Migration of Seismic Data by the WKBJ
Method
ENDERS A. ROBINSON
I n v i t e d Paper
Migration is a term used in reflection seismology to describe the
process of moving the recorded reflection events to their correct
spatial positions by backward projection or depropagation. AI-
though seismic records have been migrated since the very first
reflection survey in 1927 in Oklahoma, it was the paper by
Loewenthal, lu, Robertson, and Sherwood [I] in 1976 that intre
duced the explodingreflectormodel and numerical wave-equation
methods that developed into the time migration techniques in use
by the petroleum exploration industry today. Despite the fact that
H u b r a l N introduced the more advanced topic of depth migration
in 1977, the time migration methods have been the subject of so
many researchpapers that an integrated treatment is warranted.
The time migration methods can be described as various ways of
implementing the classicalWKBJ approximation (Le., geometrical
acoustics), well known intheoretical seismology and other areas of
applied physics. The exploding reflectors hypothesis depends on an
inherent (but, in fact, incidental) assumption that the amplitude of
the seismic pulse is invariant as it is transmitted through the earth
layers. Loewenthal et al. based this assumption on the requirement
that the mediumbe weakly inhomogeneous as well as on the paper
by Foster [3] in 1975, who had concluded that transmission effects
in the continuous onedimensional seismic model are unsubstan-
tial, and at the surface (where thereflection seismogramsare
recorded) transmission effects are not presentat all.Although
Foster regarded this as a general result, the work of Gray [4] in 1984
shows that it is indeed a consequence of the WKBJ approximation,
and so is valid only inthose situations where the WKBJapproxima-
tion is applicable. Thephase term which makes up the essential
element oftime migration (as well as various other types of
migration methods) is the WKB]phase correction factor, so time
migration methods such as the conventional versions of Kirchhoff
migration, finite-difference migration, and frequency-wavenumber
(f-k)migration are not general wave-equation methods but are
simply aspects of the WKB] approximation. In fact, it can be said
that most of conventional seismic processing in general is none
other than WKBJ (Le.,geometrical acoustics).
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of reflection seismology is to determine the
structure of the subsurface from seismic traces recorded at
the surface.Therecordedseismicdataaresubjected to
Manuscript received May 6 , 1985; revised June 17,1985.
The author is with the Department of Geosciences, The Univer-
sity of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104, USA.
ool8-9219/86/03oo-o428%01.00 01986 IEEE
428
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DA BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
variousprocessingoperationsby means ofdigitalcom-
puters in order to transform the data into a valid picture of
crosssections ofthe earth which can beinterpreted in
geological terms. Migration is one of the last operations to
be performed on the data. The reason is that a successful
migration requiresthat multiple reflectionsandsurface
waves be removed, or at least severely attenuated. In ad-
dition, migration requires an adequate velocity function of
the subsurface. The useof receiver arrays, and the processing
operations of common midpoint (CMP) stacking and pre-
dictive deconvolution [5],usually provide adequate removal
of multiples and surface waves. Forany given midpoint, a
velocity search procedure [6] provides a velocity function
v(z) as a function of depth z. The resulting CMP stacked
section is an approximation to a section which would be
obtained if each source and its corresponding receiver were
at the same point. Thus it is usualpractice to perform
migration on the CMP stacked sections, making use of the
velocityfunctionsobtained by the velocitysearchproce-
dures.
The definition of terms in migration is important, and so
at theoutset we give the following generallyaccepted
definitions.
Post-stackmigration: Any migration process that starts
with the CMPstack as input data. (Our discussion is re-
stricted to this type of migration.) It is assumed that the
CMP section corresponds to a hypothetical zero-offset (i.e.,
a coincident source-receiver) experiment in which the ex-
ploding reflectors model holds.
Time migration: Post-stack migration (as above) in which
the depth-point image is put at the minimum of the reflec-
