8 Earth Imaging in Depth

• Introduction • Lateral Velocity Variations • Layer Replacement • Wave-Equation Datuming • Poststack

Layer Replacement • Prestack Layer Replacement • Field Data Example • 2-D Poststack Depth Migration •
Image Rays and Lateral Velocity Variations • Time versus Depth Migration • Iterative Depth Migration • Iteration
with Zero-Offset Data • Iteration with CMP-Stacked Data • Iteration with Prestack Data • Iteration in Practice
• 2-D Prestack Depth Migration • Shot-Geophone Migration • Shot-Profile Migration • Sensitivity of Image
Accuracy to Velocity Errors • Field Data Examples • 3-D Poststack Depth Migration • 3-D Poststack Time
versus Depth Migration • Two-Pass versus One-Pass 3-D Poststack Depth Migration • Implicit versus Explicit 3-D
Poststack Depth Migration • 3-D Poststack Datuming • 3-D Prestack Depth Migration • Kirchhoff Summation
• Calculation of Traveltimes • The Eikonal Equation • Fermat’s Principle • Summation Strategies • Migration
Aperture • Operator Antialiasing • 3-D Common-Offset Depth Migration • Exercises • Appendix H: Diffraction
and Ray Theory for Wave Propagation • The Kirchhoff Integral • The Eikonal Equation • Finite-Difference
Solution to the Eikonal Equation • References

8.0 INTRODUCTION

Strong lateral velocity variations associated with com-
plex overburden structures require earth imaging in
depth. Examples of complex overburden include di-
apiric structures formed by salt tectonics, imbricate
structures formed by overthrust tectonics and irregu-
lar water-bottom topography. All three are character-
ized as structure-dependent lateral velocity variations.
There also exist structure-independent lateral velocity
variations, often associated with facies changes; for in-
stance, changes in lithology from shale to sandstone to
carbonate induce lateral changes in acoustic impedance.
Figure 8.0-1a shows a field data example of a di-
apiric structure associated with salt tectonics. Note
how the base-salt (event B) and subsalt reflections at
about 2 s are pulled up in the middle of the section.
Time migration yields an inaccurate image of the base-
salt (Figure 8.0-1b).
Figure 8.0-2a is a field data example of an imbricate
structure associated with overthrust tectonics. Time mi-
gration is adequate for imaging a target within the im-
bricate structure itself, but would not yield a correct
image of a target below it (Figure 8.0-2b).
Refer to the field data example for a case of irreg-
ular water-bottom topography shown in Figure 8.0-3a.
Note the false structures along the unconformity T be-
cause of irregular water-bottom topography. These are
especially noticed below midpoint locations A, B, and
C. Sagging of the reflection that is associated with the
unconformity at these locations is attributed to the low-
velocity overburden, here, the water layer. Once again,
1214 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.0-1. (a) A CMP stacked section over a salt-dome structure, (b) time migration. Note the similarity of the overmigration
at the base-salt event in this section with that seen in the time-migrated section of the synthetic data in Figure 8.2-7.

time migration does not provide the solution for such a
complex overburden as shown in Figure 8.0-3b. Specif-
ically, distortions along the unconformity still exist.
Earth imaging in depth is achieved by depth mi-
gration. The following is a cause-and-effect relation be-
tween various factors with regard to depth migration:
(a) Complex overburden structures often give rise to
strong lateral velocity variations. In the presence of
strong lateral velocity variations, an earth image in
time derived from time migration is not accurate;
and thus, it is imperative to obtain an earth image
in depth by depth migration.
(b) Strong lateral velocity variations cause significant
ray bending at layer boundaries.
(c) This then gives rise to nonhyperbolic behavior of
reflection times on CMP gathers that correspond
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1215

FIG. 8.0-2. (a) A CMP stacked section from an area with overthrust tectonics, (b) time migration.
1216 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.0-3. (a) Conventional CMP stack from an area with irregular water-bottom topography, (b) time migration. (Data
courtesy Hispanoil.)

to layer boundaries below a complex overburden
structure.
(d) As a result, amplitudes and traveltimes associ-
ated with the reflection events with nonhyperbolic
moveout are distorted during conventional CMP
stacking which is based on the hypberbolic move-
out assumption.
(e) This causes CMP stack to depart from an ideal
zero-offset wavefield. Therefore, when depth migra-
tion is needed, in principle, it must be done before
stack and not after.
(f) Finally, complex overburden structures often ex-
hibit three-dimensional (3-D) behavior. Therefore,
when depth migration is needed, again in principle,
it must be done not only before stack but also in
three dimensions.
Compare the results of depth imaging in 2-D and
3-D using post- and prestack data shown in Figures
8.0-4 through 8.0-7. Note the improved imaging of the
fault planes and the reflectors within the faulted zone
attained by combining the advantages of prestack mi-
gration and 3-D migration. Figure 8.0-4 shows 2-D post-
stack depth migration of the 3-D DMO stack in Figure
7.0-16a derived from common-cell gathers along an in-
line from a 3-D marine survey. Velocities vary in the
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1217

FIG. 8.0-4. (a) 2-D poststack depth migration of the 3-D DMO stack shown in Figure 7.0-13a derived from common-cell
gathers along an inline from a 3-D marine survey; (b) the same section as in (a) displayed with reverse polarity.
1218 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.0-5. (a) 2-D prestack depth migration of the data as in Figure 7.0-13a; (b) the same section as in (a) displayed with
reverse polarity.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1219

FIG. 8.0-6. (a) An inline section from the image volume derived from 3-D poststack depth migration of the data as in Figure
7.0-16a; (b) the same inline section as in (a) displayed with reverse polarity.
1220 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.0-7. (a) An inline section from the image volume derived from 3-D prestack depth migration of the data as in Figure
7.0-16a; (b) the same inline section as in (a) displayed with reverse polarity.
 Earth Imaging in Depth
lateral direction across the steep faults in the middle
portion of the image. The imaging within the faulted
zone can be improved by prestack depth migration as
shown in Figure 8.0-5. Nevertheless, the 3-D behavior
of the fault planes requires 3-D imaging (Figure 8.0-6).
The complete solution to the imaging problem in the
presence of lateral velocity variations and the 3-D be-
havior of reflector geometries, of course, is 3-D prestack
depth migration (Figure 8.0-7). Since lateral velocity
variations can change the polarity of fault-plane reflec-
tions, the image sections in Figures 8.0-4 through 8.0-7
are displayed both with normal and reverse polarities.
Although the migration methods discussed in
Chapter 4 are based on a layered media assumption,
simple modifications of the basic algorithms make them
accurate for situations with mild lateral velocity varia-
tions. For example, rms velocities can be varied laterally
in Kirchhoff migration. In the finite-difference method,
as long as lateral velocity variations are mild, the thin-
lens term can be dropped (Section D.3), and the velocity
function used in the diffraction term can be varied lat-
erally. In the frequency-wavenumber methods such as
Stolt migration, lateral velocity variations are accom-
modated by varying the stretch factor between 0 and 1.
Even when velocity varies, the output from these three
methods is still a time section, thus, the term time mi-
gration.
The situation is different when strong lateral veloc-
ity variations are encountered. In that case, simple algo-
rithmic modifications no longer provide adequate accu-
racy, and depth migration (Judson et al., 1980; Schultz
and Sherwood, 1980), rather than time migration, must
be done. While both migration types use a diffraction
term for collapsing energy along a diffraction hyperbola
to its apex, only depth migration algorithms implement
the additional thin-lens term that explicitly accounts for
lateral velocity variations (Section D.4). Unlike time mi-
gration, the output from the migration algorithms that
include the thin-lens term is a depth section, thus the
term depth migration.
Sometimes, although not so often, the complex
overburden can be defined by a single layer and the
boundary between the overburden and the substratum
can be determined in the form of an irregular interface
with a significant velocity contrast. In that case, the
layer replacement method described in Section 8.1, in
lieu of depth migration, can be used to remove the dele-
terious effect of the overburden on the geometry of the
underlying reflections.
Time migration requires an rms velocity field,
whereas depth migration requires an interval velocity-
depth model. A velocity-depth model usually is defined
by two sets of parameters — layer velocities and re-
flector geometries. While an rms velocity field does not
1221
contain discontinuities, an interval velocity-depth model
can include discontinuities associated with layer bound-
aries.
A velocity-depth model is the seismic representa-
tion of an earth model in depth. An earth model and
the earth image created from it are an inseparable pair
of products of seismic inversion. To obtain an earth im-
age in depth, one has to first estimate an accurate earth
model in depth. We shall defer estimation of earth mod-
els in depth to the next chapter where we shall demon-
strate the use of various inversion methods and depth
migration itself to estimate the earth model parameters.
Aside from earth modeling and imaging in depth, depth
migration also is used to verify and update velocity-
depth models. In this chapter, we shall be concerned
only with depth migration as a tool for earth imaging
in depth.
Historically, depth migration was used in an it-
erative fashion. Starting with an initial velocity-depth
model, depth migration is performed and results are
interpreted for updating layer velocities and reflector
geometries. Using the updated velocity-depth model,
depth migration is repeated until such time as what
is inferred from depth migration as the velocity-depth
model matches with the velocity-depth model input to
depth migration. To achieve rapid convergence to a fi-
nal velocity-depth model, only one set of parameters —
usually, reflector geometries, are altered from one iter-
ation to the next. We shall review the iterative depth
migration procedure for zero-offset, CMP-stacked and
prestack data, and draw conclusions as to when such a
procedure yields an acceptable image in depth (Section
8.2).
In this chapter, we shall review two methods of
two-dimensional (2-D) prestack depth migration (Sec-
tion 8.3). In 2-D migration, we assume that the seismic
line is along the dip direction and that the recorded
wavefield is two dimensional. Shot-geophone migration,
which is based on downward extrapolation of common-
shot and common-receiver gathers using the double-
square root equation (Section D.1), focuses primary re-
flection energy to zero-offset. The migrated section is
obtained by retaining the zero-offset traces and aban-
doning the nonzero-offset traces. Shot-profile migration
is based on migrating each common-shot gather, indi-
vidually. In this method, the migrated section is ob-
tained by sorting the migrated common-shot gathers
into common-receiver gathers and summing the traces
in each receiver gather.
We shall review 3-D post- and prestack depth mi-
grations in Sections 8.4 and 8.5, respectively. While
3-D poststack depth migration can be performed using
a wide variety of algorithms based on finite-difference
(Sections G.1 and G.2), frequency-wavenumber (Sec-
tions G.3 and G.4), and Kirchhoff integral solutions
1222 Seismic Data Analysis
(Section H.1) to the 3-D scalar wave equation, 3-D
prestack depth migration often is done using the Kirch-
hoff integral (Section H.1) or the eikonal equation (Sec-
tion H.2). This is because Kirchhoff migration is conve-
niently adaptable to source-receiver geometry irregular-
ities in 3-D seismic surveys. Topographic irregularities
also are conveniently accommodated in Kirchhoff mi-
gration.
The output of prestack depth migration consists
of image gathers, which may be likened to moveout-
corrected CMP gathers with the vertical axis in depth.
Image gathers, however, consist of traces in their mi-
grated positions. A stack of image gathers represents
the earth image in depth obtained from prestack depth
migration. If the velocity-depth model used in prestack
depth migration is correct, then, events on an image
gather would exhibit a flat character with no move-
out. An erroneously too low or too high velocity would
cause a residual moveout on the image gather. The ini-
tial velocity-depth model can be updated by analyzing
this residual moveout and correcting for it (Section 9.5).
Lateral Velocity Variations
Lateral velocity variations often are associated with
steep dips. Hence, a depth migration algorithm must
not only handle lateral velocity variations but also must
image steeply dipping events accurately. The steep-dip
implicit and explicit frequency-space migration algo-
rithms described in Section 4.4 are particularly suit-
able to accommodate lateral velocity variations. In the
case of the implicit schemes, the action of the thin-lens
term, which accounts for lateral velocity variations, is
achieved by a complex multiplication of the wavefield in
the frequency-space domain with a velocity-dependent
exponential term (Sections D.3 and D.4). In the case of
the explicit schemes, lateral velocity variations are ac-
counted for by designing a velocity-dependent, laterally
varying extrapolation filter and convolving it with the
wavefield in the frequency-space domain (Section D.5).
The problem of lateral velocity variations will be
studied using a point diffractor buried in a medium
with five different types of velocity-depth models. The
first velocity-depth model is shown in Figure 8.0-8.
The corresponding zero-offset section consists of an ex-
act diffraction hyperbola. Therefore, only the diffrac-
tion term is needed in imaging the scatterer (Section
D.3). The surface projection of the point diffractor (the
source) coincides with the location of CMP 240, indi-
cated by the vertical arrow, and is aligned with the apex
of the diffraction hyperbola. After time migration, the
diffraction hyperbola is collapsed to its apex which, in
this case, is coincident with the CMP location of the
point diffractor.
Consider what happens when the point diffractor is
lowered into the second layer as shown in Figure 8.0-9.
Raypaths from the scatterer to the surface are bent at
the interface between the first and second layers accord-
ing to Snell’s law of refraction. The zero-offset section
is now approximately hyperbolic. From Section 3.1, we
recall that in a horizontally layered earth model, travel-
times are governed by the hyperbolic moveout equation.
However, moveout is hyperbolic only within the small-
spread approximation. The velocity associated with this
approximate hyperbola is the vertical rms velocity down
to the diffractor. Suppose the velocity-depth model of
Figure 8.0-9 is replaced with that of Figure 8.0-10,
where the velocity of the first layer now corresponds to
the rms velocity of the diffractor of Figure 8.0-9 (1790
m/s). The zero-offset section associated with this new
model is an exact hyperbola (Figure 8.0-10).
The traveltime trajectory in the zero-offset section
derived from the original model (Figure 8.0-9) differs
negligibly from the hyperbolic traveltime trajectory in
the section associated with the replacement model (Fig-
ure 8.0-10) only at the far flanks. Therefore, it is rea-
sonable to assume that the zero-offset traveltime tra-
jectory for a point diffractor in a horizontally layered
earth model is a hyperbola. The apex of this approxi-
mate hyperbola in Figure 8.0-9 coincides with the sur-
face projection of the diffractor, indicated by the ar-
row. Therefore, only time migration is needed to image
a diffractor that is buried in a horizontally layered earth
model. This time migration can be performed either by
Kirchhoff summation, which uses the rms velocity, or
by frequency-space or frequency-wavenumber methods,
which honor raypath bendings at the interfaces associ-
ated with horizontal layers.
Now consider the point diffractor situated in the
third layer as shown in Figure 8.0-11. Now we no longer
have even an approximate hyperbolic diffraction re-
sponse. The traveltime trajectory is skewed so that the
apex A does not coincide with the lateral position B
of the diffractor. As expected, time migration partially
focuses the energy toward its apex A, which is to the
left of the actual lateral position of diffractor B.
To properly focus the energy and place it laterally
to its true subsurface position B, depth migration must
be performed as shown in Figure 8.0-11. The depth-
migrated image is aligned with the true subsurface po-
sition B. This lateral positioning is accomplished by the
thin-lens term. The amount of lateral shift is the lateral
distance AB between the apex A of the skewed diffrac-
tion traveltime trajectory and the actual location B of
the diffractor. This shift depends on the amount of ray
bending that occurs at the interfaces above the point
diffractor.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1223

FIG. 8.0-9. The response of a point diffractor buried in a

FIG. 8.0-8. The response of a point diffractor buried in a
constant-velocity medium (top frame) is a hyperbola (mid-
dle frame). Time migration (bottom frame) is adequate in
imaging this diffractor. The arrows indicate the surface pro-
jection of the true lateral position of the diffractor.
layered medium (top frame) is approximately a hyperbola
(middle frame). Time migration (bottom frame) still is ad-
equate for imaging the diffractor. The arrows indicate the
surface projection of the true lateral position of the diffrac-
tor.
1224 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.0-10. The response of a point diffractor buried in FIG. 8.0-11. The response of a point diffractor buried in a
a layered medium as in Figure 8.0-9 is nearly equivalent to medium with strong lateral velocity variation (top frame) is
the response of another point diffractor buried in a constant- a skewed hyperbola with its apex shifted to the left of the
velocity medium (top frame), where the constant velocity is true position. Time migration no longer is a valid process;
the rms value of the layered velocity function at the depth instead, depth migration is needed.
of the original diffractor as in Figure 8.0-9. Traveltimes as-
sociated with the zero-offset sections in Figures 8.0-9 and
8.0-10 depart from one another only at the very far flanks
of the diffraction curve. Time migration (bottom frame) is
adequate for imaging the scatterer.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1225

FIG. 8.0-12. The response of a point diffractor buried in
a medium with mild to moderate lateral velocity variation
(top frame) is a slightly skewed hyperbola with its apex
shifted to the left of the true position. Time migration still
can be an acceptable way to image the diffractor.
FIG. 8.0-13. The response of a point diffractor buried in
a medium with severe lateral velocity variation (top frame)
is a distorted traveltime curve that implies false structural
features. Time migration no longer is acceptable; instead
depth migration is imperative.
1226 Seismic Data Analysis
From Figure 8.0-11, note that the apex of the
skewed traveltime trajectory A coincides with the sur-
face position of the ray that emerges vertically. This
special ray is called the image ray, and it was first rec-
ognized by Hubral (1977). The image ray associated
with the point diffractor in Figure 8.0-11 is roughly at
midpoint 200. The diffractor itself is located beneath
midpoint 240. Therefore, the lateral shift is equivalent
to 40 midpoints.
There is no lateral shift for the horizontally layered
earth model (Figure 8.0-9), since there is no lateral ve-
locity variation. The image ray in this case emerges at
the surface location of CMP 240 coincident with that
of the diffractor. For a mild to moderate lateral veloc-
ity variation, as in Figure 8.0-12, the lateral shift is less
than 10 midpoints. For some objectives, this small lat-
eral shift and the complete focusing may not be critical;
therefore, time migration may be acceptable in lieu of
depth migration. In those cases, the coefficient of the
thin-lens term is negligibly small, which is why we of-
ten can get away with time migration in areas of mild
to moderate lateral velocity variations.
The imaging problem is complicated when the over-
burden is as complex as that in Figure 8.0-13. Here,
because of the bowties, a distorted diffraction travel-
time trajectory indicates a false structure. The result-
ing complexity can give rise to more than one image
ray. In this case, three image rays emerge at around
midpoints 160, 250, and 370. Time migration fails here
and imaging of this scatterer can only be achieved by
depth migration.
We studied some examples of lateral velocity vari-
ations in Figures 8.0-8 through 8.0-13. The image ray
behavior and the quality of focusing determine whether
time or depth migration should be performed. If the
starting and end points of the image ray have the same
CMP location (Figure 8.0-9), only time migration is
needed. A small amount of lateral deviation of the im-
age ray (Figure 8.0-12) usually implies a well-focused
time migration result and hence, a good representation
of the geometric form of the subsurface. Large image-ray
deviations imply grossly incorrect focusing, thus requir-
ing depth migration rather than time migration (Figure
8.0-11). Finally, if more than one image ray is associated
with a subsurface point (Figure 8.0-13), depth migra-
tion is imperative.
These observations on the point diffractor models
are extended to a velocity-depth model that involves
the reflecting interfaces in Figure 8.0-13. The image rays
associated with this model are shown in Figure 8.0-14.
There is no deviation from the vertical along the image
rays down to horizon 2. Therefore, depth migration is
not needed to image this horizon. On the other hand,
the image rays significantly deviate from the vertical
as they travel down to horizons 3 and 4. For example,
the image ray starting at CMP location 140 reaches
horizon 4 approximately beneath CMP location 180; a
lateral shift of 40 midpoints. Proper imaging of these
two horizons is achievable only by depth migration.
From Figure 8.0-11, note that time migration col-
lapses the energy to apex A of the diffraction curve
that coincides with the image ray location at the sur-
face. In principle, the time migration output then can
be converted to depth along the image rays, rather than
along the vertical rays (Hubral, 1977). Mapping along
the image rays performs some of the action that is asso-
ciated with the thin-lens term. Remember that at each
downward-continuation step, the action of the thin-lens
term is equivalent to a time shift that depends on spa-
tial velocity variation. Since the thin-lens and diffrac-
tion terms are applied in an alternate manner as the
wavefield is downward continued in depth, the effects of
these two terms are strongly coupled when the lateral
velocity variation is as severe as shown in Figure 8.0-13.
When lateral velocity variation is moderate to
strong, these two terms can, in principle, be sepa-
rated and applied consecutively without significant er-
ror (Larner et al., 1981). Full separation implies that
a correction for the effects of the thin-lens term can
be done either before or after time migration. If the
correction is done after time migration, image-ray map-
ping should be used. If the correction is done before
time migration, mapping using vertical time shifts usu-
ally is applied. In practice, a correction before time mi-
gration often performs better, since it tends to provide
a better focused migration result. Nevertheless, all of
the above conjectures are related only to now outdated
migration algorithms since contemporary implementa-
tions of depth migration algorithms are based on split-
ting, and not separation, of the diffraction and thin-
lens terms (Sections D.3 and D.4). It is not a common
practice to correct for the effect of the thin-lens term
by time-to-depth conversion of time-migrated data us-
ing image rays. However, it is a common practice to do
time-to-depth conversion of time horizons interpreted
from time-migrated data by using image rays (Section
9.4).
8.1 LAYER REPLACEMENT
In this section, we demonstrate that the problem of a
complex overburden that involves only one layer bound-
ary, such as an irregular water bottom, at which sig-
nificant ray bending takes place can sometimes be ad-
dressed by prestack layer replacement followed by NMO
correction, CMP stacking, and poststack time migra-
tion. In both cases, the approaches are based on the
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1227

