need to be de-
rived by redefining the stacking velocities with respect
to the flat datum. To circumvent this tedious task, mi-
gration from an irregular topography is done either by
the zero-velocity trick (Beasley and Lynn, 1992) or the
zero-wavefield trick (Reshef, 1991).
In the first approach by Beasley and Lynn (1992),
a zero velocity value is assigned to the region between
the floating datum and the flat datum, which is specified
above the floating datum. Just as it should be in con-
ventional processing, the stacked section is referenced to
the flat datum, and the velocities are referenced to the
floating datum. Extrapolate the stacked section down
one depth step using the zero velocity as part of the
migration process. This amounts to a simple vertical
time shift. If the depth level intersects the floating da-
tum profile, then invoke the diffraction term (equation
4-16a) for the traces in the stacked section that coin-
cide with the intersection points. Continue the extrap-
olation process from one depth level to the next while
turning on the diffraction term for those traces which
coincide with the intersection points of the depth levels
and floating datum profile.
In the second approach by Reshef (1991), to start
with, a zero wavefield is assigned to the flat datum level
z0 in Figure 4.6-40. The stacked section and the veloc-
ities are referenced to the floating datum. Extrapolate
this wavefield down one depth level to z1 using a ve-
locity the same as that just below the floating datum
profile. Import the traces 1 and 2 from the stacked sec-
tion at the intersection points of the depth level and the
floating datum profile, and insert them to the section
referenced to the depth level z1 . Now, extrapolate down
to the next depth level z2 , and import traces 3, 4, 5, and
6 from the stacked section, and insert them into section
referenced to the depth level z2 . At each depth level,
while new traces are imported from the original stacked
section, the previously imported traces are subsjected
to wave extrapolation as symbolized by the small arcs
associated with each time sample.
EXERCISES
Exercise 4-1. Consider the special case of a 90-
degree dipping reflector in Figure 4.1-1a. Sketch the cor-
responding zero-offset time section.
Exercise 4-2. Consider Huygens’ secondary
sources along a dipping reflector. Sketch the zero-offset
section by superimposing the individual responses from
these sources. Remember, to do zero-offset modeling,
you must map a point in the x − z plane to a hyperbola
in the x − t plane with its apex as the input point.
Exercise 4-3. For which case is spatial aliasing a
more serious problem, the low-velocity or high-velocity
medium?
 Migration 627

FIG. 4.E-1. See Exercise 4-4.

Exercise 4-4. Locate the dipping event AA on
the migrated section in Figure 4.E-1.
Exercise 4-5. A point in the x−t plane is mapped
onto a semicircle in the x − z plane. Where does it map
on the x − τ plane, where τ = 2z/ v.
Exercise 4-6. Refer to Figure 4.1-14. It suggests
that if the subsurface consisted of a semicircular reflec-
tor (b), then the zero-offset response would be as in
(a). What would the subsurface be like if you obtained
(a) using a source-receiver pair with a finite separation
between them? (See Figures D-5 and D-6.)
Exercise 4-7. Suppose you specified the wrong
trace spacing in your migration. What effect does it
have, overmigration or undermigration? Assume that
you supplied the wrong sampling rate in time. What
effect does it have on migration output?
Exercise 4-8. Suppose you want to do zero-offset
recording of the steep flank of a salt dome. Which case
would require a longer line length when the medium ve-
locity along the raypath is (a) constant or (b) vertically
increasing?
Exercise 4-9. How would Figure 4.3-6 look if you
used a 15-degree phase-shift migration algorithm?
 Appendix D
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATION OF MIGRATION

D.1 Wavefield Extrapolation and Migration

A fundamental equation of reflection seismology is the double-square-root (DSR) equation. This

equation describes downward continuation of both shots and receivers into the earth. It is exact
for all dips and offsets. Neglecting the velocity gradient dv(z)/dz makes the DSR equation also
applicable to a stratified earth. The DSR equation can be extended, with some approximation,
to treat weak lateral velocity variations. A comprehensive mathematical treatise of the DSR
equation is found in Claerbout (1985).
The basic 2-D theory for wavefield extrapolation is presented here. Then, using the DSR
equation, a rigorous analysis of conventional seismic data processing is made. We show that
conventional implementation of the DSR equation requires zero-dip and zero-offset assumptions.
Before discussing the DSR equation, we review the basic theory for wavefield extrapolation.
Once the extrapolation equations are developed, they can be used with the imaging principle to
migrate 2-D or 3-D prestack and poststack data.
Start with the 2-D scalar wave equation, which describes propagation of a compressional
wavefield P (x, z, t) in a medium with constant material density and compressional wave velocity
v(x, z):

∂2 ∂2 1 ∂2
2
+ 2− 2 2 P (x, z, t) = 0, (D − 1)
∂x ∂z v ∂t
where x is the horizontal spatial axis, z is the depth axis (positive downward), and t is time.
Given the upcoming seismic wavefield P (x, 0, t), which is recorded at the surface, we want to
determine reflectivity P (x, z, 0). This requires extrapolating the surface wavefield to depth z,
then collecting it at t = 0. The process of obtaining the earth’s reflectivity P (x, z, t = 0) from
the observed wavefield P (x, z = 0, t) at the surface z = 0 is called migration, and the reverse
process is called modeling (Figure D-1).
It is advantageous to decompose the wavefield into monochromatic plane waves with dif-
ferent angles of propagation from the vertical. Therefore, we will work in the Fourier transform
domain whenever possible. The wavefield can always be Fourier transformed over time t. If
there is no lateral velocity variation, then the wavefield also can be Fourier transformed over
the horizontal axis x. Thus,

P (kx , z, ω) = P (x, z, t) exp(ikx − iωt) dx dt, (D − 2a)

and inversely,

P (x, z, t) = P (kx , z, ω) exp(−ikx + iωt) dkx dω. (D − 2b)

When the differential operator in equation (D-1) is applied to equation (D-2b), we get
∂2 ω2
P (kx , z, ω) + − kx2 P (kx , z, ω) = 0. (D − 3)
∂z 2 v2
Although v can be varied with depth z in equation (D-3), for now we assume a constant
velocity case. The stratified earth case is considered later in this appendix. Equation (D-3) has
two solutions, one for upcoming waves, the other for downgoing waves. The upcoming wave
solution to equation (D-3) is recognized as
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 629

FIG. D-1. Relationship between migration and wavefield modeling (see Section D.1).

ω2
P (kx , z, ω) = P (kx , z = 0, ω) exp −i − kx2 z . (D − 4)
v2
Equation (D-4) also is the solution to the following one-way wave equation:
∂ ω2
P (kx , z, ω) = −i − kx2 P (kx , z, ω). (D − 5)
∂z v2
This solution can be verified by substituting equation (D-4) into equation (D-5).
We define the vertical wavenumber as
2
ω vkx
kz = 1− . (D − 6)
v ω
Equation (D-6) often is called the dispersion relation of the one-way scalar wave equation. By
using this expression, equation (D-4) takes the simple form
P (kx , z, ω) = P (kx , z = 0, ω) exp (−ikz z). (D − 7)
To determine the reflectivity P (x, z, 0) from the wavefield recorded at the earth’s surface
P (x, 0, t), proceed as follows:

(a) Perform a 2-D Fourier transform over x and t to get P (kx , 0, ω).
(b) Multiply by the all-pass filter exp(−ikz z) to obtain the wavefield P (kx , z, ω) at depth z.
(c) Perform summation over ω to obtain P (kx , z, 0).
(d) Finally, inverse Fourier tranform over kx to obtain the earth’s image P (x, z, 0) at that depth.