tion time. Time migrationis strictly valid only for a horizon-
tally stratified medium, as for example one with constant
density and vertical velocity variations only.
Depth migration: Any migration (pre-stack or post-stack)
that takes into consideration geologic structure that is not
necessarily horizontally stratified,or in otherwords, all
migration methods that are not time migration schemes.
WBK/ migration: The WKBJ method is notlimited to
any seismic processing scheme in general, or to any migra-
PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, VOL. 74, NO. 3, MARCH 1986
tion scheme in particular. However, in this paper we only
discuss the WBKJ method in relation to time migration.
As S. H. Gray (personal communication) observes, seismic
migration methods explicitly downward continue a wave-
field into the earth, and to that extent they are indeed wave
methods.However, all thecommonmigration schemes
used in practice are limited by assumptions made prior to
their application. For example, a typicalpost-stackmigra-
tion method would depend upon the exploding reflectors
model,which in turn depends upon Huygens’ principle,
which in turn depends upon the high-frequencyassump-
tion,whichinturn givesthegeometricraypath picture.
Migration methods not limited by the exploding reflector
model (such as typicalpre-stack migration schemes)are
usually but not necessarily limited otherwise, say by the use
of a one-way wave equation or byignoring transmission
losses.
The word migration refers to themovement,ormigra-
tion, of the observed events on the stacked section to their
true spatial positions. The input data to a post-stack migra-
tion program would consist of a CMPstackedsection.
Providing that the stacking operation has been successful,
the primaryreflections on thissectionapproximate what
would have been generated in a hypothetical survey made
upof a series of source-and-receivercombinations dis-
cretely spaced atsome constant increment along the hori-
zontal seismic exploration line. Because in this hypothetical
survey, each source and the corresponding receiver is at the
same pointon the surfaceof the earth, the offset(or
distance) between each source and its receiver is zero. As a
result, the CMPstackedsection is often described as a
zero-offset section. Because in actuality the seismic sources
areset off sequentiallyand not simultaneously,thezero-
offset data do not represent any wavefield resulting from a
single seismic experiment. As a result Loewenthal et al. [I]
introducedahypothetical physicalexperiment to provide
an intuitive picture of zero-offset migration. The concept of
Loewenthal et al. is known as the exploding-reflector model
or exploding-reflector hypothesis. In this model the energy
sourcesare not at thesurface ofthe earth, but they are
distributed along the subsurface reflecting interfaces(the
reflectors). In other words, the reflectors are represented by
buried sources, which are all activated at the same time
t = 0. Therefore, in the exploding reflectorsmodelone
needs to be concerned only with upward-traveling waves.
Since the actual CMP section involves two-way traveltime
(time from the surface point to the reflector plus the time
back up on the same raypath to the samesurface point),
seismic time needs to be converted to one-way traveltime
in the use of the exploding reflector model. In this paper,
whenever we are dealing with the exploding reflector hy-
pothesis, wewill assume that the conversion has been
made so that the variable t represents one-way time. The
conversion is simply made by dividing the two-way timeby
2. However, in practice in seismicdataprocessingcenters
thetime scale of CMPsections is keptunchanged,and
insteadthevelocityof wavepropagation is divided by a
factor of 2.
Under the exploding-reflectorsmodel, the migration of
CMP datacan be described as the depropagation ofthe
primary reflections recorded at the surface of the earth back
in time and down into the earth to their time origin t = 0.
R O B I N S O N M I G R A T I O N O F SEISMIC DATA BY THE WKBJ M E T H O D
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DA BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
There is an inherent (but in fact incidental) assumption that
the basicseismicwavelet is a simplepulseandthat its
amplitude is invariant as it is transmitted through the earth
layers. Loewenthal et al. basedthisassumption onthe
requirement that the mediumbe weakly inhomogeneous as
well as on the theoretical work of Foster [3]. At that time,
the result of Foster was regarded as a general result applica-