FIG. 8.0-14. Image rays through the velocity-depth model in Figure 8.0-13. Note the deviation of the image rays from the
vertical as they travel through the complex structure.
1228 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.1-1. (a) Velocity contrast between the overburden and the substratum causes raypath bending at the interface between
the two. (b) Replacing the overburden velocity with the velocity of the substratum eliminates raypath bending.

philosophy of revising velocity estimates and obtaining
an improved unmigrated stacked section.
Consider the velocity-depth model in Figure 8.1-
1a. Note that complex geometry of the boundary (hori-
zon 2) between the overburden and the substratum and
the significant velocity contrast across this boundary
cause the severe ray bending. This in turn causes dis-
tortions and disruptions of the underlying target reflec-
tions. Without the velocity contrast (Figure 8.1-1b), the
rays would not bend and there would be no need for
depth migration. Figure 8.1-1 suggests that replacing
the overburden velocity with the substratum velocity
can be a viable alternative to using depth migration
to remove the deleterious effects of a complex overbur-
den, such as an irregular water-bottom topography, on
the substrata. This technique is known as layer replace-
ment.
A technique for layer replacement (Yilmaz and Lu-
cas, 1986) based on wave-equation datuming (Berry-
hill, 1979, 1984) is presented here. Berryhill’s datuming
technique involves extrapolating a known wavefield at
a specified datum of arbitrary shape to another datum,
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1229

FIG. 8.1-2. Layer replacement by Kirchhoff summation. (a) Input zero-offset section (at datum level z = 0) based on a
velocity-depth model consisting of three point scatterers buried at depths of 800, 1300, and 1900 m. Interval velocities are
indicated on the right side of the section. (b) Step 1: Downward continuation of the wavefield from z = 0 to datum level
z = 800 m using a velocity of 2000 m/s. (c) Step 2: Upward continuation of (b) back to z = 0 using a velocity of 2500 m/s.
(d) The zero-offset section derived independently using interval velocities that are indicated on the left side of the section.
This section should be compared to (c).

also of arbitrary shape. Wave extrapolation is per-
formed using the Kirchhoff integral solution to the
scalar wave equation. It incorporates both the near-field
and far-field terms (Section H.1). The velocity used in
extrapolation is that of the medium confined between
the input datum and the output datum.
Wave-Equation Datuming
Figure 8.1-2 shows a simple case of datuming. A zero-
offset section is computed over three point scatterers
buried beneath midpoint location A in a medium with
the layered velocity structure as denoted between Fig-
ures 8.1-2a and b. The point diffractors are situated at
the layer interfaces at 800, 1300, and 1900 m depths.
The traveltime trajectory associated with the shallow
point diffractor is a hyperbola. The traveltimes associ-
ated with the deeper diffractors are nearly hyperbolic
(Section 3.1).
Extrapolate the zero-offset wavefield at z = 0 (Fig-
ure 8.1-2a) using the velocity of the first layer (2000
m/s) and compute the wavefield at the first interface,
z = 800 m. The result is shown in Figure 8.1-2b. As ex-
pected, the hyperbola associated with the shallow point
scatterer largely collapses to its apex since this scatterer
is located at the first interface. Because the receivers
now are closer to the other two deeper scatterers, events
associated with them also are compressed. Figure 8.1-
2b shows the zero-offset section that would have been
recorded if the receivers were placed along the first in-
terface. The energy from the shallow point scatterer on
this section now arrives at t = 0 because the datum
for this section is the interface at which the scatterer is
located.
Now, extrapolate the wavefield at the first inter-
face (z = 800 m) shown in Figure 8.1-2b back up to
the surface (z = 0) using the velocity of the second
layer (2500 m/s). Figure 8.1-2c shows the result, which
is compared to the zero-offset section in Figure 8.1-2d.
The latter was derived independently from the velocity-
depth model denoted between Figures 8.1-2c and d.
With this two-step wave extrapolation, the first layer
with the 2000-m/s velocity was replaced with the sec-
ond layer with the 2500-m/s velocity.
1230 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.1-3. Poststack layer replacement involves two steps. Step 1: The zero-offset section (a) is extrapolated down to the
water bottom (horizon 2 in Figure 8.1-1a) using the water velocity. Section (b) is obtained when the receivers are placed
along the water bottom. Step 2: This intermediate wavefield is extrapolated back up to the surface using the velocity of the
stratum below the water bottom (2000 m/s). The resulting zero-offset section (c) can be compared against the zero-offset
section derived independently (d) using the same velocity-depth model as in Figure 8.1-1a, except the overburden velocity is
the same as that of the substratum (2000 m/s) as shown in Figure 8.1-1b.

In principle, wave-equation datuming can be per-
formed by any extrapolation method based on phase-
shift, finite-difference, or Kirchhoff summation tech-
niques. Nevertheless, the Kirchhoff summation is more
convenient in handling datum surfaces with arbitrary
shapes.
It is important to distinguish between datuming
and migration. Datuming produces an unmigrated time
section at a specified datum z(x), which can be arbi-
trary in shape. Migration involves computing the wave-
field at all depths from the wavefield at the surface. In
this respect, datuming is an ingredient of migration,
when migration is done as a downward-continuation
process. In addition to downward continuation, migra-
tion, of course, requires invoking the imaging principle
(t = 0) (Section 4.1).
Wave-equation datuming has several practical ap-
plications — horizon flattening, forward modeling of
seismic wavefields, and layer replacement. These are
performed in either the prestack or poststack mode.
The main difference between the two implementations
is that the velocity must be halved when doing post-
stack datuming to conform to the exploding reflectors
model (Section 4.0). Horizon flattening involves down-
ward continuing from one marker horizon to another.
When this is done successively for all marker horizons
in a section, the technique is useful in reconstructing the
past structural history in a given survey area (Taner et
al., 1982). Seismic modeling involves a series of upward
continuations through a specified set of velocity inter-
faces starting at the bottom of the model and ending at
the top. An example is provided in Section K.1.
Poststack Layer Replacement
Now consider another practical application of wave-
equation datuming to 2-D surface seismic data — re-
moving the degrading effect of an irregular water-
bottom topography on the continuity and geometry of
reflections below. This problem is particularly severe in
areas with a strong velocity contrast between the water
layer and the substratum. Despite the usual 3-D nature
of the problem, the 2-D interpretation of the target re-
 Earth Imaging in Depth
FIG. 8.1-4. (a) A modeled common-shot gather from the
complicated part of the velocity-depth model in Figure 8.1-
1a before (a) and after (b) layer replacement. Limitations in
modeling with ray tracing cause abrupt terminations along
the moveout curves and amplitude glitches in (a). In turn,
these caused the spurious diffractions in (b) during the up-
ward continuation steps.
flections often can be improved by replacing the velocity
of the water layer with the velocity of the substratum.
Consider the zero-offset section shown in Figure
8.1-3a based on the velocity-depth model shown in Fig-
ure 8.1-1a. Poststack layer replacement involves two ex-
trapolation steps:
(a) The first step in poststack layer replacement in-
volves downward continuing the wavefield at the
surface (Figure 8.1-3a) to the water bottom (hori-
zon 2 in Figure 8.1-1a) using the water velocity in
extrapolation. The intermediate result is shown in
Figure 8.1-3b. Note that in this horizon-flattened
section, the water-bottom reflection is at t = 0,
which means that all receivers are situated on the
irregular water bottom. If we specified the overbur-
den velocity or the water-bottom topography incor-
rectly, then the water-bottom reflection would not
be at t = 0. In this respect, the intermediate sec-
tion becomes a useful diagnostic tool before moving
to the next step. In fact, wave-equation datuming
actually can be applied layer by layer for struc-
tural model restoration. At each layer boundary, by
examining the flatness of the event at t = 0 and
1231
observing any arrival-time departures of the event
from t = 0, the validity of an estimated velocity-
depth model can be verified.
(b) The second step in poststack layer replacement
involves upward continuation of the intermediate
wavefield (Figure 8.1-3b) back to the surface z = 0
using the velocity of the substratum (2000 m/s).
Figure 8.1-3c is the zero-offset section at z = 0
after layer replacement.
A zero-offset section was created from the same
velocity-depth model (Figure 8.1-1a) as for Figure 8.1-
3a, except that the first layer velocity was set to 2000
m/s (Figure 8.1-1b). Compare this zero-offset section as
shown in Figure 8.1-3d with the output of layer replace-
ment as shown in Figure 8.1-3c, and note that the two
sections are largely equivalent. Both layer replacement
and depth migration are processes aimed at removing
the effects of the complex overburden. However, note
that layer replacement only requires accurate represen-
tation of the overburden (horizon 2 in Figure 8.1-1a),
while depth migration requires accurate representation
of the entire velocity-depth model (Figure 8.1-1a). Also
note that the output from depth migration is a migrated
depth section, while the output from layer replacement
is an unmigrated time section (Figure 8.1-3c). After
eliminating the complex overburden effect, this section
only requires time migration.
Prestack Layer Replacement
As with depth migration, layer replacement after stack
can remove the effect of a complex overburden, pro-
vided the input section accurately represents a zero-
offset section. However, the complex overburden causes
raypath distortions that generate anomalous, nonhy-
perbolic moveout patterns in prestack data. Poststack
depth migration does not produce a completely accu-
rate image of the subsurface, even when the velocity-
depth model is known accurately. Similarly, poststack
layer replacement does not remove the effect of complex
overburden entirely, even if its geometry is known ac-
curately, because the input stacked section differs from
the zero-offset section. Nevertheless, based on simple
ray tracing we can determine whether poststack layer
replacement can delineate the underlying structure. If
the effort yields unsatisfactory results, layer replace-
ment should be performed before stack.
Complex moveout is evident in the modeled
common-shot and CMP gathers in Figures 8.1-4a and
8.1-5a, respectively. These gathers were modeled from
the velocity-depth model in Figure 8.1-1a by using ray
1232 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 8.1-5. (a) A modeled CMP gather and (b) velocity
spectrum from the complicated part of the velocity-depth
model in Figure 8.1-1a before layer replacement, (c) the
same gather as in (a) and (d) velocity spectrum after layer
replacement.
tracing that neither includes diffractions nor properly
modeled amplitudes. The offset range is 50 to 2387.5 m
with 12.5-m receiver spacing. A total of 437 shot gathers
was generated, each with 192 traces. The coverage is
uniform along the line and is 96-fold.
Starting with the common-shot gathers, prestack
layer replacement involves the following steps:
(a) Downward continue all receivers to the output da-
tum using the overburden velocity.
(b) Sort the data to common receiver gathers.
(c) Downward continue all shots to the same output
datum using the overburden velocity.
(d) Upward continue all shots back to the surface using
the velocity of the substratum.
(e) Sort the data back to common-shot gathers.
(f) Upward continue all receivers back to the surface
using the substratum velocity.
This series of operations eliminates the traveltime
distortions associated with the water bottom, as seen
in the common-shot and CMP gathers (Figures 8.1-4b
and 8.1-5c, respectively). Despite the undesirable effects
caused by the limitations of modeling with ray trac-
ing, the complexity of the reflections associated with
the two events (horizons 3 and 4 in Figure 8.1-1a) was
reduced by layer replacement. Once the complex over-
burden effect is removed, these events have the hyper-
bolic moveout as seen in Figure 8.1-4b. Events A, B,
and C are associated with horizons 2, 3, and 4, respec-
tively, as shown in Figure 8.1-1a. Note that horizon 3
is flat. Therefore, the apex of the hyberbola is at the
near-offset trace (event B). On the other hand, horizon
4 dips down to the right (Figure 8.1-1a). Therefore, the
apex of the hyberbola shifts up-dip (as indicated by the
arrow in Figure 8.1-4b).
Compare the velocity spectra in Figures 8.1-5b and
d, and note the improvement in the velocity estimates
after layer replacement for reflections beneath the com-
plex overburden. The velocity analysis before layer re-
placement yields a good pick for the water-bottom re-
flection A. However, picks B and C, which are associ-
ated with the deeper layers (horizons 3 and 4 in Figure
8.1-1a), are not distinct. Similarly, events B and C also
are indistinct on the maximum correlation curve plot-
ted on the right side of the velocity spectrum (Figure
8.1-5b). After layer replacement (Figure 8.1-5d), note
that the picks (denoted by ×) associated with the three
events are distinct in the velocity spectrum and the cor-
relation curve. The dipping water-bottom reflection A
now has considerably higher moveout velocity, 2300 m/s
(Figure 8.1-5d), as compared to the original velocity
1600 m/s (Figure 8.1-5b). The velocity pick for the flat
event B from Figure 8.1-5d is 2000 m/s, which is the
velocity of the medium above this reflector after layer
replacement.
Just as it is true for any wave extrapolation-based
process, the wave-theoretical layer replacement tech-
nique described here suffers from spatial aliasing. With
modern data acquisition, we can record with many
channels at small shot and group intervals. Therefore,
spatial aliasing should not be an issue with more recent
data. With this provision, prestack layer replacement
followed by poststack time migration is a practical al-
ternative to depth migration before stack in areas where
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1233

FIG. 8.1-6. (a) Velocity-depth model derived from the constant-velocity (1475 m/s) Stolt migration of the CMP stack in
Figure 8.0-3a. (b) The stacked section in Figure 8.0-3a after extrapolating from the surface to the water bottom [Horizon 1
in (a)] using the water velocity. The water-bottom reflection is at t = 0. This is the first step in poststack layer replacement.
(c) Upward continuation of the wavefield in (b) from the water bottom back to the surface using the substratum velocity just
below the water bottom. This is the second step in poststack layer replacement. (d) Time migration of the section in (c). The
replaced water layer has a velocity of 2500 m/s.
1234 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.1-7. Steps involved in prestack layer replacement. These shot gathers are associated with the stacked data in Figure
8.0-3a. The near-surface model is shown in Figure 8.1-6a. (0) Common-shot gathers at the surface, (1) downward continuation
of receivers to the water bottom with v = 1475 m/s, (2) downward continuation of shots to the water bottom with v = 1475
m/s, (3) upward continuation of shots to the surface with v = 2500 m/s, (4) upward continuation of receivers to the surface
with v = 2500 m/s.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1235

FIG. 8.1-8. CMP gathers associated with common-shot gathers from steps 0 and 4 in Figure 8.1-7 (a) before and (b) after
layer replacement.
1236 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.1-9. Velocity analysis in the vicinity of midpoint C in Figure 8.0-3a (a) before and (b) after layer replacement.

FIG. 8.1-10. (a) CMP stack derived from the gathers (Figure 8.1-8b) after layer replacement. Compare this with the
conventional stack and poststack layer replacement results in Figures 8.0-3a and 8.1-6c, respectively. (b) Time migration of
the stacked section in (a). Compare this with time migration of the poststack layer replacement result in Figure 8.1-6d.
 Earth Imaging in Depth
simple geology is overlain by a single-layer overburden
with a strong lateral velocity variation, such as an ir-
regular water bottom.
The mathematical details of wavefield extrapola-
tion based on the Kirchhoff integral are given in Sec-
tion H.1. For poststack layer replacement, we assume
that the stack is a zero-offset section. A zero-offset sec-
tion is equivalent to the exploding reflectors model, pro-
vided the medium velocity is halved (Section 4.0). We
assume that sources already are situated along the re-
flectors in the subsurface. Thus, we only need to move
the receivers from one datum to another during down-
ward and upward continuation steps. For prestack layer
replacement, each common-shot and common-receiver
gather is extrapolated, independently. In particular, the
wavefield at a point on the output datum is computed
using all the traces in the input gather. The output
gather should be computed beyond the lateral extent
of the input gather to prevent possible loss of steeply
dipping events. For prestack layer replacement, the ve-
locity used in the extrapolation is that of the medium
between the input datum and the output datum.
Field Data Example
Now consider the field data example in Figure 8.0-3a.
Layer replacement will be done on these data before
and after stack to remove the effect of the irregular wa-
ter bottom. First, we must define the geometry of the
overburden, in this case, the water-bottom topography.
Since the overburden velocity is constant (1475 m/s), we
migrate the CMP-stacked section (Figure 8.0-3a) using
the constant-velocity Stolt method, digitize the water
bottom, and convert it to depth as shown in Figure 8.1-
6a.
First, consider poststack layer replacement. We
downward continue the CMP stack (Figure 8.0-3a) by
using the water velocity from the surface to the wa-
ter bottom defined in Figure 8.1-6a to get the horizon-
flattened section in Figure 8.1-6b. As usual, we as-
sume that the CMP stack is a zero-offset wavefield. The
water-bottom reflection is approximately flat and is sit-
uated at t = 0, which indicates that the velocity-depth
model for the water layer in Figure 8.1-6a is fairly ac-
curate. Although incorrect in shape, substratum reflec-
tions are quite continuous on this section, indicating
that we achieve a focusing effect by downward extrap-
olation. The bottom of the section reflects the mirror
image of the water-bottom topography.
The next step is to take this wavefield back to the
surface, this time using the velocity of the substratum
(2500 m/s). Luckily, the velocity derived from the seis-
mic data is fairly constant across the section for the
1237
substratum. The section after upward continuation is
the result of layer replacement and is shown in Figure
8.1-6c. After eliminating the effect of the complex over-
burden, only time migration is needed to image this
section (Figure 8.1-6d).
The results of prestack layer replacement now are
examined. Starting with the common-shot gathers and
using the velocity-depth model in Figure 8.1-6a, we per-
form downward and upward continuations of common-
shot and common-receiver gathers. The intermediate
steps for selected common-shot gathers are shown se-
quentially in Figure 8.1-7. Note the arrival time of the
water-bottom reflection at t = 0 on the gathers in step 2
after downward continuing both the shots and receivers
to the water bottom.
A selected set of CMP gathers before and after
layer replacement, sorted from the shot gathers in steps
0 and 4, respectively, is shown in Figure 8.1-8. Because
the data contain strong diffracted multiples, it is diffi-
cult to evaluate the layer replacement results. As in any
other one-way extrapolation technique, wave-equation
datuming treats multiples as primaries. From the veloc-
ity analysis in Figure 8.1-9, we are encouraged by the
picking we can do on the velocity spectrum after layer
replacement. However, the stack has the final say and
is shown in Figure 8.1-10a. Again, once time-migrated
(Figure 8.1-10b), the result of layer replacement should
provide an accurate image of the substratum, free from
the effects of complex overburden (compare Figure 8.1-
10b with Figures 8.0-3d and 8.1-6d).
The interpretation of the unconformity T from the
results of prestack layer replacement (Figure 8.1-10b)
closely agrees with the proposed velocity-depth model
in Figure 8.0-3c. The unconformity is continuous be-
neath midpoint C, where there is a structural high. Be-
low and to the left of midpoint A, the unconformity
extends down to the right with some tensional faults
into the ancient continental shelf below midpoint B,
then finally extends to the continental slope of that age
to the right of the structural high below midpoint C.
The present-day situation is just the opposite, with the
continental shelf on the right. Note that shallow reflec-
tor R now is conformable with the rest of the shallow
section above the unconformity.
For the irregular water-bottom case, it was shown
that prestack layer replacement followed by NMO cor-
rection, stack, and time migration after stack with
depth conversion basically is equivalent to depth migra-
tion before stack. The situation may be more compli-
cated when dealing with a complex overburden problem
that involves more than one interface. In principle, da-
tuming can be applied layer by layer and the effect of
the overburden can be removed. Nevertheless, there is
1238 Seismic Data Analysis
no practical alternative to depth migration under those
circumstances.
8.2 2-D POSTSTACK DEPTH MIGRATION
Figure 8.2-1 shows a velocity-depth model for a salt
pillow. The aspect ratio of the horizontal and vertical
axes is 1; hence, the diagram exhibits the true shape
of the diapiric structure. The model can be treated in
three parts — the constant-velocity overburden above
the salt, the salt diapir itself, and the substratum that
includes the flat reflector below. So far as the flat reflec-
tor is concerned, the salt diapir constitutes a complex
overburden structure with strong lateral velocity varia-
tions. Note the significant velocity contrast across the
top-salt boundary and the undulating reflector geome-
try of the base-salt boundary — both give rise to ray
bending that can only be handled by imaging in depth.
A total of 154 shot records were modeled along the
lateral extent of the velocity-depth model in Figure 8.2-
1 using the two-way acoustic wave equation. Shot and
receiver group intervals both are 50 m, and the trace
spacings of the CMP-stacked and zero-offset sections are
25 and 50 m, respectively. In Figure 8.2-1, the velocity-
depth model, the CMP-stacked and zero-offset sections
have been displayed with the correct lateral position
with respect to one another. Note the focusing and de-
focusing of the reflection amplitudes associated with the
base-salt boundary on the zero-offset and CMP-stacked
sections.
Selected shot records are shown in Figure 8.2-2.
Each shot record consists of 97 channels associated with
a split-spread geometry. The shot interval is 50 m and
the receiver group interval is 50 m. The maximum off-
set is 2350 m. Note the complexity of reflection times on
shot records located over the salt diapir and the vari-
ations in reflection amplitudes caused by the focusing
and defocusing of rays.
The complexity of reflection traveltimes surpris-
ingly is not as apparent on the CMP gathers (Figure 8.2-
3) as it is on the shot records (Figure 8.2-2), although
variations in reflection amplitudes can be observed with
ease. CMP stacking, however, clearly shows the effect
of nonhyperbolic moveout (Figure 8.2-1). Compare with
the zero-offset section and note the traveltime and am-
plitude distortions on the CMP-stacked section. Depar-
ture of the stacked section from the true zero-offset sec-
tion imposes a limitation on the accuracy of the image
we get from poststack depth migration.
We now closely examine the degree of ray bending
at layer boundaries in the salt diapir model. Shown in
Figure 8.2-4 are the normal-incidence rays from each of
the three layer boundaries — top-salt, base-salt and the
flat reflector below, and the computed zero-offset trav-
eltimes. Superposition of the modeled traveltime tra-
jectories yields the zero-offset traveltime section associ-
ated with the velocity-depth model as shown in Figure
8.2-4. The zero-offset section in Figure 8.2-1 represents
a modeled zero-offset wavefield, whereas the zero-offset
section in Figure 8.2-4 represents a modeled zero-offset
traveltime profile.
Image Rays and Lateral Velocity Variations
Normal-incidence rays are associated with zero-offset
traveltimes and therefore can be used to examine the de-
gree of complexity in velocity-depth models as demon-
strated in Figure 8.2-4. For a quantitative assessment
of lateral velocity variations, however, image rays need
to be examined as shown in Figure 8.2-5. By definition,
image rays emerge at the right angle to the surface.
As shown in Figure 8.0-11, the lateral shift between the
point of departure of the image ray at the reflector posi-
tion and the point of emergence of the image ray at the
surface provides a measure of lateral velocity variation.
Consider the image rays departing from the top-
salt layer boundary in Figure 8.2-5. These rays show no
lateral shift, and therefore, imaging the top-salt bound-
ary does not require depth migration; instead, it can
be achieved by time migration. The image rays from
the base-salt boundary, however, show significant lat-
eral shifts, especially beneath the flanks of the diapir.
The stronger the lateral velocity variations, the more
the lateral shifts in image rays. This behavior of the
image rays indicate that the lateral velocity variations
caused by the salt diapir require depth migration to
image the base-salt boundary, accurately.
The image rays associated with the flat reflector
below the salt diapir also show significant lateral shifts
(Figure 8.2-5). Again, this reflector can only be imaged
accurately by depth migration, rather than time migra-
tion. Note that image rays do not sample the reflector
boundaries uniformly — there are regions that contain
densely and sparsely populated image rays.
In principal, an earth image in depth can be ob-
tained by first migrating a stacked section in time, then
converting the time-migrated section to depth along
image rays using the appropriate velocity-depth model
(Hubral, 1977; Larner et al., 1981). This ray-theoretical
two-step depth migration to obtain an earth image in
depth is rarely used in practice. However, it is common
practice to perform time-to-depth conversion of time
(text continues on p. 1244)
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1239