For the constant velocity case P (kx , kz , 0) can be computed by a direct mapping in the
transform domain from (kx , ω) to (kx , kz ) using equation (D-6) (Stolt, 1978).
The main objective here is to interpret equation (D-7) as a tool for downward extrapolating
wavefields given at the surface. While the mathematical development of the process presented
is simple, its physical basis is not obvious. In an effort to develop a physical motivation for
equation (D-7), a simpler derivation follows.
Given the upcoming wavefield P (x, 0, t) recorded at the surface, we can decompose it into
monochromatic plane waves, each traveling at a different angle from the vertical. We identify
these plane waves by attaching each one to a unique (kx , ω) pair. This plane-wave decomposition
is equivalent to Fourier transforming the wavefield to yield P (kx , 0, ω).
Now consider one of these plane waves as shown in Figure D-2. Imagine that this plane wave
passed point P at t = 0, traveled upward, and was recorded by a receiver at surface point G at
630 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. D-2. Geometry for wavefield extrapolation (see Section D.1) (Yilmaz, 1979).

time t. For reflector mapping, we need to take the energy located at point G on the wavefront at
time t, back to its position at t = 0 — to reflection point P . To return the energy to P , it makes
sense to follow the same raypath used for outward propagation from P . The fact that the same
path is used means that downward continuation does not alter the horizontal wavenumber kx .
Suppose that the wavefront is moved to a depth ∆z = GG beneath the receiver at G so
that the waveform at G now is at G . If a receiver were buried at G , it would have recorded
the plane wave at t − ∆t, where ∆t is the traveltime between G and G . In other words, moving
the receiver at G vertically down a distance ∆z to a new location G changes the traveltime
along the raypath from G to P by −∆t.
From the geometry of Figure D-2, we have
∆z
∆t = cos θ, (D − 8a)
v
where v/ cos θ is the vertical phase velocity. We know the kx and ω values for the plane wave.
Suppose the distance between G and G is one wavelength λ. At time t − ∆t, the wavefront
intersects the x-axis at distance λx from G. From the geometric relation in Figure D-2, we have
λ
= sin θ. (D − 8b)
λx
By using the definitions λ = 2π/ (ω/v), λx = 2π/ kx , and equation (D-8b), we obtain
vkx
sin θ = (D − 8c)
ω
and
2
vkx
cos θ = 1− , (D − 8d)
ω
where ω/v is the wavenumber along the raypath. By substituting equation (D-8d) into equation
(D-8a), we have
2
1 vkx
∆t = 1− ∆z. (D − 8e)
v ω
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 631

As we move down, we do not want to change the amplitude of the plane wave. Given the
change in traveltime, ∆t by equation (D-8e), the corresponding phase shift is −ω∆t. At each
∆z step of descent, we may propagate the plane wave with a different velocity v(z). The total
phase shift to which the waveform was subjected with arrival at P is − ω dt.
To compute the wavefield at P , we use equation (D-8e) and multiply the transformed surface
wavefield P (kx , 0, ω) by
P z 2
ω v(z) kx
exp −i ω dt = exp −i 1− dz . (D − 9)
G 0 v(z) ω
Equation (D-9) is the same operator used in equation (D-7), except that equation (D-7) was
derived for constant v.
We now return to the more mathematical discussion and consider the stratified earth with a
velocity v(z). Since we have not Fourier transformed P (x, z, t) over z, the one-way wave equation
(D-5) also is valid for v(z):

∂ ω2
P (kx , z, ω) = −i − kx2 P (kx , z, ω), (D − 10)
∂z v 2(z)
in which case equation (D-6) becomes
2
ω v(z)kx
kz (z) = 1− . (D − 11)
v(z) ω
Substitution verifies that equation (D-10) has the following solution:
z
P (kx , z, ω) = P (kx , 0, ω) exp −i kz (z) dz . (D − 12)
0

We must check whether this solution satisfies the two-way scalar wave equation (D-3). By
differentiating equation (D-10) and using equation (D-11), we have
∂2 dkz (z) dv(z) ∂
2
P = −i P − ikz (z) P, (D − 13a)
∂z dv dz ∂z
where P = P (kx , z, ω). By substituting equation (D-10) for ∂P / dz, we obtain
∂2 dkz (z) dv(z)
P = −i P − kz2(z) P. (D − 13b)
∂z 2 dv dz
If the velocity gradient dv(z)/ dz is ignored, then the first term on the right side drops out. The
final expression then is
∂2
P + kz2(z) P = 0. (D − 13c)
∂z 2
When equation (D-11) is substituted into this expression, we get:
∂2 ω2
2
P+ 2 − kx2 P = 0, (D − 14)
∂z v (z)
which is identical to equation (D-3) where velocity can be varied with depth z.
So far, we have shown that a 2-D wavefield recorded at the earth’s surface can be extrap-
olated downward using the phase-shift operator given by equation (D-9). Wave extrapolation
can be done through either a constant-velocity medium (equation D-7) or a vertically varying
velocity medium (equation D-12). Seismic imaging is not complete until a stopping condition is
imposed on downward continuation. The process of downward continuation is terminated when
the clock, which measures t − dt, reads zero traveltime.
The concepts described above can be used to downward continue a complete seismic exper-
iment that involves many shots and receivers. The vertical wavenumber given by equation (D-6)
632 Seismic Data Analysis

is expressed as a sum of two square roots, one associated with downward continuation of shots
and the other associated with downward continuation of receivers:
ω
kz = DSR(G, S), (D − 15)
v
where v is the medium velocity that can be varied in depth z, and DSR stands for the double
square root (Claerbout, 1985):

DSR(G, S) = 1 − G2 + 1 − S2, (D − 16)

where G and S are the normalized receiver and shot wavenumbers, kg and ks , respectively:
vkg
G= (D − 17a)
ω
and
vks
S= . (D − 17b)
ω
The newly defined vertical wavenumber in equation (D-15) is inserted into the extrapolation
equation (D-7) to obtain
P (kg , ks , z, ω) = P (kg , ks , 0, ω) exp(−ikz z), (D − 18)
where P (kg , ks , 0, ω) is the Fourier transform of the prestack data P (s, g, z = 0, t) in shot-
receiver coordinates. This new extrapolation equation then can be used to downward continue
common-shot gathers, and by way of reciprocity, common-receiver gathers.
The DSR equation (D-16) is separable in terms of shot and receiver wavenumbers. This
separation means that we can start with the wavefields recorded at the surface as common-shot
gathers and use the first part of the DSR operator to downward continue the receivers to depth
∆z. Then, we can sort the already downward-continued wavefields into common-receiver gathers
and use the second part of the DSR operator to downward continue the shots to depth ∆z. By
alternating between common-receiver and common-shot gathers, the entire seismic experiment
(whole line) can be downward continued until imaging is accomplished (Figure D-3).
Although no approximation, besides the stratified earth assumption, is made in this alter-
nating downward-continuation scheme, it is computationally exhausting. In fact, most of today’s
seismic data processing is done in midpoint-(half) offset (y, h) coordinates, rather than in shot-
receiver (s, g) coordinates. Therefore, we will put DSR as defined by equation (D-16) into the
(y, h) coordinates.
The following coordinate transformation is required:
1
y= (g + s) (D − 19a)
2
and
1
h= (g − s). (D − 19b)
2
After the transformation (Claerbout, 1985), we obtain
G=Y +H (D − 20a)
and
S = Y − H, (D − 20b)
where Y and H are the normalized midpoint and offset wavenumbers, respectively:
vky
Y = (D − 21a)
2ω
and
vkh
H= . (D − 21b)
2ω
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 633

FIG. D-3. A flow diagram of shot-geophone migration (see Section D.1).