ble t o all wave motion governed by the wave equation, as
Foster included noqualifying conditions in the statement of
his conclusions.However, as we will see in Section V of
this paper, Gray [4] has shown that Foster’s result is indeed
a consequence of the classic WKBJ approximation, andso is
valid only in those situations where the WKBJ approxima-
tion is applicable.
The CMP stacked section may be considered as a wave-
field measured at the surface of theearth.Given the ap-
proximate velocity variations within the earth as given by
the velocity function, the migrationprocess downward con-
tinuesthiswavefield into the subsurface and
thereby
elucidates the sources of the reflectedand diffracted seismic
events. Therefore, migration is the inverse process in which
the recorded seismicwavesare depropagated (with time
running backward) to the corresponding reflector locations.
In the process of seismicdataacquisition, the upward-
traveling waves are recorded at the surface of the earth. In
migration, these recorded waves, in the form of thestacked
section, areusedeither as boundary conditions or initial
conditions for a wavefield governed by the wave equation.
Migration is the inversepropagation(ordepropagation)
process, which pushes these upgoing waves back into the
earth in reverse time in order to arrive at the reflector
locations.
In theirimportant paper,Loewenthal et al. [I] imple-
mented a numericalalgorithmfor the applicationofthe
wave equation to the migration of seismic reflection data.
In the subsequent years many other algorithms for migra-
tion based on the wave equation have been implemented.
Some of the outstanding workis that of Bardan [7], Berkhout
[8], Bleistein and Cohen [9], Cheng and Coen[IO], Chun and
Jacewitz [Ill, Claerbout [12], Gazdag [13], Jakubowitz and
Levin [14], Mufti [15], Raz [16], Schneider (171, Stolt [18],
Weglein [19], andYilmaz [20]. This list only represents a
sample, as several hundred papers have beenwritten on the
subject of wave equationmigrationduring thisperiod.
Most of thesepapersgo beyond the.Loewenthal et al.
model. However, the bulk of migration methods in com-
mon use today in seismic processing centers still are based
on themodel andnumericalmethods as putforth by
Loewenthal et al., and such migration techniques areusu-
ally known as time migration methods.
There are two itemsassociated with everycomputer
program used in seismic data processing; namely, a model
and a method. At the time when the work of Loewenthal
and his coworkers was disclosed to the oil industry, the
numerical digital methods used to solve this problem took
the foremost place, as the industry was anxious to duplicate
such techniques in their own processing. Many such imple-
mentations of time migration methods resulted. However,
we show in this paper that all the time migration methods
are compatible with the amplitude and phase terms of the
WKB) approximation (or, in other words, geometrical acous-
tics), which has a long history in physics, mathematics, and
429
engineering, as well as in geophysics. This categorization of
timemigration techniques as being consistent with the
WKBJ method (i.e., geometrical acoustics) has value in that
it brings together a largesegment of recentresearch in
exploration geophysics with the classical methods used in
applied physics,andthus adds to the unityof science.
Despite the importanceof the numerical methods, it should
not be forgotten that the exploding-reflector model as put
forth by Loewenthal et a/. will alwaysbe of basic impor-
tance in the theory of post-stack migration.
At this point it is important to emphasize that Hubral [2]
and Hubral and Krey [21] introduced an image ray concept
in the theory of migration, which has led to the develop-
mentof advanced techniques generally known as depth
migration schemes. As computer hardware develops to the
point where it is economical to use the more complicated
depthmigration methods,wecan expect these methods
more and more to replace time migration methods. How-
ever, a firm understanding of the explodingreflectorhy-
pothesis and the time migration techniqueis still important.
SIMPLIFIED
II. WAVEDEPROPACATION
The geophysical processing operation known as migra-
tion represents a method of depropagating (or backtrack-
ing) seismic waves. This paper contains much mathematics
describing the migration process, so in this section we want
to give a simple example which explains what the mathe-
matics is doing.
Ocean waves have wavelengths comparableto the seismic
wavesused in petroleum exploration, but the velocityof