FIG. 8.2-1. (Top) An earth model in depth with a salt diapir; (middle) CMP-stacked section derived from the modeled
prestack data in Figure 8.2-3; (bottom) the modeled zero-offset section. The stacked and zero-offset sections are appropriately
aligned in the lateral direction with respect to the earth model above. Trace spacings in the stacked and zero-offset sections
are 25 m and 50 m, respectively. No amplitude scaling has been applied to the sections. The aspect ratio of the horizontal
and vertical axes in the velocity-depth model is 1.
1240 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-2. A selection of modeled common-shot gathers associated with the earth model in Figure 8.2-1. Numbers on top
represent the nearest CMP location. No amplitude scaling has been applied to the data.
Earth Imaging in Depth 1241
1242 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-4. (Left column) Velocity-depth model as in Figure 8.2-1 with normal-incidence rays from each of the layer bound-
aries; (right column) corresponding zero-offset traveltimes. The bottom-right frame shows the superposition of the zero-offset
traveltimes associated with the three layer boundaries. The vertical axis in the traveltime sections is two-way zero-offset time.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1243

FIG. 8.2-5. Image rays associated with the salt diapir model in Figure 8.2-1.
1244 Seismic Data Analysis
horizons using image rays. Specifically, 3-D volume of
stacked data first is migrated in time and selected time
horizons are interpreted. These time horizons are then
converted to depth horizons along image rays, again,
using an appropriate velocity-depth model. Creating
depth structure maps using this procedure is called map
migration.
In conclusion, by examining the behavior of image
rays through the salt diapir model, we can judge as to
which layer boundary requires imaging in depth (Fig-
ure 8.2-5). The image rays down to the top-salt bound-
ary are not distorted laterally; therefore, time migra-
tion is adequte for imaging the overburden above the
salt diapir. Singificant ray bending, however, takes place
at the top-salt boundary; this results in lateral distor-
tions of the image rays down to the base-salt boundary
and the deeper reflector. Depth migration, therefore, is
needed for accurate imaging of the base-salt boundary
and the subsalt region.
Time versus Depth Migration
We continue our discussion with the salt diapir model
data. Figure 8.2-6 shows time and depth migrations of
the zero-offset section associated with the salt diapir
model shown in Figure 8.2-1. Ignore the dispersive noise
in the vicinity of the top-salt event on the migrated sec-
tions; this is caused by the differencing approximations
made to the differential operators in the implicit scheme
used here. While the top-salt boundary is imaged ac-
curately by both time and depth migration, note the
overmigration exhibited by the base-salt and the deeper
event in the time-migrated section. Depth migration, on
the other hand, images these two reflectors, accurately,
if the velocity-depth model input to depth migration is
the true model as in the case of Figure 8.2-6. Although
we used the true velocity-depth model, time migration
produced the incorrect image of the base-salt boundary
and the subsalt region. Time migration algorithms do
not include the term that accounts for strong lateral ve-
locity variations as manifested by the image rays shown
in Figure 8.2-5. On the other hand, depth migration al-
gorithms include this term and thus are able to correct
for the lateral shift in image rays.
Figure 8.2-7 shows time and depth migrations of
the CMP-stacked section associated with the salt di-
apir model shown in Figure 8.2-1. Again, the top-salt
boundary is imaged accurately by both time and depth
migration. As expected, however, time migration fails to
produce a correct image of the base-salt boundary and
the deeper reflector. Note that even depth migration
fails to image these two reflectors with sufficient accu-
racy, although the velocity-depth model input to depth
migration was the true model. Note, for instance, the
subtle distortions on the base-salt event and the not-
so-flat reflector in the depth-migrated section. This is
a direct consequence of the fact that the CMP-stacked
section is only a close representation of the zero-offset
wavefield in the presence of strong lateral velocity vari-
ations associated with complex overburden structures.
Since poststack migration algorithms are based on the
zero-offset wavefield theory (Section 4.1), application of
zero-offset migration to a CMP-stacked section would
produce less-than-ideal results. To circumvent this defi-
ciency in CMP stacking, and to correctly image the sub-
stratum that includes the base-salt boundary and the
flat reflector, strictly, one needs to do prestack depth
migration. Prestack depth migration is reviewed in the
next section; however, for comparison, results of the
zero-offset, poststack and prestack depth migrations are
shown in Figure 8.2-8. Note that prestack depth migra-
tion produces an image that is free of the distortions
observed on the image produced by poststack depth
migration. Imaging accuracy is similar to that of the
zero-offset section.
A way to minimize departure of a stacked section
from a zero-offset section — that is, to minimize trav-
eltime and amplitude distortions caused by nonhyper-
bolic moveout during CMP stacking, is to use partial
stacking. Figure 8.2-9 shows a portion of a full-fold
CMP-stacked section that contains a salt diapir struc-
ture. (The CMP fold is 30.) Note the spurious horst-like
structure at the base-salt boundary B. This data set is
from the Red Sea where such structures are common.
Hence, at first, this horst structure appears to be ge-
ologically plausable. Note, however, the horst block at
the base-salt is replaced with a continuous event on the
single-fold near-offset section. What may seem to be a
horst block actually is no more than a manifestation
of amplitude and traveltime distortions caused by the
full-fold stacking that spans the entire offset range of
the recorded data. The conclusion we can draw from
this observation is that it is not necessarily the full-fold
stack, but the near-offset section that better resembles
a zero-offset section. Hence, it is the near-offset section,
and not the full-fold section, that is an appropriate in-
put to poststack depth migration. An immediate ob-
jection to this conclusion is that the near-offset section
contains a significant amount of multiple energy that
was naturally attenuated during CMP stacking by way
of velocity discrimination between primaries and mul-
tiples. Also, note the loss of continuity of the base-salt
event on the near-offset section; in contrast, CMP stack-
ing improves the signal-to-noise ratio. A way to benefit
from the power of CMP stacking to attenuate multiples
and improve the signal-to-noise ratio while circumvent-
ing the nonhyperbolic moveout effect is to do partial
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1245

FIG. 8.2-6. Time and depth migrations of the zero-offset section associated with the salt diapir model. Trace spacing is 50
m, which in this case, gives rise to some spatial aliasing noise along the steep flanks of the salt diapir as seen on the migrated
sections.
1246 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-7. Time and depth migrations of the CMP-stacked section associated with the salt diapir model. Trace spacing is
25 m.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1247

FIG. 8.2-8. Depth migrations of the zero-offset, CMP-stacked, and prestack data associated with the salt diapir model using
the correct velocity-depth model.

stacking. By a simple series of tests, one can judge as
to what portion of the cable — near offsets, mid-range
offsets or far offsets, provides this optimum stack as in-
put to poststack depth migration. It is important to
note that, while poststack depth migration may require
a stack based on a subset of offsets, prestack depth mi-
gration requires all offsets.
We must remind ourselves that an accurate im-
age from depth migration is attainable only when the
velocity-depth model is correctly defined, independent
of the input data type — zero-offset, stack, or prestack.
Figure 8.2-10 shows results of the zero-offset, post- and
prestack depth migrations of the salt diapir model data
using an incorrect velocity-depth model. An incorrect
velocity-depth model causes a poor image produced by
not just poststack depth migration, but also by zero-
offset and prestack depth migration.
Iterative Depth Migration
Historically, depth migration has been used in an it-
erative manner to obtain an earth image in depth
from CMP-stacked data. When performed iteratively,
depth migration is done using an initial velocity-
depth model and the result is interpreted for the layer
boundaries included in the model. The velocity-depth
model then is modified accordingly and depth migration
1248 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-9. A portion of a full-fold CMP-stacked section (top), the near-offset section (middle), and partial-fold CMP-stacked
section (bottom) in which the nearest one-third of the cable was used. B is the base-salt event.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1249

FIG. 8.2-10. Depth migrations of the zero-offset, CMP-stacked, and prestack data associated with the salt diapir model
using an incorrect velocity-depth model.

is performed once more. The process is continued until
convergence is achieved.
Convergence means that what is input to depth
migration as the velocity-depth model matches with
the velocity-depth model inferred from the output from
depth migration. With iterative depth migration, we
know that we have achieved convergence when differ-
ences between the velocity-depth models from two con-
secutive iterations are minimal. We shall demonstrate
that, by way of convergence, the final velocity-depth
model from iterative depth migration, albeit not guar-
anteed to be accurate, can be made at least consistent
with the input data. Consistency means that the mod-
eled zero-offset traveltimes match with the observed
reflection traveltimes on the stacked data associated
with the layer boundaries included in the velocity-depth
model. Convergence and consistency are the two neces-
sary, but not sufficient, conditions for an earth model
to be certified as a valid, geologically plausable solu-
tion from seismic inversion. For a velocity-depth model
to be valid, a further requirement is that it also needs
to be consistent with prestack data; thus, the strategic
requirement for doing prestack depth migration.
In this section, we shall examine iterative depth
migration for three data types — zero-offset, CMP
stack, and prestack. We shall consider six different
1250 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 8.2-11. Iterative depth migration using the zero-offset section as in Figure 8.2-1 and Model A (same as the true
velocity-depth model as in Figure 8.2-1).
initial velocity-depth models, each having errors in
layer velocities and/or reflector geometries. Conver-
gence rates and the end results for each starting model
will be evaluated and some practical conclusions about
iterative depth migration will be drawn from these ex-
periments.
Iteration with Zero-Offset data
Depth migration of the zero-offset section in Figure 8.2-
1 using Model A shown in Figure 8.2-11 produces an
accurate image of the salt diapir and yields the same
output model as the input model in a single iteration.
This happened because the input data set is the true
zero-offset section and the input velocity-depth model
(Model A in Figure 8.2-11) is the same as the true
velocity-depth model (Figure 8.2-1).
Now consider Model B in Figure 8.2-12 in which the
salt velocity and the base-salt boundary are specified in-
correctly. There are practical reasons behind these de-
liberate errors introduced into the model. In practice,
often the top-salt boundary is determined with reason-
able accuracy by way of time migration. However, ac-
curate delineation of the base-salt boundary is almost
impossible with time migration. Additionally, the salt
velocity may vary because of dolomite or shale intru-
sions, and these variations are often difficult to deter-
mine.
Start with Model B as the initial velocity-depth
model and perform depth migration (Figure 8.2-12).
The result indicates that the geometry of the base-
salt boundary and the flat reflector below has changed
(top of the right column). Interpret all the layer bound-
aries — top-salt, base-salt, and the deeper reflector,
from the result of depth migration and create an up-
dated velocity-depth model (center of the left column).
Use this new model and perform depth migration once
more (center of the right column). Interpret the new im-
age from depth migration, again, for all the three layer
boundaries and obtain an updated velocity-depth model
(bottom of the left column). Finally, perform depth mi-
gration for the third time (bottom of the right column)
and interpret for the three layer boundaries, once more.
After this third iteration, we find that the velocity-
depth model does not change from the previous iter-
ation; hence, convergence is achieved. Nevertheless, the
final solution has converged to a velocity-depth model
that is different from the true model. We conclude from
this experiment that convergence and consistency, al-
beit required for a model to be certified as a valid so-
lution from depth migration, do not guarantee that the
solution is the true model. The result of iterative depth
migration obviously is dictated by the parameters of the
initial velocity-depth model.
Consider now an initial model in which the ge-
ometry of only one reflector — that associated with
the base-salt boundary, is in error while layer ve-
locities are specified correctly (Figure 8.2-13). This
may be possible in practice if there is an abundance
(text continues on p. 1258)
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1251

FIG. 8.2-12. Iterative depth migration using the zero-offset section as in Figure 8.2-1 and Model B that contains errors in
salt velocity and base-salt reflector geometry. For comparison, the true velocity-depth model (Model A in Figure 8.2-11) is
superimposed on the final velocity-depth model (bottom of left column).
1252 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-13. Iterative depth migration using the zero-offset section as in Figure 8.2-1 and Model C that contains errors in
base-salt reflector geometry. For comparison, the true velocity-depth model (Model A in Figure 8.2-11) is superimposed on
the final velocity-depth model (bottom of left column).
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1253

FIG. 8.2-14. Iterative depth migration using the zero-offset section as in Figure 8.2-1 and Model D that contains errors in
salt velocity and base-salt reflector geometry. For comparison, the true velocity-depth model (Model A in Figure 8.2-11) is
superimposed on the final velocity-depth model (bottom of left column).
1254 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-15. Part 1: Iterative depth migration using the zero-offset section as in Figure 8.2-1 and Model E that contains
errors in overburden and salt velocities, and top-salt and base-salt reflector geometries. For comparison, the true velocity-depth
model (Model A in Figure 8.2-11) is superimposed on the final velocity-depth model (bottom of left column).
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1255

FIG. 8.2-15. Part 2: Iterative depth migration using the zero-offset section as in Figure 8.2-1 and Model E that contains
errors in overburden and salt velocities, and top-salt and base-salt reflector geometries. For comparison, the true velocity-depth
model (Model A in Figure 8.2-11) is superimposed on the final velocity-depth model (bottom of left column).
1256 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-16. Iterative depth migration using the zero-offset section as in Figure 8.2-1 and Model F that contains errors
in top-salt and base-salt reflector geometries. For comparison, the true velocity-depth model (Model A in Figure 8.2-11) is
superimposed on the final velocity-depth model (bottom of left column).
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1257

FIG. 8.2-17. Top left: initial velocity-depth model for iterative depth migration; top right: final image from iterative depth
migration; center left: final model from iterative depth migration; center right: true model; bottom left: zero-offset traveltime
section created by forward modeling using normal-incidence rays through the final model (center left) from iterative depth
migration; bottom right: zero-offset wavefield section input to prestack depth migration.
1258 Seismic Data Analysis
of well data in the area of investigation that enables a
reliable specification of layer velocities.
It often is preferable to specify a simple, in this case
a flat reflector, geometry for the base-salt boundary.
We shall let iterative depth migration produce a final
geometry for the base-salt boundary. Now, start with
Model C as the initial velocity-depth model and perform
iterative depth migration (Figure 8.2-13). Convergence
is achieved after three iterations. The final solution has
converged to a velocity-depth model that is fairly close
to the true model. We conclude that true geometry of
reflectors can be recovered by iterative depth migration
provided layer velocities are correctly specified in the
initial velocity-depth model.
The case of Model D shown in Figure 8.2-14 is sim-
ilar to that of Model B (Figure 8.2-12). While the layer
velocity for the salt diapir in Model B has been speci-
fied erroneously too low, it has been specified in Model
D erroneously too high. As a result, the final velocity-
depth model, once again, departs from the true model,
significantly.
Sometimes time migration may yield an inaccurate
image of the top-salt boundary because of the incorrect
overburden velocity field. Such is the case in Model E
(Figure 8.2-15) where not only the overburden velocity,
and therefore, the top-salt boundary are incorrect, but
also the salt velocity and the base-salt boundary are in
error. This model has too many errors in layer velocities
and reflector geometries. It has taken four iterations to
achieve convergence. The final solution radically departs
from the true model.
If the initial model contains significant errors but
only in reflector geometries, and layer velocities are
specified correctly and thus are not altered from one
iteration to the next, then convergence to the true
velocity-depth model can be achievable (Figure 8.2-16).
To recap the results of the analysis of the six mod-
els (Figures 8.2-11 through 8.2-16), refer to Figure 8.2-
17. Starting with an initial velocity-depth model (top
left), which contains some errors in model parameters,
perform iterative depth migration. After n iterations,
obtain an earth image in depth (top right) that corre-
sponds to an earth model in depth (center left) that is
different from the true model (center right). Neverthe-
less, forward modeling of zero-offset traveltimes (bot-
tom left) using the estimated model (center left) from
iterative depth migration yields results that are consis-
tent with the traveltimes on the zero-offset wavefield
section (bottom right) used as input to iterative depth
migration. We have met the convergence and consis-
tency criteria for the final solution from iterative depth
migration, but we have only obtained a solution, and
not the solution — the true model (Figure 8.2-11).
Figure 8.2-18 shows the initial velocity-depth mod-
els (Figures 8.2-11 through 8.2-16) that contain various
types of errors in model parameters. Figure 8.2-19 shows
the final solutions derived from iterative depth migra-
tion using the initial models in Figure 8.2-18. Note that
those initial models with correctly specified layer veloc-
ities but incorrectly defined reflector geometries (Mod-
els A, C, and F) converge to the true model (Model
A). Those initial models with incorrect layer velocities
(Models B, D, and E), however, do not converge to the
true model.
Zero-offset traveltime sections computed from the
final velocity-depth models are shown in Figure 8.2-20.
Compare these traveltime sections with the input zero-
offset wavefield section (Figure 8.2-11), and note that
they all are consistent with the latter. Consistency, how-
ever, does not guarantee that the final solution from it-
erative depth migration yields the true model. In prac-
tice, we will never know which one of the final solutions
shown in Figure 8.2-19 corresponds to the true model.
Iteration with CMP-Stacked Data
Depth migration of the CMP-stacked section in Figure
8.2-1 using Model A required two iterations to achieve
convergence (Figure 8.2-21). The resulting image and
the model inferred from it have some inaccuracies. It
appears that starting with the true model (Model A),
iterative poststack depth migration does not exactly
reproduce the true model. For the zero-offset section,
starting with the true model, convergence was achieved
after one iteration and the resulting model was the same
as the input model (Figure 8.2-11). Again, the reason
for the less-than-ideal performance of poststack depth
migration is that the CMP stack is only an approxima-
tion to the zero-offset wavefield. The more the stacked
section departs from the zero-offset wavefield, the more
the final model will depart from the true model.
Now consider Model D in Figure 8.2-22 in which
the salt velocity and the base-salt boundary are in-
correctly specified. After the third iteration with the
stacked section, we find that convergence is achieved.
Nevertheless, the final solution has converged to a
velocity-depth model that is different from the true
model.
If the initial model contains errors in reflector ge-
ometries only, and layer velocities are specified cor-
rectly, then convergence using the stacked section to the
true velocity-depth model is nearly achievable (Figure
8.2-23).
(text continues on p. 1265)
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1259

FIG. 8.2-18. Initial velocity-depth models used in iterative depth migrations illustrated in Figures 8.2-11 through 8.2-16.
1260 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-19. Final velocity-depth models from iterative depth migrations illustrated in Figures 8.2-11 through 8.2-16.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1261

FIG. 8.2-20. Zero-offset traveltime sections computed from the final velocity-depth models shown in Figure 8.2-19.
1262 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-21. Iterative depth migration using the CMP-stacked section as in Figure 8.2-1 and Model A (same as the true
velocity-depth model as in Figure 8.2-1).
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1263