By substituting equations (D-21a) and (D-21b) into equation (D-16), the DSR equation
takes the following form in midpoint-offset coordinates:
DSR(Y, H) = 1 − (Y + H)2 + 1 − (Y − H)2 . (D − 22)
The vertical wavenumber (equation D-15) now is expressed in terms of normalized midpoint-
offset wavenumbers Y and H:
ω
kz = DSR(Y, H). (D − 23)
v
The newly defined vertical wavenumber in equation (D-23) is inserted into the extrapolation
equation (D-18):
P (ky , kh , z, ω) = P (ky , kh , 0, ω) exp(−ikz z), (D − 24)
where P (ky , kh , 0, ω) is the Fourier transform of the prestack data P (y, h, z = 0, t) in midpoint-
offset coordinates.
Figure D-4 shows the ω − ky plane for a specific value of z and h, and the ky − z plane for a
specific value of ω and h. The radial line A corresponds to ky = 2ω/v. The region in the ω − ky
plane below the radial line corresponds to the evanescent energy and that above the radial line
corresponds to the propagating energy. The same transition between the two regions also are
noted in the ky − z plane. The zero-offset case (Figure D-4c) clearly shows the evanescent energy
to the right of the point on the ky axis labeled as ky = 2ω/v dying off rapidly with depth.
The width of the propagation region stays constant with depth. The nonzero-offset case shown
in Figure D-4d, however, indicates that the width of the propagation region varies with depth
— zero at the surface z = 0 and approaching rapidly to the zero-offset case immediately at
shallow depths. The physical interpretation of this depth-dependency is quite intuitive — the
normalized offset wavenumber H becomes increasingly less significant at greater depths, and the
normalized midpoint wavenumber Y becomes the dominating wavenumber. More specifically,
on a CMP gather, moveout decreases with depth which implies nearly zero H.
Figure D-5 shows the response characteristics of the dispersion relation defined by equation
(D-23). Note the semi-elliptical wavefronts in the y − z plane for a single frequency ω; while in
the y − t plane, note the table-top traveltime trajectories. The equations for the wavefront and
traveltime trajectories are derived in Section D.2 using stationary phase approximations.
Note that in equation (D-16), the terms with different spatial wavenumbers are separable.
However, we have lost the property of separation in equation (D-22) because the operators in
Y and H are strongly coupled. As a result, the Taylor series expansions of the square roots in
634 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. D-4. Real part of the ω − ky plane at z = 200 m: (a) DSR (equation D-23) with h = 0 m, and
(b) DSR with h = 400 m. Real part of the ky − z plane at ω = 16 m: (c) DSR (equation D-23) with
h = 0 m, and (d) DSR with h = 400 m (Yilmaz, 1979).

equation (D-22) yield terms that contain cross-products of the two wavenumbers. The penalty
for processing in the conventional coordinate system (y, h, t) is that strong coupling in the
extrapolation operator requires the entire prestack data set to be handled at the same time for
each depth step.
Conventional processing comprises two important steps. First, the data are organized into
common-midpoint (CMP) gathers, and normal-moveout (NMO) correction is applied to each
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 635

FIG. D-5. The response characteristics of the DSR operator (equation D-23) (Yilmaz, 1979). (a) Real
part of the y − z plane at 16 Hz and h = 400 m. Note the semielliptical wavefronts. (b) Real part of the
y − z plane at t = 1024 ms, h = 400 m. Because of the wraparound in h, we observe two wavefronts,
one for h = 400 m and one for h = 0. (c) Real part of the y − t plane at z = 200, 400, 600, and 800
m superimposed. These are the table-top trajectories for h = 400 m. The loci of the arrival times are
determined by a stationary-phase approximation to DSR (see Section D.2) (Clayton, 1978). Periodicity
in y and t result from approximating Fourier integrals by sums.

gather. The time shift ∆t = t(h) − t0 associated with the NMO correction is given by
2
2h
∆t = t0 1+ −1 , (D − 25)
vt0
where t(h) is the two-way traveltime for a given (half) offset h, and t0 is the corresponding two-
way zero-offset time. Here, v is the root-mean-square (rms) velocity at t0 . Equation (D-25) is
based on the stratified earth (zero-dip) assumption. After NMO correction, traces of the CMP
gather are stacked. This not only reduces data volume, but also enhances the signal-to-noise
ratio.
Second, the CMP stack is migrated as if it were the zero-offset wavefield generated by
exploding reflectors (Section 4.0). The equation used for the downward extrapolation portion of
migration is the solution to the one-way wave equation (equation D-12).
636 Seismic Data Analysis

To account for the one-way traveltime of the exploding reflectors model, the velocity used
in extrapolation is taken as half the medium velocity. Thus, the vertical wavenumber given by
equation (D-11) is expressed as
2
2ω vky
kz = 1− , (D − 26)
v 2ω
where v can be varied with depth z. (Since migration is done in midpoint space, kx has been
replaced with ky .)
Some of the current migration techniques based on wave extrapolation use certain rational
approximations to equation (D-26), while some implement the exact form in the frequency-
wavenumber domain (Section 4.1).
Conventional processing theory has an advantage over the exact theory represented by
the DSR equation in midpoint-offset space (equation D-22). Unlike the approach based on the
DSR equation, the conventional approach is composed of two separable operators — the NMO
correction and stack applied in offset space, and migration applied in midpoint space. However,
this advantage is based on zero-dip and zero-offset assumptions.
Where do we go from here? On the one hand, we have an exact theory that can handle all
dips and offset angles, but is difficult to implement. On the other hand, we have a conventional
approach that has the convenient property of separation, but is based on the zero-dip and
zero-offset assumptions.
To examine the relationship between the two approaches, we return to the exact theory
and make the same two assumptions that underlie the conventional approach. The zero-dip
assumption implies that the earth model is stratified in y−t domain. The seismic energy recorded
over such an earth is concentrated completely at the zero midpoint wavenumber ky = 0. This
suggests that we set the normalized wavenumber Y equal to zero in DSR as defined by equation
(D-22). The resulting operator here is defined as the stacking (St) operator

St(H) = 2 1 − H 2 . (D − 27)
As shown in Section D.2, the NMO shift given by equation (D-25) is a stationary-phase
approximation to equation (D-27) (Clayton, 1978). The St(H) operator condenses primary
information on a CMP gather down to zero offset. After applying this operator on a CMP
gather, we may keep the zero-offset trace and abandon all other offsets. Since a CMP stack
can be regarded as a zero-offset wavefield, equation (D-27) is a zero-dip NMO and stack-type
operator.
Application of the zero-offset (h = 0) assumption into the DSR operator is more subtle.
On a CMP gather at and near h = 0, energy essentially is concentrated at zero value of the
offset wavenumber kh = 0. In fact, NMO correction tries to push the primary energy on a
CMP gather toward kh = 0. Therefore, by setting the normalized offset wavenumber H = 0 in
equation (D-22), the exploding reflectors (ER) migration operator can be expressed as

ER(Y ) = 2 1 − Y 2. (D − 28)
Equation (D-28) is an approximation, because setting H = 0 is not exactly the same as
setting h = 0. By setting H = 0 in equation (D-22) and using the dispersion relation given by
equation (D-23), we have the zero-offset vertical wavenumber
2ω
kz = 1 − Y 2. (D − 29)
v
By substituting the definition for Y from equation (D-21a) into equation (D-29), we obtain
2
2ω vky
kz = 1− , (D − 30)
v 2ω
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 637