ocean waves is much smaller so that they canbeeasily
observed. Letus imagine a long straightbeach which we
take as the x-axis. We let the z-axis point directly seaward,
with z = 0 corresponding to the beach line. For this simple
example we stillsuppose that the ocean waves aresinusoidal
with frequency a,velocity v, and direction of travel 6 , all
fixed. The angle B is measured with respect to thez-axis.
We now suppose that someone on a ship at sea radios us
on the beach that a large-crestedwavepassedhis ship at
t = 0. We observe that the same wave hitting the beach at
time t = to. The question is:What is the location (range
and bearing) of his ship?
The part of the questionas to the range is easy. The range
is R = vto, so the ship can be anywhere on a circle of radius
R and center at our position onthe beach. Let us now make
our analogy with oil exploration. We think of the beach as
the surface of the ground, and think of the ocean as the
subsurface geological rock structure. The boat withun-
known position corresponds to an unknown oil reservoir
for which we are exploring. The ocean waves correspond to
the seismicwaves. By auxiliary meanswecan find the
seismicwave velocity v, andwecanmeasure the arrival
time to (inthis case, one-way timefromdepthto the
surface of the earth) of the seismic wavelet due to the oil
reservoir.Thuswecan immediately determine the range
R = vto of the oil reservoir.
We thus know the range of the ship or the oil reservoir.
With no other information, we cannot determine its bearing,
so the bearing angle could be anywhere from -90" to 90'.
Theaveragevalue could bezero, so we could guess that
the ship or oil reservoirmadeanangle of zero with the
z-axis; that is, the ship or reservoir was at right angles to the
430
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DA BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
beach or earth's surface from our observation position. An
unmigrated seismic record makes this assumption; it puts
the cause of each event directly under the position on the
earth'ssurface where thisevent was observed. In other
words, an unmigrated seismic record alwaysdrawseach
bearing as straight down into the earth.
The reasoning for performing the data processing oper-
ation of migration is to compute the true bearing for each
event, and then put the cause of the event at the computed
range in the direction of the computed bearing. Of course,
if all the geologic rock layersare flat and horizontal, then
indeed the seismic waves from an exploding reflectormodel
go straight up (each with a bearing angle of zero degrees),
and in such a case an unmigrated seismic section serves
perfectly well. It alsoserves well provided the dips of the
layers are all small and random. However, when there are
many small dips all going in the same direction, or when
there aresomelargedips as in the overthrust belt of the
Rocky Mountains, or a combination of both, then an un-
migrated seismic record section does not serve exploration
well.
In order to find the bearing of the ship or the oil reservoir
we must measure some additional quantities. On the beach
we need a time piece and a measuring stick, and we must
take measurements at two or more stations on shore. With
the time piece we measure the time between two consecu-
tive crests of the wave at a given station. This time measure-
ment is the wave period T. With the meter stick wemea-
sure the distance between two stationswhereadjacent
crests hit the beachat the same instant. Thisdistance
measurement is horizontal (x coordinate) wavelength A x .
With these two measurements wecan determine the
bearing B as follows. Firstwemust determine the wave-
length of the wave. The wavelength A is given by A = vT;
that is, the wavelength is equal to thedistance a crest
travels during the elapsed time of one period. In Fig. 1, we
5
fig. 1. Simusoidal plane waveof wavelength A.
see the necessary relationships. The bearing angle B is given
by
A
sin 0 = -
A X
The same principle applies to all migration schemes. In
effect, we find the bearing angle B and then backtrack
along this bearing by letting time run backwards from the
arrival time fo to the source time 0. When we reach time 0,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. VOL. 74, NO. 3, MARCH 1%
we know we havereachedthesource,andthe total dis- As a result we have
tancethatwe havebacktracked is equal to the range dt T 277 T
R = vto. Thus we locate the source of the event seen on the -=-=-- = -k ,
seismic record section.Thisprocess is seismicmigration, dx A, A, 277 w ’