FIG. 8.2-22. Iterative depth migration using the CMP-stacked section as in Figure 8.2-1 and Model D that contains errors
in salt velocity and base-salt reflector geometry. For comparison, the true velocity-depth model (Model A in Figure 8.2-11) is
superimposed on the final velocity-depth model (bottom of left column).
1264 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-23. Iterative depth migration using the CMP-stacked section as in Figure 8.2-1 and Model F that contains errors
in top-salt and base-salt reflector geometries. For comparison, the true velocity-depth model (Model A in Figure 8.2-11) is
superimposed on the final velocity-depth model (bottom of left column).
 Earth Imaging in Depth
FIG. 8.2-24. Iterative depth migration using the prestack data as in Figure 8.2-2 and Model A (same as the true velocity-
depth model as in Figure 8.2-1).
Iteration with Prestack Data
To compare with iterative depth migration applied to
zero-offset and CMP-stacked data, we shall examine
the performance of iterative depth migration applied
to prestack data. Techniques for prestack depth migra-
tion itself, however, will be reviewed in the next section.
Depth migration of the prestack data using the true
model (Model A) shown in Figure 8.2-11 required only
one iteration to achieve convergence (Figure 8.2-24).
Next, consider Model D in Figure 8.2-25 in which
the salt velocity and the base-salt boundary are in-
correctly specified. After the third iteration with the
prestack data, we find that convergence is achieved.
Nevertheless, the final solution has converged to a
velocity-depth model that is different from the true
model.
If the initial model contains errors in reflector ge-
ometries only, and layer velocities are specified cor-
rectly, then convergence using the prestack data to true
velocity-depth model is achievable (Figure 8.2-26).
1265
Iteration in Practice
In this section, we tested iterative depth migration of
zero-offset, CMP-stack and prestack data using six dif-
ferent initial velocity-depth models. Aside from the true
model, each model was corrupted by errors in layer ve-
locities and/or reflector geometries. We summarize the
results of the model experiments as follows:
(a) When will the image from iterative depth migra-
tion converge to the true velocity-depth model?
The answer to this question is many-fold, and it
depends on the type of input data and errors in
the initial velocity-depth model (Figure 8.2-27). If
the input data set is zero-offset section and if the
input velocity-depth model is the true model (an
impossible case in practice), then the answer is yes.
For prestack data, the answer also is yes, whereas
for stacked data, the answer is nearly. If the ini-
tial velocity-depth model is in error of reflector ge-
ometries only, the answer is most likely, very likely,
and likely for zero-offset, prestack and stacked data,
1266 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-25. Iterative depth migration using the prestack data as in Figure 8.2-2 and Model D that contains errors in
salt velocity and base-salt reflector geometry. For comparison, the true velocity-depth model (Model A in Figure 8.2-11) is
superimposed on the final velocity-depth model (bottom of left column).
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1267

FIG. 8.2-26. Iterative depth migration using the prestack data as in Figure 8.2-2 and Model F that contains errors in top-salt
and base-salt reflector geometries. For comparison, the true velocity-depth model (Model A in Figure 8.2-11) is superimposed
on the final velocity-depth model (bottom of left column).
1268 Seismic Data Analysis
FIG. 8.2-27. Performance of iterative depth migration for different types of input data and errors in the initial velocity-depth
model.
respectively. Finally, if the initial velocity-depth
model is in error of layer velocities, no matter what
the input data set is, the answer is invariably no.
Needless to say, iterative depth migration never
guarantees that the solution converges to a true
velocity-depth model.
(b) It is wrong to discontinue an iterative application
of depth migration without achieving convergence
— the intermediate output does not represent a
valid earth image in depth and neither does it in-
fer a valid earth model in depth. Zero-offset trav-
eltimes associated with this earth model are not
consistent with the traveltimes in the input sec-
tion.
(c) In iterative depth migration, only one set of param-
eters — either layer velocities or reflector geome-
tries, should be modified from one iteration to the
next. Changing the parameter type at some inter-
mediate iteration will only divert the solution to a
different end result and will cause the convergence
to that end result to take longer. It is advisable to
keep layer velocities unaltered from one iteration
to the next, and only modify reflector geometries
by interpreting the output image from depth mi-
gration.
(d) Number of iterations depends on how much the ini-
tial model departs from the true model. If the ini-
tial model contains errors in layer velocities, only,
fewer iterations are required than if the model con-
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1269

FIG. 8.2-28. (a) Portion of a CMP-stacked section, and (b) the image from time migration.
1270 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-29. Part 1: Iterative poststack depth migration applied to field data shown in Figure 8.2-28. See text for details.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1271

FIG. 8.2-29. Part 2: Iterative poststack depth migration applied to field data shown in Figure 8.2-28. See text for details.
1272 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.2-30. (a) Final velocity-depth model derived from the iterative poststack depth migration procedure (Figure 8.2-29),
(b) poststack depth migration of the data in Figure 8.2-28a, (c) modeled zero-offset traveltimes superimposed on the stacked
section as in Figure 8.2-28a.
 Earth Imaging in Depth
tains errors in reflector geometries. If the model
contains errors both in layer velocities and reflector
geometries, a large number of iterations is required
to achieve convergence.
(e) Iterative depth migration converges to an an-
swer, which almost never corresponds to the true
velocity-depth model. Therefore, the final velocity-
depth model estimated from iterative depth migra-
tion needs to be calibrated to well data. Specifi-
cally, layer velocities are adjusted so as to match at
well locations the depth values of the layer bound-
aries included in the final velocity-depth model
with the well tops corresponding to those layer
boundaries.
Figure 8.2-28 shows a portion of a CMP-stacked
section and its time migration. The deepest layer
with an abundance of diffractions represents salt with
anhydrite-dolomite rafts. The objective is to obtain an
accurate geometry for the base-salt boundary repre-
sented by the strong, deepest reflection.
To illustrate poststack iterative depth migration,
start with a simple, horizontally layered earth model
with constant layer velocities as the initial velocity-
depth model (Figure 8.2-29a) and migrate the stacked
section to obtain the depth image shown in Figure 8.2-
28b. Superimpose the flat depth horizons associated
with the initial velocity-depth model on this image sec-
tion, and note that the reflector geometries implied by
the depth image show discrepancy with the flat depth
horizons. Discard the latter and interpret the image sec-
tion to derive a set of structurally consistent depth hori-
zons (Figure 8.2-28c). This completes the first iteration
of poststack depth migration and model updating.
Next, keep the layer velocities the same as for the
initial velocity-depth model (Figure 8.2-28a), but use
the updated depth horizons (Figure 8.2-28c) to build
a new velocity-depth model as shown in Figure 8.2-
28d. Now, perform poststack depth migration once more
and note that the reflector geometries implied by the
depth image (Figure 8.2-28e) are still in discrepancy
with the intermediate velocity-depth model (Figure 8.2-
28d). Discard the depth horizons and reinterpret them
from the image section (Figure 8.2-28f). This completes
the second iteration of poststack depth migration and
model updating.
Repeat the steps for model updating, poststack
depth migration and re-interpreting the depth horizons
for the third (Figures 8.2-28g,h,i), and fourth time (Fig-
ures 8.2-28j,k,l) until convergence is achieved; that is,
the velocity-depth model input to depth migration is
consistent with the reflector geometries inferred by the
depth image. The final velocity-depth model and the
1273
depth image derived from it are shown in Figures 8.2-
30a,b. Convergence criterion can be verified by normal-
incidence modeling of the zero-offset traveltimes that
correspond to the reflectors associated with the layer
boundaries included in the velocity-depth model. Su-
perimpose the modeled traveltimes on the unmigrated
stacked section and note that the modeled and the ac-
tual traveltimes are in good agreement.
While the consistency of the modeled and actual
zero-offset traveltimes verifies that the final velocity-
depth model (Figure 8.2-30a) from poststack iterative
depth migration meets the convergence criterion, the
model is not guaranteed to be accurate. In fact, as de-
mostrated by the synthetic data examples in this sec-
tion, there exists not just one but a multiple number
of velocity-depth models that are consistent with the
stacked data. An acceptable model is that which also is
consistent with prestack data; thus, one strategic rea-
son for prestack imaging is resolving the uncertainty
in the acceptable velocity-depth models and reducing
the many possible models to a few that are geologically
plausable.
8.3 2-D PRESTACK DEPTH MIGRATION
In this section, we shall review two methods of prestack
depth migration applied to 2-D data. These methods
both have historical and conceptual significance. An
early method of prestack depth migration is based on
downward continuation of sources and receivers (Sec-
tion D.1). The method commonly is known as shot-
geophone migration. A common-shot gather represents
a wavefield and thus can be extrapolated in depth at dis-
crete intervals. As a result, receivers are lowered from
one depth level to the next. By invoking reciprocity,
we may also consider a common-receiver gather repre-
senting a wavefield. Thus, by extrapolating a common-
receiver gather, sources are lowered from one depth
level to the next. By alternating between extrapola-
tion of common-shot and common-receiver gathers at
each depth level, all sources and receivers are lowered
from the surface to each of the reflectors in the sub-
surface. While sources and receivers are lowered verti-
cally downward from one depth level to the next, the
recorded waves are back-propagated along the raypaths
from source to a reflector back to receiver locations at
the surface. When sources and receivers are lowered to
the reflector, they coincide and the traveltime dimin-
ishes to naught. This satisfies the imaging condition.
When the maximum depth of extrapolation is
reached, traces at zero-offset from each of the resulting
1274 Seismic Data Analysis
common-shot gathers are extracted and placed side-by-
side to produce the image from prestack depth migra-
tion. Nonzero-offset traces are abandoned since all pri-
mary energy has collapsed to zero-offset provided the
velocity-depth model is correct.
Note that in practical implementation of shot-
geophone migration, data need to be sorted from one
gather type to another (common-shot and common-
receiver) at each depth level. This sorting operation
increases the cost of the method, formidably. Another
practical aspect of this method is that missing near-
offset traces in common-shot gathers are filled in with
zero traces before downward continuation is started.
A more popular method of prestack depth migra-
tion is based on migration of shot records, individually.
This is plausable since a shot record is a wavefield gener-
ated by a single source. The method commonly is known
as shot-profile migration. The migrated shot records
are then sorted into common-receiver gathers. Finally,
traces in each receiver gather are summed to construct
the image below the receiver location. By placing the
traces that result from this summation side by side, we
obtain the image from shot-profile migration.
A practical advantage of shot-profile migration is
its ability to handle irregularities in recording geome-
try. Since each shot record is migrated independently,
missing shots, duplicate shots or just irregularities in
shot spacing are irrelevant.
Shot-Geophone Migration
Figure 8.3-1 shows selected common-shot gathers as-
sociated with a land line recorded over a salt diapiric
structure. Note the presence of coherent reflections on
shot records to the left and to the right of the salt
diapir, and poor reflection quality of the shot records
above the salt diapir. Following the sorting to common-
receiver gathers, we observe the missing shots along the
line (Figure 8.3-2).
Figure 8.3-3a shows the CMP-stacked section with
the salt diapir in the middle. The base-salt reflection
with the velocity pull-up typical of salt diapirs is the
most coherent event in this portion of the section. The
poor imaging of the base-salt boundary by poststack
depth migration is a direct consequence of the fact that
the CMP-stacked section is only an approximation to
a zero-offset section (Figure 8.3-3b). Compare with the
image in depth derived from shot-geophone migration
shown in Figure 8.3-3c. The geometry of the base-salt
boundary indicates the presence of fault blocks. Also
note some coherent events, albeit weak, in the subsalt
region.
A bonus effect of prestack migration — be it time
or depth, is its ability to attenuate multiples. Note, for
instance, in Figure 8.3-3a the pegleg (m) on the left
flank of the diapir. This multiple has been retained dur-
ing CMP stacking and moved with the primary velocity
during poststack migration (Figure 8.3-3b). However, it
is not on the section derived from prestack depth migra-
tion. To explain this bonus effect of prestack migration,
refer to the selected shot records after prestack depth
migration (Figure 8.3-4). Since the migration velocity
field is associated with the primary events, the primary
energy has focused on the zero-offset traces, while the
multiple energy has been dispersed to nonzero-offset
traces. The focusing of the primary energy also is seen
on the common-receiver gathers after migration (Figure
8.3-5). The image from prestack depth migration (Fig-
ure 8.3-3) is formed by compiling the zero-offset traces
from the shot records after migration (Figure 8.3-4). All
the remaining nonzero-offset traces in the shot records
are simply abandoned.
The quality of focusing at zero offset by shot-
geophone migration understandably depends on the ac-
curacy of the velocity field used in migration. Erro-
neously too low or too high velocities would cause a par-
tial collapse of the primary energy to zero offset. Note
the curvature along some of the events in the vicinity
of the zero-offset traces on the shot records (Figure 8.3-
4) and receiver gathers (Figure 8.3-5). Some exhibit a
curvature upward (erroneously low velocity above the
event) and some exhibit a curvature downward (erro-
neously high velocity above the event). Theoretically,
by measuring this curvature as if it is associated with
residual moveout, velocities may be updated at each
shot or receiver location. Such residual moveout anal-
ysis has been developed for shot-profile migration (Al-
Yahya, 1989) and is discussed later in this section.
We shall extend the discussion on shot-geophone
migration by comparing prestack depth migration with
prestack time migration results. Shown in Figure 8.3-6
are the images obtained from post- and prestack time
migration. First, note that both yield an incorrect image
of the base-salt boundary. Since the problem of imag-
ing the base-salt boundary is associated with a complex
overburden structure, it only can be handled by depth
migration. Strictly speaking, it should be handled by
prestack depth migration (Figure 8.3-3).
Second, prestack time migration actually can pro-
duce, as in this example, a poorer image of the base-salt
boundary compared to poststack time migration (Fig-
ure 8.3-6). Doing the migration before stack does not
necessarily solve the problem of imaging beneath the
salt diapir; doing it as depth migration is the key to
solving this problem. The poor performance of prestack
(text continues on p. 1280)
Earth Imaging in Depth 1275
1276 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-3. (a) The CMP stack associated with the data shown in Figure 8.3-1; (b) poststack depth migration; (c) prestack
depth migration. Trace spacing of the prestack depth-migrated section (the same as the shot or receiver group interval) is
twice that of the poststack depth-migrated section (the same as the CMP interval). Event labeled as m is peg-leg multiple.
Earth Imaging in Depth 1277
1278 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-6. (a) The CMP stack associated with the data shown in Figure 8.3-1; (b) poststack time migration; (c) shot-
geophone prestack time migration. Compare with the results from depth migration shown in Figure 8.3-3. Trace spacing of
the prestack time-migrated section (the same as the shot or receiver group interval) is twice that of the poststack time-migrated
section (the same as the CMP interval).
Earth Imaging in Depth 1279
1280 Seismic Data Analysis
time migration can be verified by examining the focus-
ing of energy at zero offset on common-shot (Figure 8.3-
7) and common-receiver gathers (Figure 8.3-8). Specif-
ically, note that the focusing of energy to zero offset
by prestack time migration is not as good as it is by
prestack depth migration (Figures 8.3-4 and 8.3-5).
We now complete our discussion on shot-geophone
migration by examining the effect of missing data on
imaging quality. Figure 8.3-9 shows a model of a salt
diapir. A total of 193 shot records was created by using a
nonzero-offset ray-theoretical modeling procedure. The
receiver cable is split-spread with an offset range of 50-
1200 m, and 48 receivers at 50-m interval. Putting aside
the inadequacies of ray theory for modeling traveltimes,
we should be able to make use of the modeled shot
records for investigating the missing-data problem.
Selected shot records before and after shot-
geophone migration using the true velocity-depth model
(Figure 8.3-9a) are shown in Figure 8.3-10. Note that
the events have focused onto and at the vicinity of the
zero-offset traces. By extracting the zero-offset traces
and placing them side by side, we obtain the depth im-
age in Figure 8.3-9b. (The amplitude weakening along
the top-salt event is caused by the limitations in the
ray-theoretical modeling.)
A total of 15% of the traces from the modeled shot
records was discarded arbitrarily and replaced with zero
traces. As a result, some shot records contained few zero
traces while some contained all zero traces. Shown in
Figure 8.3-11 are the same shot records as in Figure 8.3-
10 with missing traces. Note that, after prestack depth
migration, focusing of the energy to zero-offset and its
vicinity (Figure 8.3-11) has been achieved in a manner
comparable to the case of the complete data set (Figure
8.3-10). Likewise, the prestack depth-migrated section
derived from the missing data (Figure 8.3-9c) is very
similar to the section derived from the complete data set
(Figure 8.3-9b). We may conclude that shot-geophone
depth migration can accommodate missing data result-
ing from recording geometry irregularities.
Shot-Profile Migration
We shall review a method of shot-profile migration
(Reshef and Kosloff, 1986) using the salt diapir model
shown in Figure 8.2-1. A wave theoretical modeling
scheme based on the two-way acoustic wave equation
was used to generate 154 shot records. Selected shot
records are shown in Figure 8.2-2. Shot spacing is 50
m and receiver spacing is 50 m. Each shot record con-
tains 97 traces corresponding to a split-spread recording
geometry with a maximum offset of 2350 m.
Figure 8.3-12a shows three shot records — one lo-
cated away from the main diapiric body, one on the left
flank, and one other on the right flank of the diapir. The
velocity-depth model (Figure 8.3-12b), although verti-
cally exaggerated, is the same as in Figure 8.2-1. The
same shot records after shot-profile migration using the
true velocity-depth model (Figure 8.3-12b) are shown in
Figure 8.3-13a. Note that each shot record after migra-
tion represents partial image of the subsurface within a
limited lateral extent.
Now, imagine all 154 shot records after migra-
tion placed at their corresponding shot locations along
the line. Then, consider one specific receiver loca-
tion. There will be traces from a number of migrated
shot records that will coincide with this receiver lo-
cation that are common to all. These traces consitute
a common-receiver gather after shot-profile migration.
Selected common-receiver gathers sorted from the mi-
grated common-shot gathers are shown in Figure 8.3-
13b. The number of traces in a common-receiver gather
obviously is determined by the recording geometry.
If the velocity-depth model used in shot-profile mi-
gration coresponds to the true model, then each shot
record should yield a correct image of the subsurface,
albeit limited in lateral extent (Figure 8.3-13a). Then,
traces from various shot records after migration at the
same receiver location should represent the identical im-
age below that receiver location. Stated differently, a
common-receiver gather should contain flat events if the
velocity-depth model used in shot-profile migration is
correct. The final step of shot-profile migration involves
the summation of the traces in each receiver gather to
create the image in depth (Figure 8.3-13c). Note that
the partial images with limited lateral extent from each
individual shot record (Figure 8.3-13a) coincide with
the complete image within the lateral extent of the line
in its entirety.
Examine the common-receiver gathers in Figure
8.3-13b, closely. The receiver locations are labeled as
179, 209, and 249. Note that the events associated with
the top-salt and base-salt boundaries, and the flat re-
flector below are positioned differently in relation to the
receiver location of each gather. In case of a flat layer
boundary, the event is positioned symmetrically with
respect to the receiver location (179). In the case of a
dipping layer boundary, such as the top-salt, the event
is positioned to the right of the receiver location (209)
or to the left of the receiver location (249), but always
in the updip direction.
Sensitivity of Image Accuracy
to Velocity Errors
Accuracy of the velocity-depth model used in prestack
depth migration can be checked by examining event
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1281

FIG. 8.3-9. (a) A velocity-depth model for a salt diapir; (b) image obtained from prestack depth migration using shot records
with no missing traces as in Figure 8.3-10; (c) image obtained from prestack depth migration using shot records with missing
traces as in Figure 8.3-11.
1282 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-10. (Top) Selected synthetic shot records associated with the velocity-depth model in Figure 8.3-10; (bottom) same
records after prestack depth migration.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1283

FIG. 8.3-11. (Top) Selected synthetic shot records as in Figure 8.3-10 with missing receivers; (bottom) same records after
prestack depth migration.

curvature on common-receiver gathers. Figure 8.3-14a
shows three common-receiver gathers sorted from the
shot records that were migrated using the constant over-
burden velocity above the salt diapir (Figure 8.3-14c).
Note that the top-salt event exhibits flat character at
all three receiver locations since the velocity used for
migration is the same as the layer velocity above the
top-salt boundary (3000 m/s). Whereas the base-salt
event and the event corresponding to the flat reflector
below do not exhibit flat character since the migration
velocity, in this case, is erroneously lower than the true
layer velocities.
Use three different trial constant velocities for the
overburden assigned to all the layers in the subsur-
face and migrate the shot records. Consider a common-
receiver gather at one specific location (179 in Figure
8.3-14b). The top-salt event exhibits a curvature up-
ward with erroneously low velocity (2500 m/s), flat
character with the correct velocity (3000 m/s), and
downward curvature with erroneously high velocity
(3500 m/s). Moreover, the event depth changes from
one trial velocity to another — the low velocity causes
the event to appear at shallow depth.
(text continues on p. 1294)
1284 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-12. (a) Three synthetic shot records over the salt diapir model (b). Numbers on top of the shot profiles and the
velocity-depth model correspond to CMP locations.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1285

FIG. 8.3-13. (a) Shot records as in Figure 8.3-12a after shot-profile migration using the true velocity-depth model (Figure
8.3-12b); (b) selected common-receiver gathers; (c) final image from shot-profile migration. Numbers correspond to CMP
locations.
1286 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-14. (a) Three common-receiver gathers sorted from shot records that were migrated using the constant overburden
velocity above the salt diapir in (c) assigned to all the layers in the subsurface; (b) single common-receiver gather sorted from
shot records that were migrated using an erroneously low velocity (2500 m/s), correct velocity (3000 m/s), and an erroneously
high velocity (3500 m/s) for the overburden assigned to all the layers in the subsurface.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1287

FIG. 8.3-15. Velocity-depth models represented by constant-velocity half-spaces: (a) 2500 m/s, (b) 3000 m/s, and (c) 3500
m/s. Results of prestack depth migrations are shown in Figure 8.3-16.
1288 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-16. Shot-profile depth migrations using the three velocity-depth models shown in Figure 8.3-15. For each trial
velocity-depth model, shown on the left column is the selected receiver gather (location 249) and on the right column is the
depth image obtained by stacking the common-receiver gathers sorted from migrated common-shot gathers. Top, middle, and
bottom rows correspond to the results of prestack depth migrations using the velocity-depth models in Figure 8.3-15a, b, and
c, respectively.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1289

FIG. 8.3-17. Velocity-depth models with the same overburden layer and constant-velocity half-space below with three
different velocities: (a) 4500 m/s, (b) 5000 m/s, and (c) 5500 m/s. Results of prestack depth migrations are shown in Figure
8.3-18.
1290 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-18. Shot-profile depth migrations using the three velocity-depth models shown in Figure 8.3-17. For each trial
velocity-depth model, shown on the left column is the selected receiver gather (location 249) and on the right column is the
depth image obtained by stacking the common-receiver gathers sorted from migrated common-shot gathers. Top, middle, and
bottom rows correspond to the results of prestack depth migrations using the velocity-depth models in Figure 8.3-17a, b, and
c, respectively.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1291