FIG. D-6. The response characteristics of the exploding reflectors operator ER(Y ) (equation D-29)
(Yilmaz, 1979). (a) Real part of the y − z plane at 16 Hz. Note the circular wavefronts. (b) Real part
of the y − z plane at t = 1024 ms. (c) Real part of the y − t plane at z = 200, 400, 600, and 800 m
superimposed. These are the hyperbolic trajectories. The loci of the arrival times are determined via
the stationary-phase approximation to ER(Y ) (see section D.2) (Clayton, 1978). Periodicity in y and t
result from approximating Fourier integrals by sums.

which is identical to equation (D-26). We conclude that the zero-offset migration operator ER(Y )
(equation D-28) derived from the DSR equation (D-22) is identical to the migration operator
that is based on the exploding reflectors model of conventional processing.
Figure D-6 shows the response characteristics of the dispersion relation defined by equation
(D-30). Note the semicircular wavefronts in the y − z plane and the hyperbolic traveltime curves
in the y − t plane. Compare these with the response of the complete DSR operator for the
nonzero-offset case in Figure D-5. The equations for the wavefront and traveltime trajectories
are derived in Section D.2 using stationary phase approximations.
638 Seismic Data Analysis

D.2 Stationary Phase Approximations

In this section, we shall use the method of stationary phase to derive the traveltime equa-
tion inferred by the double square root equation for nonzero-offset source-receiver separation.
Consider the double square root operator defined by equation (D-22) with the wavenumbers
Y and H defined by equations (D-21a,b). We want to operate on the transformed wavefield
P (ky , kh , z = 0, ω) with the DSR operator. Subsequent inverse Fourier transformation will yield
the wavefield P (y, h, z, t):

P (y, h, z, t) = P (ky , kh , z = 0, ω) exp (iΦz) dky dkh dω, (D − 31)

where the total phase Φ, normalized with respect to z, is given by

ω y h t
Φ = − DSR(Y, H) − ky − kh + ω . (D − 32)
v z z z
The main contribution to integration in equation (D-31) occurs when the phase stays nearly
constant. We therefore determine the variation of the phase with respect to variables ky , kh , and
ω
∂Φ ω ∂DSR ∂Y y
=− − , (D − 33a)
∂ky v ∂Y ∂ky z

∂Φ ω ∂DSR ∂H h
=− − , (D − 33b)
∂kh v ∂H ∂kh z
and
∂Φ 1 ω ∂DSR ∂H ∂DSR ∂Y t
= − DSR − + + , (D − 33c)
∂ω v v ∂H ∂ω ∂Y ∂ω z
and set each variation to zero. Substitute equation (D-32) and carry out the differentiations in
equations (D-33a,b,c) to obtain
1 G 1 S y
√ + √ = , (D − 34a)
2 1 − G2 2 1 − S2 z

1 G 1 S h
√ − √ = , (D − 34b)
2 1 − G2 2 1 − S2 z
and
1 1 vt
√ +√ = , (D − 34c)
1−G 2 1−S 2 z
where G and S are defined by equations (D-20a,b).
Now, eliminate G and S amongst equations (D-34a,b,c) to get the final expression from
stationary phase approximation to the double square root equation as
2 2
y+h + z2 + y−h + z 2 = vt. (D − 35)
This is the equation of an ellipse in the y − z plane at constant t (Section E.5). Figure D-5 shows
the elliptic wavefront and the table-top traveltime trajectory described by equation (D-35).
When equation (D-35) is specialized to the zero-offset case, h = 0, we obtain
vt
y2 + z2 = , (D − 36)
2
which is a circle in the y − z plane at constant t and a hyperbola in the y − t plane at constant
z. Figure D-6 shows the circular wavefront and the hyperbolic traveltime trajectory described
by equation (D-36).
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 639

We now consider the stacking operator defined by equation (D-27). The total phase is given
by
ω h t
Φ = − St(H) − kh + ω . (D − 37)
v z z
Differentiate equation (D-37) with respect to kh and ω and set the results to zero to obtain
H h
√ = (D − 38a)
1−H 2 z
and
1 vt
√ = . (D − 38b)
1−H 2 2z
Now, eliminate H between equations (D-38a) and (D-38b) to obtain the stationary phase ap-
proximation to the stacking operator:
vt
h2 + z 2 =
. (D − 39a)
2
Define the zero-offset time as t0 = 2z/v and substitute into equation (D-39a) to get
2
vt0 vt
h2 + = . (D − 39b)
2 2
Finally, rearrange to get the equation for normal moveout:
2
2h
∆tN M O = t0 1+ −1 , (D − 40)
vt0
where ∆tN M O = t − t0 . This is the same equation as equation (3-2b) in the main text with offset
defined as x = 2h.

D.3 The Parabolic Approximation

Start with the dispersion relation defined by equation (D-6) recast for the exploding reflectors
model for which v is replaced with v/2 to obtain
2
2ω vkx
kz = 1− . (D − 41)
v 2ω
Then apply Taylor series expansion and retain the first two terms:
2
2ω 1 vkx
kz = 1− . (D − 42a)
v 2 2ω
By simplifying, we get the dispersion relation associated with the parabolic equation
2ω vkx2
kz = − . (D − 42b)
v 4ω
By operating on the wavefield P (x, z, t) and replacing −ikz P with ∂P/∂z, we write the corre-
sponding differential equation as
∂P 2ω vkx2
= −i − P. (D − 43)
∂z v 4ω
Derivation of equation (D-43) is based on the constant-velocity assumption. Nevertheless,
just as we did for the 90-degree one-way wave equation (D-10), the 15-degree one-way wave
640 Seismic Data Analysis

equation (D-43) can be recast using a vertically varying velocity function v(z). Going one step
further, once equation (D-43) is inverse Fourier transformed from the horizontal wavenumber kx
to the horizontal axis x, we will replace v(z) with a laterally varying velocity function v(x, z).
Theoretically, this may not be permissible, but in practice, its validity is widely accepted.
The effect of translation is removed by retardation (Figure 4.1-18):
z
dz
τ =2 , (D − 44)
0 v̄(z)
where v̄(z) generally is chosen to be a horizontal average of v(x, z). The time shift defined by
equation (D-44) is equivalent to a phase shift in the frequency domain. Therefore, the actual
wavefield P is related to the time-shifted wavefield Q by
P = Q exp (−iωτ ). (D − 45)
By differentiating with respect to z, we get
∂P ∂ 2ω
= −i Q exp(−iωτ ). (D − 46)
∂z ∂z v̄(z)
Finally, by substituting equations (D-45) and (D-46) into equation (D-43), we obtain
∂Q vk 2 1 1
= i x Q + i2ω − Q. (D − 47a)
∂z 4ω v̄(z) v
The first term on the right side of this equation is called the diffraction term and the second
term is called the thin-lens term.
Consider the special case of v = v̄(z). The thin-lens term then vanishes and we are left with
∂Q vk 2
= i x Q. (D − 47b)
∂z 4ω
After inverse Fourier transforming, we obtain the parabolic differential equation
∂2Q v ∂2Q
= , (D − 48)
∂z∂t 4 ∂x2
where, in practice, velocity can be varied horizontally as well as vertically.
In some practical implementations of equation (D-48), downward continuation is performed
in τ rather than z. The migrated section then is displayed in time τ and the process is called time
migration. The two variables z and τ are related by equation (D-44). The dispersion relation
in equation (D-41) for the scalar wave equation in terms of ωτ = vkz / 2, the Fourier dual of τ ,
takes the form
2
vkx
ωτ = ω 1− . (D − 49a)
2ω
By squaring both sides, we get the equation of an ellipse in the ωτ − kx plane.
The dispersion relation in equation (D-42b) for the parabolic equation, also expressed in
terms of ωτ , takes the form
v 2 kx2
ωτ = ω − , (D − 49b)
8ω
which is the equation of a parabola in the ωτ − kx , plane. The first term is associated with a
vertical time shift that can be removed by retardation. To obtain the differential equation in
terms of τ , equivalent to equation (D-48), apply the second term on the right side of equation
(D-49b) to the retarded wavefield Q as defined by equation (D-45) and inverse Fourier transform
∂2Q v2 ∂ 2 Q
= . (D − 50)
∂τ ∂t 8 ∂x2
This equation is the basis for the 15-degree time migration algorithms.
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 641