and it involves the depropagation ofthe seismicwaves Likewise

observed at the surface of the earth.
dt k ,
Of course, migration must be done by a computer, and it - ---
involves many seismic waves coming from different direc- dz w ’

tions andvariousarrivaltimes. In order to makethings Thus the time differential is

mathematically tractable,weappeal to thepowerofthe
Fouriertransform. Whenwe do things in the frequency
domain instead of the time domain, we use spatial frequen- 0 0

cies (also called wavenumbers) instead of wavelengths, and When we depropagate by a time span of to,we let time run
we use temporal frequencies(simplycalledfrequencies) backward. This means in engineeringtermsthatwemust
instead of wave periods. The well-known relationships are introduce a time advance of to. A time-advance operator is
28 2s 2s the pure phase-shift system given in the frequency domain
k=- A k =- &)=-
(2 ) by exp [joto]. Let the depropagation pathbefromthe
x Ax T receiver point ( x , z = 0) on the surface of the earth to the
where k is called the wavenumber, k , the horizontal source point at depth given by the point ( x = 0, z ) . Here
wavenumber, and o the frequency. We can also define the we assume that time to is the one-way time from source to
vertical wavenumber k , by the equation receiver. Thus the time advance is equal to
k: = k 2 - k:. (3) 1 2
/ o l . d t = - 1/ 0k , d x + - - / k,dz
This equation says that k , and k , , are the sides of a right w x w o
triangle with hypotenuse k . The wavenumber k is equal to which (for the constant-velocity medium treated here) is
2r
k=-=-=-
2n w ato = -k,x + k,z
A vT v’ (4)
The observed seismic wave motion has sinusoidal compo-
We definethe propaga_tionvector pointing in the direc- nent
tion offhe wave (i.e., k makesanangle 8 with the z-axis) U( k , , O , w)e/”‘.
where k has length k and components
We multiply this component by the phase-shift (pure ad-
k , = k sin 8 k , = kcos8. (5) vance) filter &“‘o to obtain
The seismic disturbance (wavemotion) at any point ( x , z )
U(k,,O,w)exp[jo(t+ to)] = ~ ( k , , O , w )
at any time t may be denoted by the symbol u ( x , z ,t ) . The
surface of the earth is given by depth z = 0, so the wave .exp [j( w t - k , x + k,z)].
motion which we measure at the receivers on the ground is Thisexpressiongivesthedepropagatingsinusoidalwave.
u ( x , 0, f ) . We can computethetwo-dimensional Fourier We thus integrate this expression over k , and w to obtain
transform of the observedwave motion u(x,O, t ) with re- the depropagating wave.Weremember that k, is not an
spect to x and f to obtain the surface wavefield spectrum independent variable, but is givenby the positivesquare
root

k, = + [ k 2 - kt]”’ = + [(w / v ) ’ - (8)

Our purpose is to take the wave motion associated with In fact, it i s this link of k , to k , and w that makes the
the sinusoidalwavecharacterizedby k , , a, and then de- operation of depropagationpossible. Thus the required
propagate this sinusoidal wave in thedirection 8 as de- integral is
termined by
kx kxv
sin8=-=-.
k o
The depropagation terminates when wereach the range
([
.exp j ( w / v ) ’ - k:I1/’z)
distance R = vto.
The implementation of this depropagation scheme in the -exp [ j( ut - k , x ) ] dk, d o . (9)
frequency domain is done as follows. The traveltime t has This integral is the inverse Fourier transform of
differential
at at
dt=-dx+-dz.
{
U( k , , 0 , w ) exp j[(a/.)’ - k t ] ’ / 2 z ) .
ax az
Thus depropagation is achieved by multiplying the surface
The derivative dx/dt is the horizontal apparent velocity, so
wavefield spectrum by the filter
dx
A,=-TT. exp {j[(w / v ) ’ - k:]’/’z).
dt

ROBINSON MIGRATION OF SEISMIC DATA BY THE W K B J M E T H O D 431

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DA BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
It is forthis reasonthatthis filter is called the depropa- ab I aZu
gation (or migration) filter.
We have thus found the wavefield u(x, z, t ) atan arbi-
trary space-time point (x, z, t ) by depropagation. In other The theory of time migration is based on the stratifiedearth
words, we have found the correct bearings. Thisfirst step of assumption, namely, that there is no lateral velocity varia-
the depropagation process is called wavefield reconstruc- tion, so the velocity v is a function v(z) of depth only. The
tion. Thesecondstep of thedepropagationprocess in- wavenumber function
volves stopping at thecorrectrange.Werecallthat the
signal originated at thesourceat time t = 0. Thus we set
t = 0 in (9), and thus obtain the final answer
characterizes the stratified earth assumption. Since variation
only occurs in the z direction, we are motivated to take the
Fourier transform of the wave disturbance u(x, z, t ) with
respect to each variable except z. Thus we form the Fourier
transform with respect to x and t, namely