FIG. 8.3-19. Velocity-depth models with the same overburden and diapir layers, and constant-velocity half-space below with
three different velocities: (a) 3500 m/s, (b) 4000 m/s, and (c) 4500 m/s. Results of prestack depth migrations are shown in
Figure 8.3-20.
1292 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-20. Shot-profile depth migrations using the three velocity-depth models shown in Figure 8.3-19. For each trial
velocity-depth model, shown on the left column is the selected receiver gather (location 249) and on the right column is the
depth image obtained by stacking the common-receiver gathers sorted from migrated common-shot gathers. Top, middle, and
bottom rows correspond to the results of prestack depth migrations using the velocity-depth models in Figure 8.3-19a, b, and
c, respectively.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1293

FIG. 8.3-21. (a) The zero-offset section associated with the velocity-depth model in Figure 8.3-19b; (b) depth migration of
the zero-offset section; (c) depth migration of prestack data (same as in Figure 8.3-20d). Velocity-depth model used in (b)
and (c) is the true model (Figure 8.3-19b).
1294 Seismic Data Analysis
Event curvature on common-receiver gathers can
be likened to residual moveout on moveout-corrected
common-midpoint gathers caused by incorrect move-
out velocities. By measuring the residual moveout, layer
velocities can be updated at each receiver location.
Residual moveout analysis can be formulated within the
context of common-receiver gathers derived from shot-
geophone migration (Al-Yahya, 1989), common-receiver
gathers derived from shot-profile migration (Reshef and
Kosloff, 1986; Lee and Zhang, 1992), or common-depth-
point gathers (image gathers) derived from common-
offset migration (Deregowski, 1990; Cox and Wapenaar,
1992).
We shall examine the sensitivity of image accuracy
to velocity errors based on event curvature on common-
receiver gathers derived from the shot-profile migration
of the salt diapir model data (Figure 8.3-12). This anal-
ysis also is a prelude to using the event curvature on
image gathers as a criterion for layer-by-layer velocity
determination (next chapter). Start with the velocity-
depth model defined as a half space with three different
trial constant velocities that may be considered appro-
priate for the overburden above the salt diapir (Figure
8.3-15). Perform shot-profile migration using each of the
velocity-depth models and sort the output to common-
receiver gathers. Then, stack the receiver gathers to ob-
tain the images in depth.
Figure 8.3-16 shows the depth image and a receiver
gather (location 249) from each of the three prestack
depth migrations. Note that the top-salt event exhibits
a strong curvature upward with the trial velocity 2500
m/s for the overburden layer under consideration (Fig-
ure 8.3-16a). We conclude that this velocity is too low
for the overburden. The top-salt event exhibits a strong
curvature downward with the trial velocity 3500 m/s
for the overburden layer (Figure 8.3-16e). We conclude
that this velocity is too high for the overburden. Finally,
the top-salt event is flat with the trial velocity 3000 m/s
for the overburden layer (Figure 8.3-16c). We conclude
that this velocity is appropriate for the overburden.
Examine the stack power in Figure 8.3-16 for the
top-salt event on the depth images and note that the
highest stack power is attained with the trial velocity
3000 m/s for the overburden layer (Figure 8.3-16d). In
contrast, the stack power with the too-low (2500 m/s)
and too-high (3500 m/s) velocities (Figures 8.3-16b and
f) is weaker because of the curvature of the top-salt
event on common-receiver gathers.
Based on the results of prestack depth migration
using the three trial velocities (Figure 8.3-16), we as-
sign the optimum velocity 3000 m/s to the overbur-
den. Next, we interpret the top-salt event on the corre-
sponding depth image (Figure 8.3-16d). Then, we mod-
ify the velocity-depth model in Figure 8.3-15b as shown
in Figure 8.3-17, accordingly. Here, we have specified a
two-layer model — the overburden above the top-salt
boundary interpreted from Figure 8.3-16d, and the new
half-space below with three different trial velocities ap-
propriate for the diapir layer.
Figure 8.3-18 shows the depth image and a receiver
gather (location 249) from each of the three prestack
depth migrations. Note that the top-salt event is flat in
all three cases since the overburden layer is the same
for all the three models. The base-salt event exhibits a
moderate curvature upward with the trial velocity 4500
m/s for the diapir layer under consideration (Figure 8.3-
18a). We conclude that this velocity is too low for the
diapir layer. The base-salt event exhibits a moderate
curvature downward with the trial velocity 5500 m/s
for the diapir layer (Figure 8.3-18e). We conclude that
this velocity is too high for the diapir layer. Finally, the
base-salt event is flat with the trial velocity 5000 m/s
for the diapir layer (Figure 8.3-18c). We conclude that
this velocity is appropriate for the diapir layer.
Examine the stack power in Figure 8.3-18 for the
top-salt event on the depth images and note that it is
identical in all three cases since the overburden layer
is the same for all the three models. The highest stack
power for the base-salt event is attained with the trial
velocity 5000 m/s for the diapir layer under considera-
tion (Figure 8.3-18d). In contrast, the stack power with
the too-low (4500 m/s) and too-high (5500 m/s) veloci-
ties (Figures 8.3-18b and f) is slightly weaker because of
the curvature of the base-salt event on common-receiver
gathers.
Based on the results of prestack depth migration
using the three trial velocities (Figure 8.3-18), we as-
sign the optimum velocity 5000 m/s to the diapir layer.
Next, we interpret the base-salt event on the corre-
sponding depth image (Figure 8.3-18d). Then, we mod-
ify the velocity-depth model in Figure 8.3-17b as shown
in Figure 8.3-19, accordingly. Here, we have specified a
three-layer model — the overburden above the top-salt
boundary interpreted from Figure 8.3-16d, the diapir
with the base-salt boundary interpreted from Figure
8.3-18d, and the new half-space below with three dif-
ferent trial velocities appropriate for the subsalt region.
Figure 8.3-20 shows the depth image and a receiver
gather (location 249) from each of the three prestack
depth migrations. Note that the top-salt and base-salt
events are flat in all three cases since the overburden
and the diapir layers are the same for all the three mod-
els. The deepest event associated with the flat reflector
within the half-space exhibits a very mild curvature up-
ward with the trial velocity 3500 m/s for the half-space
(Figure 8.3-20a). We conclude that this velocity is low
for the half-space. The same event exhibits a very mild
curvature downward with the trial velocity 4500 m/s
 Earth Imaging in Depth
for the half-space (Figure 8.3-20e). We conclude that
this velocity is high for the half-space. Finally, the same
event is flat with the trial velocity 4000 m/s for the half-
space (Figure 8.3-20c). We conclude that this velocity is
appropriate for the half-space that represents the sub-
salt region with the flat reflector.
Examine the stack power in Figure 8.3-20 for the
top-salt and base-salt events on the depth images, and
note that they are identical in all three cases since the
overburden and diapir layers are the same for all three
models. It is difficult to distinguish the images of the
deepest event associated with the flat reflector within
the half-space based on stack power (Figures 8.3-20b,
d, and f). Nevertheless, based on the subtle differences
in stack power in favor of the trial velocity 4000 m/s
and the implausable undulations in the geometry of the
flat reflector that resulted from the trial velocities 3500
m/s and 4500 m/s, we may conclude that the optimum
velocity for the subsalt region is 4000 m/s.
This concludes the estimation of the velocity-depth
model using the event curvature on common-receiver
gathers. The conceptual appeal of this analysis can
be very attractive for construction of earth models in
depth. In practice, however, the computational cost can
be prohibitive. Instead, residual moveout analysis of im-
age gathers derived from common-offset migration is
used for updating layer velocities (Chapter 9).
Refer to the common-receiver gathers in Figures
8.3-16, 8.3-18, and 8.3-20 and note that the deeper the
event, the higher the velocity and the shorter the ca-
ble length, the poorer the resolving power of curvature
analysis for velocity determination. This observation is
comparable to the case of conventional stacking velocity
analysis, and it also applies to residual moveout analysis
of image gathers derived from common-offset migration.
Compare the amplitudes on the images from depth
migration of the zero-offset and prestack data (Figure
8.3-21). Note the differences in amplitude distribution
along the flat reflector below the salt diapir. Imaging
beneath complex structures has certain implications as
to the acquisition geometry — specifically, on the choice
of the cable length.
Field Data Examples
We now review results of shot-profile migration of a
2-D land and a 2-D marine line. Figure 8.3-22 shows
the CMP-stacked section of the land line over an im-
bricate structure associated with overthrust tectonics.
The topographic high is the surface expression of the
imbricate structure. Refraction and residual statics cor-
rections were applied to the data before shot-profile mi-
gration.
1295
Figure 8.3-22 also shows the poststack time-
migrated section. The main thrust plane starts from
the surface at CMP 340 and dips down to the right. To
account for the severe elevation differences, migration
was performed from the irregular topography (Section
4.6).
The recording geometry for this land line has severe
irregularities with duplicate shots and missing shots.
Here, we only want to discuss results of prestack depth
migration and leave out the velocity-depth model esti-
mation. Selected common-receiver gathers sorted from
the migrated shot records are shown in Figure 8.3-23.
Most events exhibit flat character. Note also the symme-
try of some events with respect to the receiver location
as seen on gathers in the top row — they are associated
with flat or gently dipping reflectors. The asymmetry
of some events with respect to the receiver location is
seen on gathers in the bottom row in Figure 8.3-23.
Stacking of the common-receiver gathers yields the
depth image obtained from shot-profile migration (Fig-
ure 8.3-24). For comparison, the depth image from post-
stack depth migration using the same velocity-depth
model is shown also in Figure 8.3-24. Trace spacing
in the prestack depth-migrated section corresponds to
the average shot spacing, whereas that in the post-
stack depth-migrated section corresponds to the CMP
spacing. Note from the prestack depth-migrated section
(Figure 8.3-24) the improved image below 2 km of the
imbricate structure to the right of the main thrust plane
which starts at the surface in the vicinity of CMP 350
and dips down to the right.
Figure 8.3-25 shows the CMP-stacked section from
the marine line over two salt diapirs. The target zone is
base-salt and the subsalt region. For comparison, Figure
8.3-25 also shows the poststack time-migrated section.
Note the velocity pull-up along the base-salt reflection
at 1.9 s below CMP 400 and CMP 800 — typical of salt
diapirs.
Selected common-receiver gathers sorted from the
migrated shot records are shown in Figure 8.3-26. Note
that most events exhibit flat character; this suggests
that the velocity-depth model used in prestack depth
migration is fairly accurate. Flat or gently dipping re-
flectors manifest themselves as events on the common-
receiver gathers that are symmetric with respect to the
receiver locations. Dipping reflectors, on the other hand,
manifest themselves as events that are asymmetic with
respect to the receiver locations.
Stacking of the common-receiver gathers yields the
depth image obtained from shot-profile migration (Fig-
ure 8.3-27). For comparison, the depth image from post-
stack depth migration using the same velocity-depth
model also is shown in Figure 8.3-27. Trace spacing
in the prestack depth-migrated section corresponds to
(text continues on p. 1304)
1296 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-22. (Top) A CMP-stacked section from a land line shot over a topographic high; (bottom) time migration of the
CMP-stacked section. (Data courtesy Lasmo International.)
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1297

FIG. 8.3-23. Common-receiver gathers sorted from common-shot gathers after depth migration. The depth image obtained
from shot-profile migration is shown in Figure 8.3-24.
1298 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-24. (Top) Depth image derived from shot-profile migration of the data associated with the CMP-stacked section
in Figure 8.3-22; (bottom) depth migration of the CMP-stacked section in Figure 8.3-22.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1299

FIG. 8.3-25. (Top) A CMP-stacked section from a marine line over two salt diapirs; (bottom) time migration of the CMP-
stacked section. (Data courtesy Mobil North Sea Limited.)
1300 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-26. Part 1: Common-receiver gathers sorted from common-shot gathers after depth migration. The depth image
obtained from shot-profile migration is shown in Figure 8.3-27.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1301

FIG. 8.3-26. Part 2: Common-receiver gathers sorted from common-shot gathers after depth migration. The depth image
obtained from shot-profile migration is shown in Figure 8.3-27.
1302 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.3-26. Part 3: Common-receiver gathers sorted from common-shot gathers after depth migration. The depth image
obtained from shot-profile migration is shown in Figure 8.3-27.
Earth Imaging in Depth 1303
1304 Seismic Data Analysis

the shot spacing, whereas that in the poststack depth-

migrated section corresponds to the CMP spacing. Note
from the prestack depth-migrated section the improved
image of the base-salt reflector and the subsalt region.
The base-salt reflector appears to be faulted and shows
a structural closure at approximately 3.5 km below
CMP 630.

8.4 3-D POSTSTACK DEPTH MIGRATION

The fundamentals of 3-D migration are discussed in Sec-

tion 7.3 and its mathematical aspects are provided in
Appendix G. By now, we should be familiar with one-
pass and two-pass, implicit and explicit 3-D time mi-
gration algorithms. In this section, we shall examine
aspects of 3-D poststack migration within the context
of imaging beneath complex structures: (a) 3-D post-
stack time versus depth migration, (b) one-pass versus
two-pass 3-D poststack depth migration, and (c) im-
FIG. 8.4-1. A time slice used as a base map for a synthetic
plicit versus explicit 3-D poststack depth migration. In
3-D survey. The velocity-depth model and the modeled 3-
the next section, we shall extend the analysis to 3-D
D zero-offset data for selected inlines are shown in Figure
depth migration of prestack data. 8.4-2.

3-D Poststack Time versus Depth Migration
Consider a 3-D survey over a hypothetical salt-dome
structure. The base map is shown in Figure 8.4-1. The
synthetic 3-D survey data consist of 481 inlines and 481
crosslines with 25-m trace spacing in both directions.
Selected cross-sections of the 3-D velocity-depth model
and the associated zero-offset inline sections are shown
in Figure 8.4-2. The salt dome has a circular symmetry
with a flat base. The base map shown in Figure 8.4-1
actually is a time slice at 1200 ms to show the circular
symmetry.
Keep in mind that the sections in Figure 8.4-2 are
the cross-sections of the 3-D zero-offset wavefield along
the traverses that coincide with the cross-sections of
the 3-D velocity-depth model. In other words, we are
not starting with the cross-sections of the velocity-depth
model in Figure 8.4-2 and generating a set of 2-D zero-
offset wavefields from them. Strictly speaking, the only
section that does not contain any sideswipe energy is
the center line I-241. Note the energy reflecting off the
flank of the salt dome and being recorded on the lines
away from the center line.
First, we perform one-pass implicit 3-D time mi-
gration (Section G.1) on the entire 3-D zero-offset syn-
thetic data and display the same lines after 3-D time
migration (Figure 8.4-3). The migration velocity field
is based on the true subsurface velocity-depth model
used in computing the 3-D zero-offset wavefield (Figure
8.4-2). Also, for comparison, pretend that two lines —
center line I-241 and line I-181 away from the center, are
part of a 2-D survey and perform 2-D time migration.
Note the following observations:
(a) The top of the salt, albeit the vertical scale is in
time, has been imaged properly with 3-D time mi-
gration, while the base of the salt has not. This is
because the salt diapir acts as a complex overbur-
den.
(b) The 2-D time migration produced the correct re-
sult for the top of the salt only along the center
inline (I-241), because there are no sideswipes on
this line; therefore, there is no need for 3-D migra-
tion. However, on a line away from the center line,
say I-181, even the top of the salt has not been im-
aged properly by 2-D time migration, let alone the
base of the salt. This is because the line contains
sideswipes off the flank of the salt dome.
(c) Now you may have second thoughts about 2-D seis-
mic exploration. Fortunately, most structures have
dominant strike and dip directions. Properly ori-
ented 2-D migrated lines often yield an acceptably
accurate structural picture. However, one lesson to
be learned from comparing the 3-D and 2-D time
migrations of line I-181 shown in Figure 8.4-3 is
(text continues on p. 1313)
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1305

FIG. 8.4-2. Velocity-depth model (left column) and cross-sections of the zero-offset 3-D synthetic wavefield (right column)
for a circularly symmetric salt dome. The base map is shown in Figure 8.4-1.
1306 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.4-3. 3-D time migration (left column) versus a 2-D time migration (right column) of the synthetic data shown in
Figure 8.4-2.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1307

FIG. 8.4-4. 3-D depth migration (left column) versus a 2-D depth migration (right column) of the synthetic data shown in
Figure 8.4-2.
1308 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.4-5. First-pass time migration along the inline direction of the 3-D zero-offset wavefield of Figure 8.4-2. Results of
the second-pass time migration along the crossline direction are shown in Figure 8.4-6.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1309

FIG. 8.4-6. Second-pass time migration along the crossline direction of the 3-D zero-offset wavefield of Figure 8.4-2. Results
of the first-pass time migration along the inline direction are shown in Figure 8.4-5.
1310 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.4-7. One-pass versus two-pass 3-D time migration of the salt-dome model data shown in Figure 8.4-2. The one-pass
result is the same as in Figure 8.4-3 and the two-pass result is the same as in Figure 8.4-6.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1311