The dispersion relations given by equations (D-49a) and (D-49b) are plotted in Figure D-7
for constant velocity v and input frequency ω = F E. Curve 1 is associated with the 90-degree
scalar wave equation and is the same as shown in Figure 4.1-25, except that the latter is in terms
of kz . Point A is mapped onto point B after migration with the 90-degree equation (D-49a).
The same point A is mapped onto point C after migration with the 15-degree equation (D-49b).
The dispersion curve 2 for the parabolic equation increasingly departs from the dispersion curve
1 for the exact wave equation as the dip gets steeper. (The dip before migration is measured as
the angle between the vertical axis FE and radial direction F A.) Thus, the parabolic equation
causes more and more undermigration as dip increases.

D.4 Frequency-Space Implicit Schemes

Higher-order approximations to the dispersion relation (equation D-41) of the one-way equa-
tion can be found by continued fraction expansion (Claerbout, 1985). When equation (D-41) is
rewritten, we have
2ω
kz = R, (D − 51a)
v
where
R= 1 − X 2, (D − 51b)
with
vkx
X= . (D − 51c)
2ω
The various orders of approximations to equation (D-51b) are defined by the following
recurrence relation
X2
Rn+1 = 1 − , (D − 52)
1 + Rn
with the initial value R0 = 1. By setting n = 0 in equation (D-52), we have
X2
R1 = 1 − . (D − 53)
2
Then, substitution of equation (D-53) into equation (D-51a) yields
2ω X2
kz = 1− , (D − 54)
v 2
which is the same equation obtained with the parabolic approximation, equation (D-42a).
The next higher-order expansion is obtained by setting n = 1 in equation (D-52) and using
equation (D-53) to obtain
X2
R2 = 1 − , (D − 55)
X2
2−
2
This is referred to as the 45-degree approximation to equation (D-41).
Ma (1981) discovered that the recurrence relation for the continuous fraction expansion can
be expressed as ratios of two polynomials for the even-ordered expansions. He also showed that
the expression can be split into the following partial fractions:
n
αi X 2
R2n = 1 − . (D − 56)
i=1
1 − βi X 2
642 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. D-7. Dispersion relations for the 90-degree equation (D-49a), 15-degree equation (D-49b) and
the 45-degree equation (D-60a) with α1 = 0.5 and β1 = 0.25, plotted on the ωτ − kx plane for a given
input frequency, where ω = F E and velocity is v. Input frequency ω = F E = AP is mapped on to
output frequency ωτ which is PB, PC, and PD for the 90-degree, 15-degree, and 45-degree√equations,
respectively.
√ The wavenumber at the intersection of the curves along the kx axis is 2ω/v, 2 2ω/v, and
(4ω)/( 3v) for the 90-degree, 15-degree, and 45-degree equations, respectively.

For example, when n = 1,

α1 X 2
R2 = 1 − , (D − 57)
1 − β1 X 2
which is equivalent to the 45-degree expansion in equation (D-55) when α1 = 0.5 and β1 = 0.25.
Note that expansions R4 , R6 , R8 , · · · are made up of sums of the 45-degree term, each with
a different set of coefficients, αi and βi . Lee and Suh (1985) minimized the difference in the
least-squares sense between R of equation (D-51a) and R2n of equation (D-56) for a specified
dip angle and derived optimal coefficients (αi , βi ) for up to the 10th order (Table D-1).
Table D-1. Coefficients of optimized, fractioned, one-way wave equations (Lee and Suh, 1985).

Order, 2n Accuracy Deg. αi βi

2 45 0.5 0.25
2 65 0.478242060 0.376369527
4 80 0.040315157 0.873981642
0.457289566 0.222691983
6 87 0.004210420 0.972926132
0.081312882 0.744418059
0.414236605 0.150843924
8 90- 0.000523275 0.994065088
0.014853510 0.919432661
0.117592008 0.614520676
0.367013245 0.105756624
8 90 0.000153427 0.997370236
0.004172967 0.964827992
0.033860918 0.824918565
0.143798076 0.483340757
0.318013812 0.073588213
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 643

We now derive the differential equation associated with the 45-degree dispersion relation.
By substituting equation (D-57) and the definition for X given by equation (51c) into equation
(D-51a), we obtain

2ω α1 v 2 kx2
1
kz = 1− . (D − 58)
v 4ω 2 β1 v 2 kx2
1−
4ω 2
The first term is a vertical shift that can be removed by retardation in the same manner as
for the 15-degree approximation (equations D-42 through D-46). By simplifying the remaining
terms of equation (D-58), we obtain
β1 v 1 2ω
kz kx2 − kx2 − kz = 0. (D − 59a)
α1 2ω α1 v
Finally, by operating on the retarded wavefield Q(x, ω, z) (equation D-45), we obtain
β1 v ∂ 3 Q ∂2Q 2ω ∂Q
i 2
− 2
+i = 0. (D − 59b)
2α1 ω ∂z∂x ∂x α1 v ∂z
Kjartansson (1979) implemented equation (D-59b) for 45-degree modeling and migration in the
frequency-space domain. Migration in the frequency-space domain (commonly known as the
ω − x algorithm) involves two interleaved operations:

(a) a time shift based on equation (D-45), which is velocity-independent for time migration and
velocity-dependent for depth migration, and
(b) focusing the diffraction energy using equation (D-59b).

Once you have a code for the basic 45-degree operator, it is easy to implement the higher-
order approximations that are given by equation (D-56) with the associated coefficients in Table
D-1. Note that the difference between the 45-degree and 65-degree algorithms is the values used
for coefficients (α1 , β1 ). Also note that the 15-degree equation (D-47b) is obtained from equation
(D-59b) by setting α1 = 0.5 and β1 = 0.
The dispersion relation in equation (D-58) also can be expressed in terms of ωτ = vkz /2,
the Fourier dual of the time variable τ associated with the migrated data:
α1 ωv 2 kx2
ωτ = ω − . (D − 60a)
4ω 2 − β1 v 2 kx2
The first term is associated with a vertical time shift that can be removed by retardation as for
the 15-degree equation (D-49b).
To obtain the differential equation in terms of τ , equivalent to equation (D-59b), apply the
second term on the right side of equation (D-60a) to the retarded wavefield Q as defined by
equation (D-45) and inverse Fourier transform:
β1 ∂ 3 Q ∂2Q 4ω ∂Q
i − +i = 0. (D − 60b)
α1 ω ∂τ ∂x2 ∂x2 α1 v 2 ∂τ
This equation is the basis for the 45-degree and related steep-dip implicit finite-difference
frequency-space time migration algorithms.
The dispersion relation given by equation (D-60a) for the 45-degree equation, in which
α1 = 0.5 and β1 = 0.25, is plotted in Figure D-7 for constant velocity v and input frequency
ω = F E. Point A is mapped onto point D after migration with the 45-degree equation (D-60a).
The dispersion curve 3 for the 45-degree equation lies somewhere between those of the 90-degree
equation (D-49a) (curve 1) and the 15-degree equation (D-49b) (curve 2).
Figure 4.4-1 shows the impulse responses of various approximations to the one-way disper-
sion relation based on equation (D-56). Note that the wavefronts become increasingly closer to
a semicircle as the higher-order terms are included in equation (D-56). The 15-degree approxi-
mation yields an elliptical wavefront. The 45-degree approximation yields an impulse response
644 Seismic Data Analysis

of a heart shape. Refer to Section 4.4 for the practical aspects of 2-D frequency-space steep-dip
time migration, and Section 7.3 for its application to 3-D migration.

D.5 Stable Explicit Extrapolation

The exact extrapolation filter for a specific frequency ω and velocity v is expressed in the
frequency-wavenumber domain as
2
2ω vkx
D(kx ) = exp −i 1− ∆z . (D − 61)
v 2ω
The objective is to find, again for a specific frequency ω and velocity v, an explicit filter with
complex coefficients h(x) in the frequency-space domain such that, when Fourier transformed
to the frequency-wavenumber domain, the difference between the actual transform H(kx ) and
the desired transform D(kx ) of equation (D-61) is minimum. To ensure stability, we impose the
constraint that the amplitude of H(kx ) is never greater than unity within the propagation region
kx ≤ (2ω/v).
Consider the Fourier transform H(kx ) of the actual extrapolation filter h(x), which we will
write in discrete form as hn :
N
H(kx ) = h0 + 2 hn cos(nkx ), (D − 62)
n=1

where 2N + 1 is the length of the symmetric filter hn .

To determine the filter coefficients hn , perform Taylor series expansion of the exact D(kx )
and the actual H(kx ) extrapolators given by equations (D-61) and (D-62), respectively, and
match the coefficients of the terms in each series at kx = 0 (Holberg, 1988). Such a direct match
of the coefficients in the Taylor series results in a response H(kx ) whose amplitude is greater
than unity beyond a certain kx , thus violating the stability constraint that the amplitude of
H(kx ) is never greater than unity within the propagation region kx ≤ (2ω/v).
A way to circumvent the unstable response of the conventional Taylor series method is to
match the first M < N coefficients in the series expansion and set the remaining N − M to zero
(Hale, 1991). This modified Taylor series method proceeds as follows.
Let the filter coefficients hn be defined by the series
M
hn = c0 + 2 cm bmn , (D − 63)
m=1

where
2πmn
bmn = 2 cos . (D − 64)
N
By way of equations (D-63) and (D-64), equation (D-62) takes the form

H(kx ) = c0 1 + 2 cos(nkx )
n
. (D − 65)
2πmn
+2 cm 1 + 2 cos cos(nkx )
m n
N

Equation (D-65) can be written as a single summation

M
H(kx ) = cm Bm (kx ), (D − 66)
m=0
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 645

where
B0 (kx ) = 1 + 2 cos(nkx ), (D − 67a)
n

and
2πmn
Bm (kx ) = 1 + 2 cos cos(nkx ). (D − 67b)
n
N

Now, perform the Taylor series expansion of the exact extrapolator given by equation (D-
61):
∂D(kx ) kx2 ∂ 2 D(kx )
D(kx ) = D(0) + kx + + ···, (D − 68)
∂kx 2 ∂kx2
where the derivatives are evaluated at kx = 0, and thus the terms associated with the odd
derivatives vanish.
Matching the terms of the actual extrapolator H(kx ) with those of the desired extrapolator
D(kx ) is equivalent to matching their even derivatives
M
2j
cm Bm (0) = D2j (0), j = 0, 1, 2, . . . , M, (D − 69)
m=0
2j
where the derivative terms Bm are

B02j (0) = (−1)j 1 + 2 n2j , (D − 70a)

n=1

and
2j 2πmn 2j
Bm (0) = 2(−1)j 1 + 2 cos n . (D − 70b)
n=1
N

Equation (D-69) represents a system of M linear equations that can be solved for the
coefficients cm . The extrapolation filter coefficients hn then can be computed by substituting
the solution of equation (D-69) into equation (D-63).
The modified Taylor expansion yields filter coefficients hn with its response H(kx ) that
vanishes beyond a cutoff value for kx in the wavenumber domain that depends on the scalar
M . Also, the response of the extrapolator based on the modified Taylor expansion satisfies the
stability constraint H(kx ) < 1 in the passband region of the filter. The cutoff wavenumber kx
determines the maximum dip accuracy of the extrapolation filter. The larger the number of filter
coefficients 2N + 1, the steeper the dip accuracy. In practice, extrapolation filter lengths 7, 11
and 25 are often associated with 30-, 50- and 70-degree dip accuracies.
An alternative method for computing the filter coefficients hn with more accuracy at large
wavenumbers kx is based on the Remez exchange algorithm (Soubaras, 1996). The objective is
to minimize the error function
E(kx ) = W (kx )[D(kx ) − H(kx )], (D − 71)
where W (kx ) is a weighting function, such that
||E||∞ = max|E(kx )| (D − 72)
is minimum. The criterion ||E||∞ means that the actual response H(kx ) is equiripple. Specifically,
the response H(kx ) has extrema of the same absolute value with alternating signs within the
passband region specified by a cutoff wavenumber kx . The objective of the error function is to
minimize the deviation of the extrema from the desired value of unity.
646 Seismic Data Analysis

D.6 Optimum Depth Step

The objective is to specify an optimum depth step size that yields minimum-phase errors in
wave extrapolation as part of the design of finite-difference migration algorithms. First, we shall
review implicit and explicit schemes. Then, we shall derive equations for optimum depth size
for frequency-wavenumber implicit schemes.
Start with the one-way wave equation (D-5):
∂
P (kx , z, ω) = −ikz P (kx , z = 0, ω), (D − 73)
∂z
whose solution is
P (z + ∆z) = P (z) exp −ikz ∆z , (D − 74)
where, for simplicity, kx and ω variables are omitted from P , and
2
2ω vkx
kz = 1− . (D − 75)
v 2ω
The phase of the exact extrapolation operator
exp (−ikz ∆z) (D − 76a)
is
Φ = kz ∆z, (D − 76b)
and its amplitude is
A = 1. (D − 76c)
Discretize the one-way wave equation (D-73):
δP
= −ikz P . (D − 77)
δz
Apply differencing approximation using the explicit scheme
P (z + ∆z) − P (z)
= −ikz P (z), (D − 78a)
∆z
and the implicit scheme
P (z + ∆z) − P (z) P (z + ∆z) − P (z)
= −ikz . (D − 78b)
∆z 2
Rewrite the explicit equation (D-78a) as
P (z + ∆z) = P (z) 1 − ikz ∆z . (D − 79a)
The phase of the explicit extrapolation operator
(1 − ikz ∆z) (D − 79b)
is
Φ = tan−1 kz ∆z , (D − 79c)
and its amplitude is
2
 = 1 + kz ∆z . (D − 79d)
Note that the amplitude of the explicit operator is greater than unity and grows from one
extrapolation step to the next. In fact, large depth steps cause the operator to yield unstable
results early in the extrapolation process. In general, explicit schemes tend to be unstable unless
special design considerations are made (Section D.5).
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 647