FIG. 8.4-8. Second-pass depth migration along the crossline direction of the 3-D zero-offset wavefield of Figure 8.4-2. Results
of the first-pass time migration along the inline direction are shown in Figure 8.4-5.
1312 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.4-9. One-pass versus two-pass 3-D depth migration of the salt-dome model data shown in Figure 8.4-2. The one-pass
result is the same as in Figure 8.4-4 and the two-pass result (first-pass in time followed by second-pass in depth) is the same
as in Figure 8.4-8.
 Earth Imaging in Depth
that the migration velocities that yield an accept-
able 2-D migrated section may be quite different
from the true subsurface velocity model required
by 3-D migration.
We now perform one-pass implicit 3-D depth mi-
gration (Section G.1) of the 3-D zero-offset synthetic
data shown in Figure 8.4-2. After 3-D depth migration
of the entire volume of the 3-D zero-offset wavefield us-
ing the true 3-D velocity-depth model, we display the
same lines (Figure 8.4-4). Also, for comparison, pretend
that the two lines — center line I-241 and line I-181
away from the center, are part of a 2-D survey and
perform 2-D depth migration, again using the correct
velocity-depth model. Note the following observations:
(a) The top and base of the salt now have been imaged
properly with 3-D depth migration. The complex
overburden problem has been solved. (Compare the
left column in Figure 8.4-3 with that in Figure 8.4-
4.)
(b) The 2-D depth migration produced the correct sub-
surface model only along the center inline (I-241)
because there are no sideswipes on this line. How-
ever, on a line away from the center line, say I-181,
neither the top nor the base of the salt have been
imaged properly. This is because the line contains
sideswipes off the flank of the salt dome.
(c) By performing 2-D depth migration iteratively to
converge to assumingly correct depth model, we
may be forcing the model to converge to something
very different from the truth. This stems from the
treatment of the sideswipes as events that are in
the plane of profile.
Two-Pass versus One-Pass 3-D Poststack
Depth Migration
In Section 7.3, we examined the characteristics of two-
pass and one-pass 3-D poststack time migration. We
concluded that given the choice between one-pass and
two-pass schemes, 3-D poststack time migration may be
done in two passes provided the vertical velocity gradi-
ent is not excessively large and dips are gentle. Is the
two-pass strategy also applicable to 3-D poststack depth
migration? We shall experiment with the salt-dome syn-
thetic data set (Figure 8.4-2) and conclude that 3-D
poststack depth migration has to be done in one pass.
First, we consider two-pass implicit finite-difference
3-D time migration of the salt-dome synthetic data set.
Start with the 3-D zero-offset wavefield (Figure 8.4-2),
and apply time migration in the inline direction and
1313
display four selected inline sections and four selected
crossline sections (Figure 8.4-5). After this first-pass
migration, the imaging of the center inline (I-241) is
complete, since there is no sideswipe energy that needs
to be moved out of the plane of this inline. On the other
hand, the center crossline (X-241) has not been imaged
at all, because no movement of energy took place in this
line as yet after the first-pass migration. On other lines,
there is still some more imaging to be done — note, for
instance, the sideswipe energy on inline I-151.
Now sort the data into crosslines, perform the
second-pass migration on the already migrated data,
and display the same inline and crossline sections (Fig-
ure 8.4-6). These are now the inlines and crosslines after
the two-pass 3-D time migration. Since the overburden
velocity above the salt layer is constant, the two-pass
3-D time migration correctly images the top-salt bound-
ary. Since we have done time migration, whether it is
two-pass or one-pass, we have not imaged the base-salt
boundary correctly.
Figure 8.4-7 gives a summary of the results of one-
pass (as in Figure 8.4-3) and two-pass (as in Figure 8.4-
6) implicit 3-D time migration of the salt-dome model
data (Figure 8.4-2). Although not evident from the in-
line sections in Figure 8.4-7, the top-salt boundary ac-
tually has been imaged more accurately by the two-
pass migration as compared with the one-pass migra-
tion. The constant-velocity of the layer above the salt
enables the two-pass scheme to produce an accurate re-
sult (Section G.1). On the other hand, even though the
overburden velocity above the salt layer is constant, the
approximation made in the splitting has caused the one-
pass scheme to produce an incorrect image of the top-
salt boundary, especially along the directions diagonal
to inline and crossline directions (Section 7.3). Again,
the base-salt boundary has not been imaged correctly
by either one-pass or two-pass migrations, since we have
done time migration rather than depth migration.
We now examine the plausability of a hybrid two-
pass 3-D migration of the salt-dome synthetic data
set, wherein the first-pass migration is in time and the
second-pass migration is in depth. In areas with a com-
plex overburden structure, such as the overthrust belts,
usually velocity varies laterally more in the dip direc-
tion perpendicular to the thrust fronts than the strike
direction. When that is the case, it might be plausable
to do time migration in the strike direction with mild
lateral velocity variations, followed by depth migrations
of selected lines in the dip direction with strong lateral
velocity variations. Such two-step hybrid strategy may
be useful in building the 3-D velocity-depth model for
a subsequent, proper 3-D depth migration of the 3-D
data.
1314 Seismic Data Analysis
For the synthetic data set in Figure 8.4-2, start
with the results of time migration in the inline direc-
tion (Figure 8.4-5) and perform depth migration in the
crossline direction. Then, display the same inlines and
crosslines as in Figure 8.4-6. After time migration as
the first-pass and depth migration as the second-pass
(Figure 8.4-8), note that we certainly have restored the
true geometry of the top-salt boundary correctly. This
is because the overburden is constant velocity; there-
fore, it did not matter whether we did time or depth
migration. However, we have not been able to restore
the geometry of the base-salt boundary, except for the
center crossline (X-241), because this salt structure is
truly 3-D in character with no dominant strike or dip
direction.
Figure 8.4-9 gives a summary of the results of one-
pass (as in Figure 8.4-4) and two-pass (as in Figure 8.4-
8) 3-D depth migration of the salt-dome model data
(Figure 8.4-2). Again, note that the top-salt boundary
actually has been imaged more accurately by the two-
pass migration as compared with the one-pass migra-
tion. The constant-velocity of the layer above the salt
enables the two-pass scheme to produce an accurate re-
sult. On the other hand, even though the overburden
velocity above the salt layer is constant, the approxi-
mation made in the splitting has caused the one-pass
scheme to produce an incorrect image of the top-salt
boundary. The base-salt boundary, however, has not
been imaged correctly by the two-pass scheme, while
it has been imaged correctly by the one-pass scheme.
The experiments using the salt-dome synthetic
data set (Figure 8.4-2) combined with the model exper-
iments presented in Section 7.3 lead us to the following
conclusions:
(a) If the velocity field is judged to be suitable for time
migration, the two-pass strategy for 3-D time mi-
gration may be acceptable provided the vertical ve-
locity gradient is not excessively large and dips are
not very steep.
(b) If the velocity field requires depth migration, the
one-pass strategy for 3-D depth migration is im-
perative.
Figures 8.4-10 and 8.4-11 show a field data exam-
ple of 3-D depth migration using the one-pass scheme.
The inline (top left) and crossline (top right) stacked
sections in both figures show a structural high, which is
associated with culminations in an overthrust belt. Fig-
ure 8.4-12a is an inline cross-section of the 3-D velocity-
depth model. The deepest horizon on the velocity model
(horizon 8) corresponds to the event below 2 s on the
inline stacked section in Figure 8.4-10. The true geom-
etry of this horizon has been distorted by the struc-
ture above acting as a complex overburden. Although
in two dimensions, the image-ray plot (Figure 8.4-12b)
through the velocity-depth model (Figure 8.4-12a) veri-
fies the presence of a complex overburden above horizon
8. (See Section 8.2 for a discussion on image rays.)
Note the similarity between the inline velocity-
depth model (Figure 8.4-12a) and line B after 3-D depth
migration (bottom left, Figure 8.4-10). Despite this sim-
ilarity, there are parts of the survey in which the data
are overmigrated (on line A, bottom left, Figure 8.4-
11) and parts in which the data are undermigrated (not
shown). Differences between the output from depth mi-
gration and the velocity-depth model used requires an
iterative modification of the velocity-depth model where
it departs from the output of depth migration (Section
8.2). For comparison, Figures 8.4-10 and 8.4-11 show
2-D depth migrations of the selected lines. Note the
obvious difference between 2-D and 3-D depth migra-
tions of line D (Figure 8.4-11). Although the 2-D depth-
migrated section contains an abundance of reflections as
compared to the 3-D depth migrated section, that re-
flection energy does not belong on line D. From line A
or B, note that energy should be migrated in the updip
direction from line D to C. Hence, after 3-D migration,
line D is depleted of reflection energy (Figure 8.4-11),
while line C is enriched (Figure 8.4-10).
The question of how to supply a 3-D velocity field
to do 3-D depth migration is beyond the scope of this
chapter. Earth modeling in depth is discussed in Chap-
ter 9.
Implicit versus Explicit 3-D Poststack
Depth Migration
Finally, we compare the performance of the implicit
and explicit schemes using the circularly symmetric
salt-dome model data set of Figure 8.4-2. The implicit
scheme uses the 45-degree extrapolator in a split mode,
and the explicit scheme uses a one-dimensional (1-D)
explicit filter combined with the 5 × 5 McClellan fil-
ter template (Section G.2). Selected inline sections are
shown in Figure 8.4-13, and depth slices are shown in
Figure 8.4-14. The top-salt boundary is imaged more
accurately by the explicit scheme because of the near-
circular symmetry of its impulse response (Figure 7.3-
14). Positioning errors by the implicit scheme implied
by its impulse response (Figure 7.3-3) are better ob-
served on the depth slices. Note in Figure 8.4-14 that
the top-salt boundary image by the implicit scheme is
not circularly symmetric; instead, significant undermi-
gration especially along the two diagonals has resulted.
In contrast, the explicit scheme has preserved the cir-
cular character of the salt dome.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1315

FIG. 8.4-10. An inline (top left) and a crossline stacked section (top right) from a land 3-D survey and the corresponding
2-D (center) and 3-D (bottom) depth migration results. A cross-section of the velocity-depth model is shown in Figure 8.4-12.
(Data courtesy Chevron USA, Inc.)
1316 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.4-11. Another inline (top left) and crossline stacked section (top right) from the same land 3-D survey as in Figure
8.4-10 with their 2-D (center) and 3-D (bottom) depth migrations. A cross-section of the velocity-depth model is shown in
Figure 8.4-12. (Data courtesy Chevron USA, Inc.)
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1317

FIG. 8.4-12. (a) An inline cross-section of a 3-D velocity-depth model that was used in 3-D depth migration of the data
shown in Figures 8.4-10 and 8.4-11. (b) Image rays through this velocity-depth model.
1318 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.4-13. A comparison of implicit and explicit 3-D migrations. Velocity-depth model and cross-sections of the zero-offset
3-D synthetic wavefield are shown in Figure 8.4-2. The base map is shown in Figure 8.4-1. Time slices are shown in Figure
8.4-14.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1319

FIG. 8.4-14. A comparison of implicit and explicit 3-D migrations. Velocity-depth model and cross-sections of the zero-offset
3-D synthetic wavefield are shown in Figure 8.4-2. The base map is shown in Figure 8.4-1. Vertical sections are shown in
Figure 8.4-13.
1320 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.4-15. Three-dimensional wave-equation datuming (left column) versus 2-D wave-equation datuming (right column)
from the surface down to a 1000-m depth of the synthetic data shown in Figure 8.4-2.
 Earth Imaging in Depth
3-D Poststack Datuming
As a byproduct of 3-D migration algorithms based on
wavefield extrapolation, 3-D stacked data can be da-
tumed from the surface to a specified depth or time
level in a 3-D sense. This capability can be particularly
useful in reservoir studies. Basically, the surface wave-
field is downward continued to a desired depth without
invoking the imaging principle along the way. Figure
8.4-15 shows the 3-D zero-offset data (Figure 8.4-2) da-
tumed from the surface z = 0 to a 1000-m depth. The
following conclusions can be made:
(a) Since there are no sideswipes on the center line,
I-241, datuming in a 2-D or 3-D sense is identical.
(b) However, there is a significant difference between
2-D datuming and 3-D datuming for lines with
sideswipe energy — those that are increasingly far-
ther from the center line, say, Line I-181.
The wave-equation datuming described here takes
the input wavefield from one flat constant horizontal da-
tum to another. Prestack and poststack wave-equation
datuming using arbitrary 2-D datum interfaces is dis-
cussed in Section 8.1. The constant datum level should
not be a limitation, particularly in reservoir studies. For
example, the 3-D stacked data can be datumed to the
top of the reservoir level followed by detailed imaging
of the target zone only.
8.5 3-D PRESTACK DEPTH MIGRATION
We remind ourselves of the two prominent circum-
stances that require migration of seismic data before
stack and in three dimensions:
(a) The compelling reason for doing time migration is
dipping events. The compelling reason for doing
time migration before stack is to account for con-
flicting dips with different stacking velocities. And
the compelling reason for doing time migration in
three dimensions is to account for the 3-D behav-
ior of fault-plane reflections and reflections within
fault blocks that give rise to the problem of con-
flicting dips. In a strict theoretical sense, in the
presence of conflicting dips with different stacking
velocities, you need to image the subsurface by mi-
gration of seismic data in time, before stack and in
three dimensions.
(b) The compelling reason for doing depth migration is
lateral velocity variations. The compelling reason
for doing depth migration before stack is to account
1321
for nonhyperbolic moveout caused by lateral veloc-
ity variations. And the compelling reason for doing
depth migration in three dimensions is to account
for the 3-D behavior of complex overburden struc-
tures that give rise to lateral velocity variations. In
a strict theoretical sense, in the presence of lateral
velocity variations, you need to image the subsur-
face by migration of seismic data in depth, before
stack and in three dimensions.
Figures 8.5-1 and 8.5-2 show subsurface images
along the same inline traverse obtained from 2-D and
3-D, post- and prestack, and time and depth migra-
tions. Examine the quality of imaging of the fault planes
and the reflectors within the faulted zone in each of
the sections. The fault-plane reflections and the gently
dipping reflections within the fault blocks give rise to
the problem of conflicting dips, and the lateral velocity
variations across the fault blocks themselves give rise
to the problem of nonhyperbolic moveout. These two
problems also manifest themselves in three dimensions.
Therefore, to get the best possible image, as predicated
by the data set in Figures 8.5-1 and 8.5-2, one should
do the migration before stack, in depth, and in three
dimensions.
What then is an appropriate algorithm for 3-D
prestack depth migration — Kirchhoff-summation,
finite-difference, or frequency-wavenumber? The algo-
rithm of choice must meet the following requirements:
(a) For it to qualify as a depth migration algorithm,
first and foremost, the algorithm of our choice must
be able to image steeply dipping reflectors in the
presence of lateral velocity variations.
(b) 3-D prestack seismic data invariably suffer from ir-
regular spatial sampling. Therefore, the algorithm
of choice for prestack migration must cope with ir-
regularly sampled data.
(c) Just as we use prestack time migration to estimate
rms velocities (Sections 5.4 and 7.4), we often wish
to use prestack depth migration to estimate inter-
val velocities. When used as a velocity estimation
tool, we do not have to generate image gathers
from prestack depth migration at all CMP loca-
tions along a 2-D line or at all bin locations over
a 3-D survey area. Instead, it often is sufficient to
generate image gathers at sparse intervals along the
line, or along selected lines or even on a sparse grid
over the 3-D survey area.
Whatever the type of algorithm, requirement (a)
cannot be waived for depth migration. Requirement (b)
to handle irregular spatial sampling may be fulfilled
1322 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.5-1. Application of 2-D migration strategies to a field data set: the vertical axis for the time-migrated sections is in
time (s) and the vertical axis for the depth-migrated sections is in depth (km). Compare with the results of 3-D migrations
shown in Figure 8.5-2.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1323

FIG. 8.5-2. Application of 3-D migration strategies to a field data set: the vertical axis for the time-migrated sections is in
time (s) and the vertical axis for the depth-migrated sections is in depth (km). Compare with the results of 2-D migrations
shown in Figure 8.5-1.
1324 Seismic Data Analysis
by azimuth-moveout (AMO) correction (Biondi et al.,
1998) or inversion to common offset (ICO) (Chemingui
and Biondi, 1999). Once data are spatially regularized
so that the resulting prestack data have uniform fold
of coverage and have been corrected for source-receiver
azimuth, then, in principle, any of the three categories
of migration algorithms — Kirchhoff-summation, finite-
difference, or frequency-wavenumber, can be used to
perform 3-D prestack depth migration. While it has
the advantage of producing an image in depth along
a set of line traverses without having to produce an im-
age volume in depth, Kirchhoff summation technique
lacks the rigor to handle amplitudes that the frequency-
wavenumber techniques can provide. Finally, the finite-
difference and frequency-wavenumber migration meth-
ods are global methods; as such, they are not suitable
to meet requirement (c). The better treatment of am-
plitudes by the frquency-wavenumber algorithms com-
pared to the Kirchhoff summation technique, however,
has greatly increased their use in practice (Biondi and
Palacharla, 1996).
Kirchhoff Summation
Kirchhoff’s integral solution to the scalar wave equation
∂2P ∂2P ∂2P 1 ∂2P
2
+ 2
+ 2
= 2 (8 − 1)
∂x ∂y ∂z v (x, y, z) ∂t2
gives the pressure wavefield P (x, y, z; t) propagating in
a medium with velocity v(x, y, z) at a location (x, y, z)
and at an instant of time t. As such, the Kirchhoff solu-
tion is a mathematical statement of Huygen’s principle
which states that the pressure disturbance at time t+∆t
is the superposition of the spherical waves generated by
point sources at time t (Officer, 1958).
The discrete form of the integral solution to equa-
tion (8-1) as used in practical implementation of Kirch-
hoff migration is given by (Section H.1)
∆x∆y cos θ ∂
Pout = Pin , (8 − 2)
4π vr ∂t
A The two-point ray tracing described above is con-
where ∆x and ∆y are inline and crossline trace in-
tervals, Pout = P (xout , yout , z; τ = 2z/v) is the out-
put of migration using the input wavefield Pin =
P (xin , yin , z = 0; τ = t − r/v) within an areal aper-
ture A. The geometry associated with equation (8-2) is
given in Figure H-1.
The Kirchhoff summation method requires
(a) computing nonzero-offset traveltimes through a
3-D, spatially varying velocity medium, and
(b) scaling and summation of the amplitudes along
the computed traveltime trajectory based on the
Kirchhoff integral solution to the scalar wave equa-
tion.
The scaling of amplitudes before summation includes
application of the obliquity factor cos θ, the spherical
divergence factor 1/vr, and the amplitude and phase
corrections, |ω| exp(iπ/2), implied by the derivative op-
erator ∂P/∂t (Section 4.1). Additionally, as for any mi-
gration, undersampling of the input data in x and y
directions needs to be compensated for by a suitable
antialiasing filter. Nevertheless, it is the traveltime com-
putation that poses numerical accuracy and efficiency
challenges when implementing the Kirchhoff summation
method for 3-D prestack depth migration.
Calculation of Traveltimes
A direct method to compute traveltimes is ray tracing
through the specified velocity-depth model. A bundle
of rays emerging from a source location at the sur-
face can be sprayed down into the earth and traced
through the subsurface while accounting for ray bend-
ing caused by changes in velocity gradient and refrac-
tion at layer boundaries with velocity contrast. Reflec-
tion points along each of the raypaths are identified as
the intersection points of the rays with the layer bound-
aries. The traveltime from the source location at the
surface and a reflection point at the subsurface is then
calculated by integrating the elements of distance along
the raypath divided by the velocity associated with that
element. By applying reciprocity, the traveltime from a
receiver location at the surface to a reflection point in
the subsurface can be computed in the same manner.
Finally, for a given source-receiver pair at the surface
and a reflection point in the subsurface, the total trav-
eltime is computed by adding the traveltime from the
source to the reflection point to the traveltime from the
reflection point to the receiver.
ceptually simple, but is computationally intensive. Effi-
cient ray tracing through complex velocity-depth mod-
els is not a trivial task. Alternatives to two-point ray
tracing, however, have been developed and implemented
with sufficient accuracy. Examples include paraxial ray
tracing (Keho and Beydoun, 1988; Červený et al., 1982)
and Gaussian beam ray tracing (Červený et al., 1984).
Given the circumstances described above, one can
identify potential problems with the ray tracing. There
will not always be a raypath combination associated
 Earth Imaging in Depth
with a source-receiver pair and a reflection point. De-
pending on the recording geometry and the complexity
of the velocity-depth model, there may be zones through
which some rays may be missed. This complication is
compounded by the computational load involved in ray
tracing itself. As such, direct ray tracing is rarely used
for traveltime computations required for prestack depth
migration.
Figure 8.5-3 shows the traveltime contours through
a velocity-depth model that includes a salt sill with ve-
locity higher than the surrounding sediments. The dis-
continuities along the traveltime contours correspond to
locations where ray bending is implied by ray tracing.
Note, however, that the locations where ray bending
takes place do not coincide with the salt sill bound-
ary where the largest velocity contrast exists. Problems
with ray tracing through a complex model as outlined
above also cause physically implausable rapid variations
in the traveltime contours.
An alternative to two-paint ray tracing is wavefront
construction (Vinje et al., 1993), which involves tracing
not just one ray but a fan of rays together. As such, the
medium represented by the velocity-depth model used
in ray tracing is covered adequately by controlling the
ray density along wavefronts (Lecomte, 1999). In areas
with low ray density, additional ray bundles may be
created by paraxial rays.
The Eikonal Equation
Consider a plane wave function P (x, y, z; t) with a spa-
tially varying amplitude P0 (x, y, z) and spatially vary-
ing traveltime T (x, y, z) (Section H.2)
P (x, y, z; t) = P0 (x, y, z) exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) .
(8 − 3)
Assume for the moment that the wave amplitude
P0 (x, y, z) does not vary spatially, but is a constant.
Then, the plane-wave solution of the form defined by
equation (8-3) satisfies the scalar wave equation (8-1).
Substitution of equation (8-3) into equation (8-1) yields
∂T 2 ∂T 2 ∂T 2 1
+ + = ,
∂x ∂y ∂z v 2 (x, y, z)
which is called the eikonal equation. It is a ray-
theoretical approximation to the scalar wave equation
(8-1). Derivation of equation (8-4) is provided in Section
H.2.
While the solution of the scalar wave equation (8-
1) represents the wavefield P (x, y, z; t) at a point in
space (x, y, z) and at an instant of time t, the solu-
tion of the eikonal equation (8-4) represents the trav-
eltime T (x, y, z) for a ray passing through a point
1325
(x, y, z) in a medium with velocity v(x, y, z). Specifi-
cally, T (x, y, z) = constant represents the wavefront
of constant phase at an instant of time. The wave is
propagated from one wavefront to the next by way of
raypaths, which are perpendicular to the wavefronts.
When the medium velocity is not constant but is
an arbitrary function of space variables v(x, y, z), and
the wave amplitude P0 (x, y, z) is not constant but also
varies spatially, then the traveltime function T (x, y, z)
of equation (8-3) is not a solution to the eikonal equa-
tion (8-4). For a wave function, such as that given by
equation (8-3), with spatially varying amplitudes, the
eikonal equation is a good approximation to the wave
equation only at a high-frequency limit (Section H.2).
The high-frequency limit is equivalent to small wave-
lengths. How small should the wavelength be for a solu-
tion of the eikonal equation to be a good approximation
to the wave equation? The approximation is valid if the
fractional change in the velocity gradient is much less
than the wave frequency (Officer, 1958). In practice, this
means that the eikonal equation can be used to compute
traveltimes if the velocity-depth model does not contain
large velocity gradients.
Just as a solution to the scalar wave equation can
be formulated using a finite-difference scheme (Section
4.1), the eikonal equation (8-4) also can be solved using
the finite-difference technique (Section H.3). Consider
the 3-D computation mesh sketched in Figure H-2b. We
want to compute the traveltime T of the eikonal equa-
tion (H-27) at grid point (x + ∆x, y, z + ∆z) using the
known traveltimes at grid points (x, y, z), (x+∆x, y, z),
and (x + ∆x, y + ∆y, z).
Computing the traveltimes at depth z + ∆z from
those at depth z means extrapolating T in the z-
direction. Rewrite equation (8-4) in the form of an ex-
trapolation equation as (Reshef and Kosloff, 1986)
2 2
∂T ∂T ∂T
v = 1− v − v . (8 − 5)
∂z ∂x ∂y
As shown in Section H.3, the 3-D eikonal equation (8-5)
can be solved for the traveltime values T (x, y, z) for the
propagating wavefront through a velocity field v(x, y, z)
in the subsurface using a finite-difference scheme.
(8 − 4)
Figure 8.5-4 shows the traveltime contours through
the same velocity-depth model as in Figure 8.5-3 com-
puted by using the eikonal equation. These may be con-
sidered as wavefronts expanding from a source at the
surface located at 3000 m from the origin. Note that the
shape of the traveltime contours honors the boundaries
with velocity contrast. Nevertheless, the traveltime con-
tours do not show the abrupt changes as would be the
case at a boundary such as the salt-sediment interface
with sharp velocity contrast.
1326 Seismic Data Analysis
Earth Imaging in Depth 1327
1328 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.5-5. Wavefronts of an expanding wave from a source located at surface point S. The layer above has a lower velocity
than the layer below. The dotted lines indicate the wavefronts associated with the head wave that is refracted at a critical
angle along the interface of the two layers.