Rewrite the implicit equation (D-78b) as

1 − ikz ∆z/2
P (z + ∆z) = P (z) . (D − 80a)
1 + ikz ∆z/2
The phase of the implicit extrapolation operator
1 − ikz ∆z/2
(D − 80b)
1 + ikz ∆z/2
is
kz ∆z
Φ = tan−1 2 , (D − 80c)
1 − kz ∆z/2
and its amplitude is
 = 1. (D − 80d)
Note that the amplitude of the implicit scheme is unity. This means that implicit schemes are
unconditionally stable.
We now specialize the phase of the frequency-space implicit scheme given by equation (D-
80b) for the 65-degree dispersion relation as in equation (D-58) and obtain
k̂z ∆z
Φ = tan−1 2 , (D − 81a)
1 − k̂z ∆z/2
where
αk̂x2
k̂z = , (D − 81b)
2ω v
− β k̂x2
v 2ω
with α and β specified as in Table D-1 for the 65-degree scheme. Equation (D-81a) is the time-
retarded form of equation (D-58) and hence corresponds to the second term of the latter. The
discrete forms of the transform variables are (Claerbout, 1976):
ω
sin2 ∆x sin θ
4 v
k̂x2 = , (D − 81c)
∆x2 ω
1 − 4bsin2 ∆x sin θ
v
and
2 ω∆t
ω̂ = tan . (D − 81d)
∆t 2
The scalar b in equation (D-81c) is set to a value between 1/12 and 1/6. The phase error for the
65-degree implicit scheme then is given by
∆Φ = Φ − Φ, (D − 82)
where Φ and Φ are given by equations (D-81a) and (D-76a), respectively. Refer to the equations
(D-81a,b,c,d) and note that the phase error depends on ∆x, ∆t, v, θ, ω, and the depth step ∆z.
Figure D-8 shows contour plots of the phase error defined by equation (D-82) for three
ω/v values as a function of dip angle and depth step size. Note the complicated behavior of
the contours which indicates that the optimum depth step size is associated with a complicated
interdependence of the various parameters — dip, frequency, velocity, spatial, and temporal
sampling rates. Therefore, in practice, migration algoirthms that require wave extrapolation at
discrete depth steps usually do not incorporate an automated estimation of optimum depth steps.
Instead, a constant value between one-half and one dominant period, 20 to 40 ms, depending
on maximum reflector dip is specified in practice. See Section 4.4 for the practical aspects of
frequency-space migration.
648 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. D-8. Phase error contours in degrees associated with the 65-degree implicit extrapolator (see
Section D.6) for a range of dip angles θ versus depth step sizes ∆z, and for specific ratios of ω/v, from
top to bottom, 0.001 (low frequency or high velocity), 0.06 (medium frequency and velocity) and 0.2
(high frequency or low velocity). The parameter b in equation (D-81c) was set to 0.14 for all three cases.
(Computation by Dave Nichols.)
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 649

D.7 Frequency-Wavenumber Migration

We start with the solution of the scalar wave equation for the zero-offset wavefield as given
by equation (D-7) and assume a horizontally layered earth model associated with a vertically
varying velocity function v(z). By inverse Fourier transforming equation (D-7), we have

P (x, z, t) = P (kx , 0, ω) exp(−ikz z) exp(−ikx x + iωt) dkx dω, (D − 83a)

where kz is defined by equation (D-6) adapted to the exploding reflectors model by replacing v
with v/2:
2
2ω vkx
kz = 1− . (D − 83b)
v 2ω
The imaging principle t = 0 then is applied to get the migrated section P (x, z, t = 0),

P (x, z, t = 0) = P (kx , 0, ω) exp(−ikx x − ikz z) dkx dω. (D − 84)

This is the equation for the phase-shift method (Gazdag, 1978). Equation (D-84) involves inte-
gration over frequency and inverse Fourier transformation along midpoint axis x. Refer to Figure
4.1-29 for a flow diagram of phase-shift migration.
We now consider the special case of constant velocity v. Stolt (1978) devised a migration
technique that involves an efficient mapping in the 2-D Fourier transform domain from temporal
frequency ω to vertical wavenumber kz . We rewrite equation (D-83b) to get
v
ω= kx2 + kz2 . (D − 85)
2
By keeping the horizontal wavenumber kx unchanged and differentiating, we obtain
v kz
dω = dkz . (D − 86)
2 kx2
+ kz2
When equations (D-85) and (D-86) are substituted into equation (D-84), we get
v kz v
P (x, z, t = 0) = P kx , 0, kx2 + kz2 exp(−ikx x − ikz z) dkx dkz .
2 kx2+ kz2 2
(D − 87)

This is the equation for constant-velocity Stolt migration. It involves two operations in the
f − k domain. First, the temporal frequency ω is mapped onto the vertical wavenumber kz via
equation (D-85). This is the same as mapping point B onto point B in Figure 4.1-25. Second,
the amplitudes are scaled by the quantity
v kz
S= ,
2 kx2 + kz2
which is equivalent to the obliquity factor associated with Kirchhoff migration (Section 4.1).
Refer to Figure 4.1-30 for a flow diagram of constant-velocity Stolt migration.
To extend the algorithm to the variable-velocity case, yet retain efficiency, Stolt (1978)
did a coordinate transformation that involves stretching the time axis to make the scalar wave
equation velocity independent. A summary of the theoretical procedure is given here. Consider
wavefield P (x, z, t) and the transformed wavefield P (x, d, T ):
P (x, z, t) = P (x, d, T ),
where T is the stretched time axis and d is the output variable (equivalent of z) for migration
in the stretched coordinate system. Here, the x variable is identical in both coordinate systems.
650 Seismic Data Analysis

This coordinate transformation basically is equivalent to stretching the data using the rms
velocities
t 1/2
1 2
T (t) = 2 dt vrms (t ) t , (D − 88)
c 0

where
t
2 1
vrms (t) = v 2 (t ) dt , (D − 89)
t 0

and c is an arbitrary reference velocity used to maintain the vertical axis as time after the
coordinate transformation from t to T . After some tedious algebra, the time-retarded scalar
wave equation takes the following form in the stretched coordinates (Stolt, 1978):
∂2P ∂2P 2 ∂2P
+ W + , (D − 90)
∂x2 ∂d2 c ∂d∂T
where W is a complicated function of velocity and coordinate variables. In practice, it normally
is set to a constant between 0 and 1. The procedure for Stolt migration with stretch follows:
(a) Start with the stacked section, which is assumed to be a zero-offset section P (x, z = 0, t).
(b) Convert this time section to stretched section P (x, d = 0, T ) by the coordinate transforma-
tion (equation D-88).
(c) 2-D Fourier transform the stretched section P (kx , d = 0, ωT ).
(d) Apply the following mapping function to perform migration:

1 ωT 1 ωT2
kd = 1− − − W kx2 . (D − 91)
W c W c2
This equation is based on the dispersion relation of the retarded wave equation in the
stretched coordinates (equation D-90). The expression for the output from migration is
(omitting the heavy algebra)
c 1 ckd
P (kx , kd , 0) = (1 − W + ) P kx , 0, (1 − W + K) , (D − 92a)
2−W K 2−W
where
1
K= . (D − 92b)
k2
1 + (2 − W ) x2
kd

(e) 2-D inverse Fourier transform the migrated section in the stretched coordinates P (x, d, T =
0).
(f) Convert back to the familiar space-time coordinates P (x, z, t = 0). This is the final migrated
section.
To derive the equations for Stolt migration with the output in time τ = 2z/v, use the
dispersion relation as in equation (D-49a) in lieu of equation (D-83b) and replace the vertical
wavenumber kz with the output frequency ωτ = vkz /2 in equations (D-84) through (D-88).
When W = 1, equation (D-91) takes the simple form

ωT2
kd = − kx2 , (D − 93)
c2
which makes mapping of equation (D-91) equivalent to the constant-velocity Stolt algorithm.
Note that Stolt migration with stretch tries to handle velocity variations. However, it is no
substitute for depth migration; it only accommodates velocity variations that can be handled by
time migration. Figure D-9 shows the flow diagram for Stolt migration with stretch. See Section
4.5 for the practical aspects of frequency-wavenumber migration.
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 651

FIG. D-9. Flowchart for Stolt migration with stretch.

D.8 Residual Migration

The relationship between the output and input temporal frequencies for a 90-degree time mi-
gration operator (rewritten from equation D-49a) is given by
v 2 kx2
ωτ = ω2 − , (D − 94)
4
where ωτ = vkz / 2 is the output frequency, ω is the input frequency, v is the true medium
velocity, and kx is the midpoint wavenumber. Equation (D-94) refers to single-pass migration if
the migration velocity is the same as the medium velocity.
Consider a two-pass migration, first with velocity v1 , followed by a second migration with
velocity v2 . The output frequency from the first pass is
v12 kx2
ω1 = ω2 − , (D − 95a)
4
which is the input frequency for the second pass
v22 kx2
ω2 = ω12 − , (D − 95b)
4
The horizontal wavenumber kx is fixed, since it is invariant under migration.
If the output frequency from the single-pass migration given by equation (D-94) is set equal
to that from the two-pass migration given by equation (D-95b), then the necessary relationship
between the residual migration velocity v2 and the medium velocity v can be established as
v 2 = v12 + v22 . (D − 96a)
652 Seismic Data Analysis

One practical scheme for residual migration is implemented as follows:

(a) The constant-velocity Stolt migration with a stretch factor of W = 1 is used for the first
pass. Velocity v1 in equation (D-96a) is chosen as the minimum value in the actual velocity
field.
(b) For the second pass, a dip-limited finite-difference migration can be used. The first-pass
migration brings the dips down to within the range that the second-pass finite-difference
migration can accommodate, accurately. Remember that the velocity field for the second
pass is computed by the the relation

v2 = v 2 − v12 , (D − 96b)
where v, v1 , and v2 are the original, first- and second-pass migration velocities, respectively. A
multiple-pass application of residual migration is referred to as cascaded migration. Refer to
Sections 4.3 and 4.5 for the practical aspects of cascaded migration and residual migration,
respectively.

REFERENCES

Baysal, E., Kosloff, D., and Sherwood, J.W.C., 1983, Reverse time migration: Geophysics, 48,
1514-1524.
Beasley, C., Lynn, W. S., Larner, K. L. and Nguyen, H. V., 1992, Extended Stolt f − k migration:
62nd Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 551-553.
Beasley, C. and Lynn, W. S., 1992, The zero-velocity layer: migration from irregular surfaces:
Geophysics, 57, 1435-1443.
Berkhout, A.J., 1980, Seismic migration – Imaging of acoustic energy by wavefield extrapolation:
Elsevier Science Publ. Co., Inc.
Berryhill, J.R., 1979, Wave-equation datuming: Geophysics, 44, 1329-1333.
Chun, J.H. and Jacewitz, C., 1981, Fundamentals of frequency-domain migration: Geophysics, 46,
717-732.
Claerbout, J.F., 1976, Fundamentals of geophysical data processing: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Claerbout, J.F., 1985, Imaging the earth’s interior: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Claerbout, J.F. and Doherty, S.M., 1972, Downward continuation of moveout-corrected seismo-
grams: Geophysics, 37, 741-768.
Clayton, R., 1978, Common midpoint migration: Stanford Expl. Proj., Rep. No. 14, Stanford
University.
Clayton, R. and Engquist, B., 1980, Absorbing side boundary conditions for wave-equation migra-
tion: Geophysics, 45, 895-904.
Deregowski, S. and Rocca, F., 1981, Geometrical optics and wave theory for constant-offset sections
in layered media: Geophys. Prosp., 29, 374-387.
Diet, J.P. and Lailly, P., 1984, Choice of scheme and parameters for optimal finite-difference mi-
gration in 2-D: 54th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 454-456.
Doherty, S.M. and Claerbout, J.F., 1974, Velocity analysis based on the wave equation: Stanford
Expl. Proj., Rep. No. 1, Stanford University.
Gazdag, J., 1978, Wave-equation migration by phase shift: Geophysics, 43, 1342-1351.
Gazdag, J. and Squazzero, P., 1984, Migration of seismic data by phase shift plus interpolation:
Geophysics, 49, 124-131.
Hale, I. D., 1991, Stable explicit depth extrapolation of seismic wavefields: Geophysics, 56, 1770-
1777.
Holberg, O., 1988, Towards optimum one-way wave propagation: Geophys. Prosp., 36, 99-114.
Kjartansson, E., 1979, Modeling and migration by the monochromatic 45-degree equation: Stanford
Exploration Project Report No. 15, Stanford University.
Kjartansson, E. and Rocca, F., 1979, The exploding reflector model and laterally variable media:
Stanford Exploration Project Report No. 16, Stanford University.
 Mathematical Foundation of Migration 653

Larner, K. L. and Beasley, C., 1990, Cascaded migrations: improving the accuracy of finite-
difference migration: Geophysics, 52, 618-643.
Lee, M.W. and Suh, S.H., 1985, Optimization of one-way wave equations: Geophysics, 50, 1634-
1637.
Loewenthal, D., Lu, L., Roberson, R., and Sherwood, J.W.C., 1976, The wave equation applied to
migration: Geophys. Prosp., 24, 380-399.
Ma, Z., 1981, Finite-difference migration with higher-order approximation: Presented at the 1981
Joint Mtg. Chinese Geophys. Soc. and Soc. Explor. Geophys.
Reshef, M., 1991, Migration from irregular topography: Geophysics, 50, 1333-1335.
Rothman, D., Levin, S., and Rocca, F., 1985, Residual migration: Applications and limitations:
Geophysics, 50, 110-126.
Schneider, W., 1978, Integral formulation for migration in two and three dimensions: Geophysics,
43, 49-76.
Soubaras, R., 1992, Explicit 3-D migration using equiripple polynomial expansion and Laplacian
synthesis: 62nd Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 905-908.
Soubaras, R., 1996, Explicit 3-D migration using equiripple polynomial expansion and Laplacian
synthesis: Geophysics, 61, 1386-1393.
Stolt, R.H., 1978, Migration by Fourier transform: Geophysics, 43, 23-48.
Stolt, R.H. and Benson, A.K., 1986, Seismic migration: theory and practice: Geophysical Press.
Taner, M.T., Cook, E.E., Neidell, N.S., 1982, Paleo-seismic and color acoustic impedance sections:
applications of downward continuation in structural and stratigraphic context: 52nd Ann. In-
ternat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 110-111.
Taner, M.T. and Koehler, F., 1977, Wave-equation migration: Technical brochure, Seiscom-Delta,
Inc.
Yilmaz, O., 1979, Prestack partial migration: Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.