To explain the smooth behavior of the traveltime
contours at layer boundaries in Figure 8.5-4, refer to
the sketch in Figure 8.5-5 of an expanding wavefront
through a flat interface with a large velocity contrast.
At the critical angle of refraction, waves travel along the
layer boundary with the faster velocity of the underly-
ing layer, Eventually, these waves are refracted back
into the overlying layer and are recorded in the form
of first arrivals; thus, they often are called head waves.
Note that the wavefront associated with the head wave
tends to smooth out the sharp change in the expand-
ing wavefront as it crosses over the layer boundary with
velocity contrast. It is this effect that we see in Fig-
ure 8.5-4 where the traveltime contours make a smooth
transition from the sediment to the salt layer.
Ideally, the traveltime contours should pronounce
the sharp layer boundaries. While some solutions to the
eikonal equation include the head waves (Vidale, 1988;
Podvin and Lecomte, 1991) as shown in Figure 8.5-
4, others exclude the head wave (Reshef and Kosloff,
1986; Reshef, 1991). Figure 8.5-6 shows the traveltime
contours derived from the solution of the eikonal equa-
tion that has excluded the head wave. Note the sharp
changes in the traveltime contours, which at some loca-
tions appear to coincide nicely with the salt-sediment
layer boundary. Nevertheless, the match is not consisi-
tent at all locations and the traveltime contours show
rapid fluctuations that are not physically plausable.
Figure 8.5-7a shows traveltime contours that were
computed using a finite-difference solution to the
eikonal equation. The velocity-depth model consists of
layers with velocities that vary from 1500 m/s to 4000
m/s. Note that the eikonal solution, although it is as-
sociated only with the fastest arrival, always yields a
raypath from a source at the surface to a point in the
subsurface through the gridded velocity-depth model.
Some of the raypaths are indicated by trajectories that
have a solid circle at the end. The smooth behavior of
the traveltime contours is associated with the head wave
that often is the first arrival.
In contrast with the eikonal solution, the wavefront
construction yields multiple arrivals as shown in Figure
8.5-7b. Again, some of the raypaths are indicated by
trajectories that have a solid circle at the end. Note
Earth Imaging in Depth 1329
1330 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.5-7. Traveltime contours derived (a) from a finite-difference solution to the eikonal equation, (b) and (c) from
wavefront construction (Lecomte, 1999). See text for details.
 Earth Imaging in Depth
the multiple raypaths associated with a single point in
the subsurface. Where a head wave or diffraction de-
velops, the wavefront construction leaves a gap in the
traveltime contour. With wavefront construction, how-
ever, you can be selective in the type of rays that you
would like to include in the summation of amplitudes.
Figure 8.5-7c shows traveltime contours associated with
the reflecting boundary represented by the thick curve.
In fact, the solution from wavefront construction in this
case includes arrivals associated with reflected waves as
well as transmitted waves.
The eikonal solution does not necessarily yield
the maximum energy along the single-arrival raypath.
In wavefront construction, on the other hand, ampli-
tudes associated with multiple arrivals can be included
in the summation. Thus, the chance of capturing the
maximum-energy arrival increases, albeit at an increase
in computational cost. By including multiple arrivals
in the summation, the likelihood of attaining a com-
plete image of a complex structure also is higher. Fig-
ure 8.5-8a shows raypaths from a single source at the
surface that illuminate portions of the steep flank of a
salt dome. By using the arrivals associated with these
raypaths, only, in Kirchhoff summation, the resulting
partial image shown in Figure 8.5-8b is obtained. By
including in the summation the arrivals associated with
the reflections off the salt flank as well as the arrivals
associated with the reflections from a deeper interface
that bounce off the salt flank (Figure 8.5-8c), a more
complete image can be obtained (Figure 8.5-8d).
Fermat’s Principle
The traveltime along a raypath from one point to an-
other has an extremum value which, for most physical
problems, is a minimum. This is the formal statement
of Fermat’s principle (Officer, 1958). The raypath also
defines the direction of energy flow. Among a bundle of
rays from one point to another, Fermat’s principle can
be applied to discard all but one raypath that corre-
sponds to a minimum time of travel from one point to
the other. This practical concept can be used to perform
traveltime computations for prestack depth migration
(Meshbey et al., 1993; Vesnaver, 1996).
Consider the raypath geometry depicted in Figure
8.5-9. The velocity-depth model may be split into a set
of horizontal slabs with a specified thickness, say 50 to
300 m. Assume that traveltimes from a source at the
surface z = 0 to a depth z through a velocity-depth
model already have been computed. Now compute the
traveltime from the grid point 6 at depth z to each
of the grid points at depth z + ∆z within a specified
aperture, say grid points 1 to 11. An average velocity
between the grid points at depth z and z + ∆z along
1331
each of the raypaths may be used in the computation.
Among the 11 raypaths from the grid point 6 at depth
z to grid points 1 to 11 at depth z + ∆z, choose that
which corresponds to the minimum traveltime.
The process may be continued for all grid points
at depth z, and then from one depth to the next, and
the traveltimes associated with the minimum-traveltime
raypaths through each of the horizontal slabs may be
added to compute the total traveltime from a source or
receiver point at the surface z = 0 to a reflection point
at some depth in the subsurface.
Summation Strategies
Figure 8.5-10 shows the zero-offset wavefield responses
of a point diffractor buried in media with varying de-
grees of complexity. The traveltime trajectories associ-
ated with the point diffractors buried in a constant-
velocity medium, beneath an overburden with mild
to moderate lateral velocity variations, and beneath
an overburden with strong lateral velocity variations,
all are single-valued. Therefore, ray tracing through
such models would produce unambiguous traveltimes
for Kirchhoff summation.
The zero-offset traveltime trajectory associated
with the point diffractor buried beneath an overburden
with severe lateral velocity variations, however, is mul-
tivalued (Figures 8.5-10d). One would have to decide as
to what summation path to choose:
(a) The travelpath that corresponds to the first ar-
rivals; that is, minimum-time summation trajec-
tory (Vidale, 1988; Podvin and Lecomte, 1991),
(b) The travelpath that corresponds to the bowties
that contain the most significant portion of the en-
ergy associated with the zero-offset wavefield re-
sponse; that is, maximum-energy summation tra-
jectory (Nichols, 1996),
(c) The travelpath that corresponds to the shortest
distance between the source or receiver point at
the surface and the reflection point at the subsur-
face; that is, minimum-distance summation trajec-
tory (Moser, 1991), or
(d) The entire multivalued travelpath.
From the zero-offset wavefields associated with a
diffractor buried in a medium with varying complex-
ity shown in Figure 8.5-10, it can be inferred that the
minimum-time strategy may be suitable for cases of
moderate to strong lateral velocity variations (Figure
8.5-10b,c), whereas the maximum-energy strategy may
be imperative for a case of a complex overburden with
severe lateral velocity variations (Figure 8.5-10d). Ide-
ally, it would be desirable not to exclude any portion
1332 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.5-8. Two different illuminations of the salt flank by a single source and rays associated with (a) primary reflections
which yield the image of the salt flank in (b), and (c) reflections that first bounce off a deeper layer boundary which yield the
image of the salt flank in (d) (Lecomte, 1999).
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1333

FIG. 8.5-9. A sketch that illustrates traveltime calculation

using Fermat’s principle. See text for details.

of the traveltime trajectory and use a multivalued sum-

mation path. This, however, can be formidably costly
and often is not needed in practice. Efficient traveltime
calculation and choice of a summation path are impor-
tant considerations for the 3-D prestack depth migra-
tion of large volumes of seismic data (Meshbey et al.,
1993; Sethian and Popovici, 1999).

Migration Aperture

Because of cost considerations in 3-D prestack depth

migration, it is compelling to make a careful choice of
aperture width in the inline and crossline directions.
While an excessively large aperture unnecessarily in-
creases run time, a small aperture can produce a poor
image from 3-D prestack depth migration. Migration
aperture in the Kirchhoff summation was discussed al-
ready in Section 4.2. Recall that a small aperture causes
destruction of steeply dipping events. Excessively small
aperture width also organizes random noise, especially
in the deeper part of the section, as horizontally domi-
nant spurious events. FIG. 8.5-10. Zero-offset wavefield responses of a point
Figure 8.5-11 shows aperture tests for 3-D prestack diffractor buried in (a) a constant-velocity medium, (b) be-
depth migration. A small aperture in both inline and neath an overburden with mild to moderate lateral velocity
crossline directions causes poor imaging of the steeply variations, (c) beneath an overburden with strong lateral
dipping fault planes and the steep reflector that defines velocity variations, and (d) beneath a complex overburden
the base of the sedimentary basin. Note also the orga- with severe lateral velocity variations.
nizing effect of small aperture on random noise.

Operator Antialiasing in Section 4.6 we examined its adverse effects on mi-

gration. Prestack data may be made spatially uniform,
In Section 1.2 we reviewed the phenomenon of spatial for instance, by azimuth-moveout correction (AMO)
aliasing caused by undersampling of recorded data, and (Biondi et al., 1998), thus enabling use of finite-dif-
1334 Seismic Data Analysis
 Earth Imaging in Depth
FIG. 8.5-12. A Kirchhoff summation trajectory that inter-
cepts multiple samples from input data traces (Claerbout,
1985).
ference or frequency-wavenumber algorithms for pre-
stack depth migration. When it becomes necessary to
use Kirchhoff summation algorithm, operator aliasing is
an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Shown in Figure 8.5-12 is a low-velocity hyperbolic
summation path. Note that it intercepts more than one
sample in a given input trace, each sample indicated by
a shaded grid block. Thus, the summation along this
path should include more than one sample per input
trace. There are three different approaches to handle
operator aliasing caused by mulitple samples per input
trace included in the summation:
(a) The summation trajectory that represents the kine-
matics of the migration operator may be truncated
to exclude the steep flanks that suffer from aliasing.
(b) Trace interpolation may be used to create addi-
tional traces so as to avoid multiple samples per in-
put trace included in the summation (Section 7.2).
(c) The frequency components that are aliased at a
given dip along the summation trajectory are fil-
tered out (Gray, 1992).
The first approach is undesirable since truncation
is equivalent to limiting the migration aperture which
1335
can destroy steeply dipping events (Section 4.2). The
second approach can be taken but at a high cost in the
case of prestack data. Trace interpolation also suffers in
accuracy when applied to data with dipping events that
conflict with one another. The third approach requires
multiple copies of the input trace with different band-
widths; this can be troublesome for very large input
prestack data. Lumley et al. (1994) applied a triangu-
lar filter (Claerbout, 1992) to input traces in the time
domain without creating multiple copies. An improved
form of the triangular filtering method for 3-D Kirchhoff
summation is given by Abma et al. (1999).
3-D Common-Offset Depth Migration
In Section 7.4 we defined a strategy for 3-D prestack
time migration based on the application of 3-D zero-
offset migration theory to 3-D common-offset data.
Specifically, following NMO and 3-D DMO correc-
tion, prestack data will have been corrected for dip
and source-receiver azimuth effects. As a result, the
common-offset volumes of data are decoupled repre-
sentations of a 3-D zero-offset wavefield; thus, each
common-offset volume can be migrated independently
using a 3-D zero-offset time migration algorithm. For
the subsequent processing sequence, refer to Section 7.4.
Decoupling of common-offset data volumes, in a
strict theoretical sense, is only possible for events with
hyperbolic moveout. For events with nonhyperbolic
moveout that calls for depth migration, each of the
resulting common-offset volumes following the applica-
tions of NMO and 3-D DMO corrections would not be
a representation of a 3-D zero-offset wavefield. As such,
and again in theory, a 3-D common-offset volume of
data could not be depth-migrated.
Despite this theoretical mandate, it is surprisingly
pleasant to see that indeed, in practice, the common-
offset strategy for 3-D prestack time migration some-
times can also be applicable to 3-D prestack depth
migration. While, following NMO and 3-D DMO cor-
rection, each of the common-offset volumes is time-
migrated using a 3-D rms velocity field, depth migra-
tion of the common-offset volumes is done using a 3-D
velocity-depth model.
There are two reasons why you may choose to ap-
ply the common-offset strategy to 3-D prestack depth
migration:
(a) You may wish to use a 3-D zero-offset depth mi-
gration algorithm other than the Kirchhoff sum-
mation, and thus avoid the troublesome task of
1336 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.5-13. Part 1: Two inline sections from image volumes derived from 3-D prestack depth migration using Kirchhoff
summation (left panels) and the common-offset technique (right panel) described in Section 8.5. The vertical axis is in depth
(km).
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1337

FIG. 8.5-13. Part 2: Two inline sections from image volumes derived from 3-D prestack depth migration using Kirchhoff
summation (left panels) and the common-offset technique (right panel) described in Section 8.5. The vertical axis is in depth
(km).
1338 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. 8.5-13. Part 3: Two inline sections from image volumes derived from 3-D prestack depth migration using Kirchhoff
summation (left panels) and the common-offset technique (right panel) described in Section 8.5. The vertical axis is in depth
(km).
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1339

FIG. 8.5-14. Depth image derived from (a) prestack Kirchhoff migration, (b) common-offset depth migration using a workflow
that includes DMO correction, (c) common-offset depth migration using a workflow without DMO correction.
1340 Seismic Data Analysis
computing 3-D nonzero-offset traveltimes needed
for the latter.
(b) For line output or for selected image gathers Kirch-
hoff summation is the appropriate algorithm. For
volume output from 3-D prestack depth migration
other algorithms can be more efficiently applied to
common-offset data.
Figure 8.5-13 shows selected inline sections derived
from 3-D prestack depth migration using the Kirch-
hoff summation and the common-offset strategy. For
the latter, a 3-D zero-offset phase-shift-plus-correction
(PSPC) (Kosloff and Kessler, 1987) was used to migrate
all 32 volumes of 3-D DMO-corrected common-offset
data; thus a full volume of image in depth was created.
Comparison of the sections from the two approaches
indicate that the imaging quality is largely comparable.
The common-offset strategy for depth migration
will not work strictly for a case of complex overbur-
den structure that gives rise to complex, nonhyperbolic
moveout. Shown in Figure 8.5-14a is the image ob-
tained from prestack depth migration based on Kirch-
hoff summation with a finite-difference solution to the
eikonal equation to compute the traveltimes. The syn-
thetic data (O’Brien and Gray, 1996) are associated
with a salt sill model (Section K.2). The objective is
to image the subsalt region accurately. Note that the
common-offset strategy for prestack depth migration
with or without DMO correction (Figure 8.5-14b,c) in-
cluded in the workflow fails to produce an accurate im-
age of the subsalt region with a level of accuracy that is
FIG. 8.E-1. (a) A zero-offset section containing all-zero traces except the one shown, which has a single isolated wavelet; (b)
the velocity-depth model for depth migration; (c) the x − z plane associated with the depth-migrated section. See Exercise
8-1.
comparable to the result from the Kirchhoff summation
(Figure 8.5-14a).
As a final note, efficient and accurate implementa-
tion of 3-D prestack depth migration is a topic of ac-
tive and intensive research in the industry. A choice of
strategies for 3-D prestack depth migration is summa-
rized below:
(a) You may wish to first apply azimuth-moveout
(AMO) correction (Biondi et al., 1998) to reg-
ularize the prestack data, then use a frequency-
wavenumber algorithm (Biondi and Palacharla,
1996) to perform the 3-D prestack depth migra-
tion. The method involves the design and applica-
tion of a wavefield extrapolation operator on the
whole of the 3-D prestack data without decoupling
the common-offset volumes.
(b) Alternatively, you may wish to perform 3-D
prestack depth migration using the Kirchhoff sum-
mation technique discussed in this section. The
Kirchhoff summation implicitly handles geometry
irregularities associated with the prestack data.
(c) A third strategy, which also is described in the lat-
ter part of this section, is based on migration of the
decoupled 3-D common-offset volumes of data that
have been corrected for geometry irregularities and
reduced to zero offset by way of 3-D DMO correc-
tion. Again, the preferred choice for the algorithm
to perform the 3-D common-offset depth migration
is one based on wave extrapolation.
 Earth Imaging in Depth 1341

FIG. 8.E-2. Cross-sections extracted from the image volumes created by (a) 3-D poststack time migration, and (b) 3-D
prestack depth migration. See Exercise 8-4. (Data courtesy Diamond Geophysical.)
1342 Seismic Data Analysis
A general guideline for the choice of strategy for 3-D
prestack depth migration is given below:
(a) If you are dealing with a low-relief structure
and moderate lateral velocity variations, use 3-D
prestack depth migration for conducting image-
gather analysis for model verification and update,
but not necessarily for imaging in depth. For the
purpose of model verification and update, you need
to work with only a sparse grid of image gathers;
and the Kirchhoff summation is the suitable algo-
rithm to produce such a set of image gathers with-
out creating a whole image volume. As for imaging
in depth, you may be content with 3-D poststack
depth migration; and a finite-difference (Sections
G.1 and G.2) or frequency-wavenumber algorithm
(Section 7.3) that uses wave extrapolation is the
suitable algorithm.
(b) If you are dealing with a complex structure and
moderate-to-strong lateral velocity variations, use
a 3-D prestack depth migration algorithm based
on decoupling of common-offset volumes of data as
demonstrated in this section.
(c) Finally, if you are dealing with a complex over-
burden structure, use of a 3-D prestack depth mi-
gration algorithm without decoupling the common-
offset data is imperative.
EXERCISES
Exercise 8-1. Consider the zero-offset x − t sec-
tion depicted in Figure 8.E-1. Using the velocity-depth
model in the same figure, sketch the depth-migrated
x − z section.
Exercise 8-2. Identify the prominent sideswipe
energy on Lines I-181 and I-151 in Figure 8.4-2 (right
column).
Exercise 8-3. In areas with complex overburden,
which one is more important — 3-D poststack depth
migration or 2-D prestack depth migration?
Exercise 8-4. How would the geometry of the sub-
salt target reflectors labeled in yellow in Figure 8.E-2
behave on a section from an image volume created by
3-D poststack depth migration?
 Appendix H
DIFFRACTION AND RAY THEORY FOR WAVE PROPAGATION

H.1 The Kirchhoff Integral

Kirchhoff’s integral solution to the scalar wave equation

∂2 ∂2 ∂2 1 ∂2
+ + − P (x, y, z; t) = 0 (H − 1)
∂x2 ∂x2 ∂x2 v 2 (x, y, z) ∂t2
is a mathematical statement of Huygen’s principle. In equation (H-1), P (x, y, z; t) is the pressure
wavefield propagating in a medium with velocity v(x, y, z). Huygen’s principle states that the
pressure disturbance at time t + ∆t is the superposition of the spherical waves generated by
point sources at time t.
Consider the geometry in Figure H-1 of a point diffractor at a location S(x, y, z) and an
observation surface A for the diffraction wavefield generated by the source at the diffractor.
Actually, the surface area A is only a portion of a closed surface and is the aperture of the
observation made over that closed surface. For convenience, we shall choose the receiver location
R(0, 0, 0) on the observation surface A to be at the origin of our coordinate system.
Also for convenience, we shall apply Fourier transform to the wavefield in the time direction

P (x, y, z, ; ω) = P (x, y, z; t) exp(−iωt) dt, (H − 2a)

where ω is the angular frequency. The inverse transform is given by

P (x, y, z, ; t) = P (x, y, z; ω) exp(iωt) dω. (H − 2b)

Now apply Fourier transform to equation (H-1) in the time direction to obtain
ω2
∇2 + P (x, y, z; ω) = 0, (H − 3)
v2
where ∇2 is the Laplacian operator
∂2 ∂2 ∂2
∇2 P = + + P.
∂x2 ∂x2 ∂x2
We may intuitively state that what we observe at the surface A is what is generated at
the source S. This statement is mathematically expressed by Gauss’s divergence theorem as
(Officer, 1958; Lass, 1950; Coulson, 1965; Jackson, 1962)
∂P
∇2 P dV = dA, (H − 4)
V A ∂n
where V is the volume of the region enclosed by the surface A and the derivative ∂P/∂n is
taken normal to the surface A in the outward direction. Note that Gauss’s divergence theorem
expressed by equation (H-4) transforms a surface integral into a volume integral. For our specific
application, this means imaging the earth’s interior from seismic waves observed at the earth’s
surface.
We shall solve equation (H-3) for each frequency component ω and sum the resulting so-
lutions over all frequency components to compute the wavefield at the source P (x, y, z; t = 0).
1344 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. H-1. Geometry of a point diffractor to derive the Kirchhoff integral solution to the scalar wave
equation.

The solution obtained by Kirchhoff in 1882 requires Green’s function which describes the prop-
agation outward from a point source with spherical symmetry as (Coulson, 1965; Lass, 1950)
1 ω
G(r, ω) = exp −i r , (H − 5a)
r v
where
r= x2 + y 2 + z 2 (H − 5b).
is the distance between the observation point and the source location. Green’s function given
by equation (H-5a) is also a valid solution to equation (H-3):
ω2
∇2 + G(x, y, z; ω) = 0. (H − 6)
v2
We now rewrite equation (H-4) by multiplying both sides with Green’s function G of equa-
tion (H-5a) as
∂P
G∇2 P dV = G dA, (H − 7a)
V A ∂n
and rewrite, in turn, equation (H-7a) by interchanging our wave function P with Green’s function
G to obtain
∂G
P ∇2 GdV = P dA. (H − 7b)
V A ∂n
Now subtract equation (H-7b) from (H-7a) to get
∂P ∂G
G∇2 P − P ∇2 G dV = G −P dA. (H − 8)
V A ∂n ∂n
 Diffraction and Ray Theory for Wave Propagation 1345

Equation (H-8) is known as Green’s theorem. Albeit the algebraic steps that we took from
Gauss’s theorem given by equation (H-4) to Green’s theorem given by equation (H-8) may
appear informal, the intention here is to provide the basic concept underlying the derivation.
Substitute equations (H-3) and (H-6) into the left-hand side of equation (H-8)
ω2 ω2
G∇2 P − P ∇2 G dV = −G P + P G dV,
V V v2 v2
and hence note that

G∇2 P − P ∇2 G dV = 0. (H − 9)
V

Now we turn our attention to the right-hand side of equation (H-8). Because Green’s func-
tion defined by equation (H-5a) becomes infinite at the source location S, we need to place
it inside an infinitesimally small enclosed surface E. This would then require computing the
right-hand side of equation (H-8) in two parts — once for the surface E and once for the surface
A.
Substitute equation (H-5a) into the right-hand side of equation (H-8) and note, from Figure
H-1, that for the surface E, (∂/∂n) = −(∂/∂r):
∂P ∂G 1 ω ∂P ∂ 1 ω
G −P dE = − exp −i r +P exp −i r r2 dΩ, (H − 10a)
E ∂n ∂n E r v ∂r ∂r r v
where dE = r2 dΩ and Ω is the solid angle around the point source S in Figure H-1. Carry
out the differentiation with respect to r and simplify the right-hand side of equation (H-10a) to
obtain
∂P ∂G ω ∂P ω
G −P dE = − exp −i r r + P + i rP dΩ. (H − 10b)
E ∂n ∂n E v ∂r v
Finally, take the limit r → 0 to obtain the contribution of the surface E:
∂P ∂G
G −P dE = −4πP. (H − 11)
E ∂n ∂n
Now substitute, again, equation (H-5a) into the right-hand side of equation (H-8) and note
from Figure H-1 that for the surface A, (∂/∂n) = −(∂/∂z):

∂P ∂G 1 ω ∂P ∂ 1 ω
G −P dA = − exp −i r +P exp −i r dA. (H − 12)
A ∂n ∂n A r v ∂z ∂z r v

Carry out the differentiation with respect to z while noting from Figure H-1 that ∂r/∂z = cos θ,
and simplify the right-hand side of equation (H-12) to get
∂P ∂G ω 1 ∂P cos θ ω cos θ
G −P dA = − exp −i r + 2 P +i P dA. (H − 13)
A ∂n ∂n A v r ∂z r v r
The total contribution to the right-hand side of equation (H-8) actually is the sum of
equations (H-11) and (H-13). The left-hand side of equation (H-8) vanishes by way of equation
(H-9). Hence, the resulting expression from equation (H-9) is
ω 1 ∂P cos θ ω cos θ
4πP = exp −i r + 2 P +i P dA. (H − 14)
A v r ∂z r v r
Recall that P = P (x, y, z; ω) in equation (H-14) and multiply both sides by exp(iωt) and
integrate over frequency ω. The left-hand side of the equation then becomes P (x, y, z; t) by way
of the inverse Fourier transform as in equation (H-2b). Thus the resulting expression is
1 1 ∂P cos θ ω cos θ r
P (x, y, z; t) = + 2 P +i P exp −iω t − dA dω. (H − 15)
4π ω A r ∂z r v r v
1346 Seismic Data Analysis

Define the variable τ = t−r/v as retarded time. Recall from Appendix A that if P (ω) is the
Fourier transform of P (t), then exp(−iωr/v)P (ω) is the Fourier transform of P (τ = t − r/v).
Also, if P (ω) is the Fourier transform of P (t), then iωP (ω) is the Fourier transform of ∂P/∂t.
Incorporate these relations into equation (H-15) and apply inverse Fourier transform to the
right-hand side to obtain

1 1 ∂P cos θ cos θ ∂P
P (x, y, z; τ ) = + [P ] + dA, (H − 16)
4π A r ∂z r2 vr ∂t

where [P ] means that the integration over the area A is done using the wavefield P at retarded
time τ = t − r/v.
The first term depends on the vertical gradient of the wavefield ∂P/∂z. The second term
is called the near-field term since it decays with 1/r2 . Both terms are neglected in seismic
migration. The remaining third term is called the far-field term and it is the foundation of
Kirchhoff migration. Writing it in discrete form, we have
∆x∆y cos θ ∂
Pout = Pin , (H − 17)
4π vr ∂t
A

where ∆x and ∆y are inline and crossline trace spacings, Pout = P (xout , yout , z; τ = 2z/v) is
the output of migration using the input wavefield Pin = P (xin , yin , z = 0; τ = t − r/v) within
an areal aperture A.

H.2 The Eikonal Equation

The eikonal equation is a ray-theoretical approximation to the scalar wave equation. Its solution
represents wavefronts of constant phase. The wave is propagated from one wavefront to the next
by way of raypaths which are perpendicular to the wavefronts.
Consider a compressional plane wave P (x, y, z; t) in 3-D Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z)
P (x, y, z; t) = P0 exp −iωt + ikx x + iky y + ikz z , (H − 18)
where P0 is the wave amplitude, t is the traveltime, and kx , ky , kz and ω are the Fourier duals
of the variables x, y, z and t, respectively. That this equation is a solution to the 3-D scalar
wave equation
∂2P ∂2P ∂2P 1 ∂2P
2
+ 2
+ 2
= 2 (H − 19)
∂x ∂y ∂z v (x, y, z) ∂t2
can be verified by computing the partial derivatives of the wavefield P (x, y, z; t) given by equation
(H-18) and direct substitution into equation (H-19). The result is the dispersion relation
ω2
kx2 + ky2 + kz2 = (H − 20)
v2
of the scalar wave equation (H-19). Since equation (H-18) satisfies this relation, it is a valid
solution to the scalar wave equation. In equation (H-19), v(x, y, z) is the propagation velocity
of the compressional plane wave P (x, y, z; t).
We shall rewrite the phase term in the plane-wave solution given by equation (H-18) as
kx ky kz
P (x, y, z; t) = P0 exp −iω t − x+ y+ z , (H − 21)
ω ω ω
so that we can define a 3-D traveltime surface T (x, y, z) as
kx ky kz
T (x, y, z) = x + y + z. (H − 22)
ω ω ω
 Diffraction and Ray Theory for Wave Propagation 1347

Substitute this definition into equation (H-21) to obtain the expression for the plane wave in
terms of the traveltime surface T (x, y, z)

P (x, y, z; t) = P0 exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) . (H − 23)

Now, we need to verify that this form of the plane wave solution satisfies the scalar wave
equation (H-19). Compute the partial derivative of the wave function P (x, y, z; t) of equation
(H-23) with respect to the space variable x
∂P ∂T
= P0 (iω) exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) (H − 24)
∂x ∂x
and differentiate the result once more to get
∂2P 2 ∂T
2 ∂2T
= −P 0 ω − iω exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) . (H − 25a)
∂x2 ∂x ∂x2
Repeat the differentiation for the space variable y
∂2P ∂T 2 ∂2T
= −P0 ω 2 − iω exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) (H − 25b)
∂y 2 ∂y ∂y 2
and for the space variable z
∂2P ∂T 2 ∂2T
= −P0 ω 2 − iω exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) . (H − 25c)
∂z 2 ∂z ∂z 2
Next compute the partial derivative of the wave function P (x, y, z; t) of equation (H-23) with
respect to the time variable t
∂2P
= −P0 ω 2 exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) . (H − 25d)
∂t2
Substitute equations (H-25a,b,c,d) into equation (H-19) and combine the terms into real
and imaginary parts

∂T 2 ∂T 2 ∂T 2 ∂2T ∂2T ∂2T ω2

ω2 + + − iω 2
+ 2
+ = . (H − 26)
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z 2 v 2 (x, y, z)

Since the term on the right-hand side is real, the imaginary part of the left-hand side has to
vanish, leading to the final expression
∂T 2 ∂T 2 ∂T 2 1
+ + = , (H − 27)
∂x ∂y ∂z v 2 (x, y, z)
which is called the eikonal equation. It gives the traveltime value T (x, y, z) for a ray passing
through a point (x, y, z) in a medium with velocity v(x, y, z).
A solution to the eikonal equation, T (x, y, z) = constant represents the wavefront at an in-
stant of time. Kinematically, a solution to the eikonal equation (H-27) should also be a solution
to the wave equation (H-19). This raises the important question as to under what circumstances
the eikonal equation may be considered a good approximation to the wave equation. To inves-
tigate this matter, we shall consider a plane wave function as in equation (H-23) but with a
spatially varying amplitude P0 (x, y, z) (Officer, 1958):

P (x, y, z; t) = P0 (x, y, z) exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) (H − 28)

and test its validity as a solution to the wave equation (H-19).

Compute the partial derivative of the wave function P (x, y, z; t) of equation (H-28) with
respect to the space variable x
∂P ∂P0 ∂T
= + iωP0 exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) (H − 29)
∂x ∂x ∂x
1348 Seismic Data Analysis

and differentiate the result once more, then simplify to get

∂2P ∂ 2 P0 ∂T 2 ∂P0 ∂T ∂2T

= − ω 2 P0 + iω 2 + P0 2 exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) .
∂x2 ∂x2 ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x
(H − 30a)
Repeat the differentiation for the space variables y

∂2P ∂ 2 P0 ∂T 2 ∂P0 ∂T ∂2T

= − ω 2 P0 + iω 2 + P0 2 exp −iω t − T (x, y, z)
∂y 2 ∂y 2 ∂y ∂y ∂y ∂y
(H − 30b)
and z
∂2P ∂ 2 P0 ∂T 2 ∂P0 ∂T ∂2T
= − ω 2 P0 + iω 2 + P0 2 exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) .
∂z 2 ∂z 2 ∂z ∂z ∂z ∂z
(H − 30c)
Next compute the partial derivative of the wave function P (x, y, z; t) of equation (H-28) with
respect to the time variable t
∂2P
= −P0 ω 2 exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) . (H − 30d)
∂t2
Substitute equations (H-30a,b,c,d) into equation (H-19), and combine the terms into real
and imaginary parts to obtain

∂T 2 ∂T 2 ∂T 2 ∂ 2 P0 ∂ 2 P0 ∂ 2 P0
ω 2 P0 + + − 2
+ 2
+
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z 2

∂P0 ∂T ∂P0 ∂T ∂P0 ∂T ∂2T ∂2T ∂2T ω2

−iω 2 + + + P0 + 2 + 2 = P0 .
∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂x2 ∂y ∂z v2
(H − 31)
Equate the real parts of both sides of equation (H-31) to get

∂T 2 ∂T 2 ∂T 2 1 ∂ 2 P0 ∂ 2 P0 ∂ 2 P0 1
+ + − 2
+ + = , (H − 32a)
∂x ∂y ∂z ω P0 ∂x2 ∂y 2 ∂z 2 v2

and equate the imaginary parts to get

2 ∂P0 ∂T ∂P0 ∂T ∂P0 ∂T ∂2T ∂2T ∂2T

+ + + + + = 0. (H − 32b)
P0 ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂x2 ∂y 2 ∂z 2

Now we analyze the implications of equations (H-32a,b). To reduce equation (H-32a) to the
eikonal equation (H-27), it follows that the second term on the left-hand side of equation (H-32a)
must vanish. This is only possible if we let 1/ω go to zero, or in other words, if we make the
high-frequency assumption. Thus, for a wave function, such as that given by equation (H-23),
with spatially varying amplitudes, the eikonal equation is a good approximation to the wave
equation at the high-frequency limit. Additionally, for T (x, y, z) to be a good approximation to
the solution of the wave equation, the first term on the left-hand side of equation (H-32b) must
be negligible compared to the second term. In fact, the wave function given by equation (H-23)
is a special form of the generalized asymptotic ray series solution given by (Hubral and Krey,
1980)
∞
P (x, y, z; t) = Pn exp −iω t − T (x, y, z) (iω)−n , (H − 33)
n=0
 Diffraction and Ray Theory for Wave Propagation 1349

where n = 0, 1, 2, . . .. Note that the terms for n ≥ 1 in equation (H-33) become insignificant
for a high-frequency source. Specifically, in the high-frequency limit, the summation given by
equation (H-33) reduces to the wave function of equation (H-23).
Since λ = 2πv/ω, where λ is the wavelength, the high-frequency limit is equivalent to
small wavelengths. How small the wavelength should be for a solution of the eikonal equation
to be a good approximation to the wave equation is an important consideration in the practical
validity of the eikonal equation itself. The approximation is valid if the fractional change in
the velocity gradient ∆v is much less than the frequency v/λ (Officer, 1958). In practice, this
approximation will not be met across a layer boundary with a sharp velocity contrast or in a
layer with velocity variations that occur within a spatial extent much less than the wavelength.
As a direct consequence of this approximation, the eikonal equation is a good approximation to
the wave equation only for a medium in which velocities do not vary rapidly, and especially, do
not exhibit sharp discontinuities.

H.3 Finite-Difference Solution to the Eikonal Equation

Just as the scalar wave equation itself can be solved using a finite-difference scheme to extrapolate
a wavefield from one depth level to another (Section 4.1), the eikonal equation can be solved
using a finite-difference scheme to compute the traveltimes along wavefronts expanding from
a source (Qin et al., 1992; Reshef and Kosloff, 1986; Vidale, 1988; Podvin and Lecomte, 1991;
Vinje et al., 1993). For simplicity, we shall rewrite the eikonal equation (H-27) for the 2-D case
in (x, z) coordinates
2 2
∂T ∂T 1
+ = . (H − 34)
∂x ∂z v 2 (x, z)
Consider the 2-D computation mesh sketched in Figure H-2a. We want to compute the traveltime
T of the eikonal equation (H-34) at grid point (x + ∆x, z + ∆z) using the known traveltimes at
grid points (x, z) and (x + ∆x, z).
Computing the traveltimes at depth z + ∆z from those at depth z means extrapolating T
in the z-direction. Rewrite equation (H-34) in the form of an extrapolation equation (Reshef
and Kosloff, 1986)
2
∂T 1 ∂T
=± − , (H − 35a)
∂z v2 ∂x
which can be rearranged to take the form
2
∂T ∂T
v = 1− v . (H − 35b)
∂z ∂x
Note that in equation (H-35b) we also have dropped one of the two solutions and only considered
that which yields an increase in traveltime as we march in depth.
Now replace the differential operators with difference operators
2 1/2
v(z + ∆z)T (z + ∆z) − v(z)T (z) v(x + ∆x)T (x + ∆x) − v(x)T (x)
= 1− ,
∆z ∆x
(H − 36a)
and rewrite explicitly in terms of T (z + ∆z)
2 1/2
∆z v(x + ∆x)T (x + ∆x) − v(x)T (x)
T (z + ∆z) = T (z) + 1− , (H − 36b)
v(z + ∆z) ∆x
1350 Seismic Data Analysis

FIG. H-2. Finite-difference mesh used for (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D solution to the eikonal equation. See
text for details.

where we have assumed that v(z)/v(z +∆z) is approximately unity. Also, we have avoided in our
algebra crowding the terms in equation (H-36b) with the dual variables (x, z). Now introduce
the dual variables explicitly to get the final expression for a finite-difference solution to the 2-D
eikonal equation
k k 2 1/2
k+1 k ∆z vi+1 Ti+1 − vik Tik
Ti+1 = Ti+1 + k+1 1 − , (H − 37)
vi+1 ∆x

where Tik is the discrete form of T (x, z) as labeled in Figure H-2a.

Now consider the 3-D computation mesh sketched in Figure H-2b. We want to compute the
traveltime T of the eikonal equation (H-27) at grid point (x + ∆x, y, z + ∆z) using the known
traveltimes at grid points (x, y, z), (x + ∆x, y, z) and (x + ∆x, y + ∆y, z). The 3-D equivalent of
equation (H-35b) is
2 2
∂T ∂T ∂T
v = 1− v − v . (H − 38)
∂z ∂x ∂y
Following the same algebra as for the 2-D case, we obtain the finite-difference solution to the
3-D eikonal equation
2 21/2
k k k k k k k k
k+1 k ∆z vi+1,j Ti+1,j − vi,j Ti,j vi+1,j+1 Ti+1,j+1 − vi+1,j Ti+1,j
Ti+1,j = Ti+1,j+ k+1 1− − ,
vi+1,j ∆x ∆y
(H − 39)
k
where Ti,j is the discrete form of T (x, y, z) as labeled in Figure H-2b.
 Diffraction and Ray Theory for Wave Propagation 1351

Note that in equations (H-36), (H-37), and (H-39), unlike the previous authors (Podvin and
Lecomte, 1991; Reshef, 1991), the indices for the velocity v and traveltime T are kept the same.
This was done with the stability of the finite-difference solution of the eikonal equation in mind.
Actually, Kjartannson (1979) has applied the same notion to the finite-difference solution to the
scalar wave equation.

REFERENCES

Abma, R., Sun, J., and Bernitsas, N., 1999; Antialiasing methods in Kirchhoff migration: Geo-
physics, 64, 1783-1792.
Al-Yahya, K., 1989, Velocity analysis by iterative profile migration: Geophysics, 54, 718-729.
Berryhill, J.R., 1979, Wave-equation datuming: Geophysics, 44, 1329-1333.
Berryhill, J.R., 1984, Wave-equation datuming before stack: Presented at the 54th Ann. Internat.
Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Biondi, B., Fomel, S., and Chemingui, N., 1998, Azimuth moveout for 3-D prestack imaging: Geo-
physics, 63, 574-588.
Biondi, B. and Palacharla, G., 1996, 3-D prestack migration of common-azimuth data: Geophysics,
61, 1822-1832.
Červený, V., Klimes, L., and Pšenčı́k, I., 1984, Paraxial ray approximation in the computation of
seismic wavefields in inhomogeneous media: Geophys. J. Roy. Astr. Soc., 79, 89-104.
Červený, V., Popov, M. M., and Pšenčı́k, I., 1982, Computation of wavefields in inhomogeneous
media — Gaussian beam approach: Geophys. J. Roy. Astr. Soc., 70, 109-128.
Chemingui, N. and Biondi, B., 1999, Data regularization to inversion to common offset (ICO): 69th
Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 1398-1401.
Claerbout, J.F., 1985, Imaging the earth’s interior: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Claerbout, J.F., 1992, Earth soundings analysis: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Cox, H. L. H. and Wapenaar, C. P. A., 1992, Macromodel estimation by common-offset migration
and by shot-record migration: J. Seis. Expl., 1, 29-37.
Deregowski, 1990, Common-offset migrations and velocity analysis: First Break, 8, 225-234.
Coulson, C. H., 1965, Waves: A mathematical account of the common type of wave motion: Oliver
and Boyd.
Gray, S., 1992, Frequency-selective design of the Kirchhoff migration operator: Geophys. Prosp.,
40, 565-571.
Hubral, P., 1977, Time migration — some ray-theoretical aspects: Geophys. Prosp., 25, 738-745.
Hubral, P. and Krey, T., 1980, Interval velocities from seismic reflection time measurements: Soc.
Expl. Geophys.
Jackson, J. D., 1962, Classical electrodynamics: John Wiley and Sons.
Judson, D. R., Lin, J., Schultz, P.S., and Sherwood, J.W.C., 1980, Depth migration after stack:
Geophysics, 45, 376-393.
Keho, T. H. and Beydoun, W. B., 1988, Paraxial ray Kirchhoff migration: Geophysics, 53, 1540-
1546.
Kjartansson, E., 1979, Modeling and migration by the monochromatic 45-degree equation: Stanford
Expl. Proj. Rep. No. 15.
Kosloff, D. and Kessler, D., 1987, Accurate depth migration by a generalized phase-shift method:
Geophysics, 52, 1074-1084.
Larner, K. L., Hatton, L., and Gibson, B., 1981, Depth migration of imaged time sections: Geo-
physics, 46, 734-750.
Lass, H., 1950, Vector and tensor analysis: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Lecomte, I., 1999, Local and controlled prestack depth migration in complex areas: Geophys. Prosp.,
47, 799-818.
Lee, W. B. and Zhang, L., 1992, Residual shot-profile migration: Geophysics, 57, 815-822.
1352 Seismic Data Analysis

Lumley, D. E., Claerbout, J. F., and Bevc, D., 1994, Antialiased Kirchhoff 3-D migration: 64th
Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 1282-1285.
Meshbey, V., Kosloff, D., Ragoza, Y., Meshbey, O., Egozy, U., and Cozzens, J., 1993, A method
for computing traveltimes for an arbitrary velocity model: Presented at the 45th Ann. EAGE
Mtg.
Moser, T. J., 1991, Shortest-path calculation of seismic rays: Geophysics, 56, 59-67.
Nichols, D. E., 1996, Maximum-energy traveltimes calculated in the seismic frequency band: Geo-
physics, 61, 253-263.
Chemingui, N. and Biondi, B., 1999, data regularization by inversion to common offset (ICO):
Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 1398-1401.
O’Brien, M. and Gray, S., 1996, Can we image beneath salt?: The Leading Edge, 17-22.
Officer, C. B., 1958, Introduction to the theory of sound transmission: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Podvin, P. and Lecomte, I., 1991, Finite-difference computation of traveltimes for velocity-depth
models with strong velocity contrast across layer boundaries — a massively parallel approach:
Geophys. J. Int., 105, 271-284.
Qin, F., Luo, Y., Olsen, K. B., Cai, W., and Schuster, G. T., 1992, Finite-difference solution of the
eikonal equation along expanding wavefronts: Geophysics, 57, 478-487.
Reshef, M., 1991, Prestack depth imaging of three-dimensional shot gathers: Geophysics, 56, 1158-
1163.
Reshef, M. and Kosloff, D., 1986, Migration of common-shot gathers: Geophysics, 51, 324-331.
Sethian, J. A. and Popovici, A. M., 1999, 3-D traveltime computation using the fast marching
method: Geophysics, 64, 516-523.
Schultz, P.S. and Sherwood, J.W.C., 1980, Depth migration before stack: Geophysics, 45, 361-375.
Taner, M.T., Cook, E.E., and Neidell, N.S., 1982, Paleo-seismic and color acoustic impedance sec-
tions: applications of downward continuation in structural and stratigraphic context: Presented
at the 52nd Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Vesnaver, A., 1996, Ray tracing based on Fermat’s principle in irregular grids: Geophys. Prosp.,
44, 741-760.
Vidale, J., 1988, Finite-difference calculation of traveltimes: Bull. Seis. Soc. Am., 78, 2026-2076.
Vinje, V., Iversen, E., and Gjoystdal, H., 1993, Traveltime and amplitude estimation using wave-
front construction: Geophysics, 58, 1157-1166.
Yilmaz, O. and Lucas, D., 1986, Prestack layer replacement: Geophysics, 51, 1355-1369.