.exp( -jk,x) dk, d w . (17)

This second step is called imaging, as it gives the required
-exp [ -j( ut - &,x)] dxdt. (15)
sources.
In our discussion up to this point we have assumed that In the wave equationthe secondpartialderivatives with
the velocity v is constant. A usual geophysical assumption, respect to each ofthe variablesx, z, and t occur. Our
however, is thestratified earthassumption in whichwe intention is to taketheFouriertransform ofthe wave
assume that v varies in the depth direction but not in the equation, so we need the Fourier transforms of these de-
horizontaldirection, so we write v(z) indicating that the rivatives. The z-derivative is easy, as we can take the a2/az2
velocity is a function of depth. In the stratified case, the outside the integral sign. Thus the Fourier transform (F.T.) is
depropagation operator (IO) becomes

[
exp jizk,( z ) dz] = exp j/‘{
0 [ [ o/v( z)I2 - kt}”’ dz] .
The other two derivatives can be found by the well-known
(12 ) property of the Fourier transform, namely that
The depropagation method given in this section is known a2 2
as frequencrwavenumber (or f-k) migration [18],[13]. F.T. of - = ( -j&,)U
ax2

Ill. TIME MIGRATION

and
a2 2
Wavedepropagation,ormigration, as used in seismic F.T. of -= ( j w ) U.
reflection exploration, requires that surface waves and mul- ax2

tiple reflections be adequately attenuated, and, in addition, Therefore, the Fourier transform of the wave equation (13)
that anadequate velocityfunctionof thesubsurface be is
supplied by other means. Seismic arrays, common midpoint
a2u

(.-
U + -= -U.
(CMP)stacking,andpredictive deconvolution usually at- (,a)’
(-jk,)
tenuate surface wavesand multiple reflections.Velocity az2 vz
analysis methods provide a velocity function v(z) for each Because the variables x and t havebeeneliminated,the
midpoint analyzed,andanygiven velocity function is as- partial derivative with respect to z becomes a full deriva-
sumed to hold ina certain horizontal range surrounding the tive, and (16) becomes
midpoint in question. Moreover, the CMP stacked section is
an approximation to a source-receiver coincident section -+
d2U w2 kt)u=o.
(zero-offset section), so that theexploding reflector hy- dz2
pothesis can be used. Thus it is common practice to migrate
Because v(z) varies with z, this equation is a second-order
CMP stacked sections into the reflectivity function of the
ordinarydifferentialequationwith a variable coefficient.
subsurface. The analysis given in this section illustrates the
There is no exact solution, but an approximate solution can
usual mathematical steps which justify the commonly used
be found as follows:
type of migration procedure, known as time migration.
The coefficient in the ordinary differential equation (17)
As usual, weletx represent the coordinatealong the
is denoted by kS(z); that is,
surface ofthe earth,and z represent the coordinate of
depth into the earth, with z = 0 denoting the surface and z
being measured positively down. As is often done in theo-
retical studies in seismic exploration we shallassume that
density p is constant. Also we consider in this paper only Both o and k , areconstants in this equation. One of two
two spatialdimensions x and z. The wavefield u(x, z, t ) cases must occur, namely k;(z) is either positive or nega-
satisfies the two-dimensional scalar-wave equation tive. The case of negative ki(z) produces evanescent waves

432 PROCEEDINGS O F THE IEEE, VOL. 74, NO. 3, MARCH 1986

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DA BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
whereas the case of positive kZ,(z) produces traveling waves. Let us consider theupgoing (one-way) wave equation
We will only treat the positive case in this section, so we (23), which we write as
can define k,(z) as the positive square root given by dU
- - jk,( z)U = 0
dz

We can write the ordinary differential equation (17)as where k , is defined by

d 2U k,(z) = (w/v)R= [o/v(z)][l - ~ ( z ) k ~ / w ] ” ~ .(25)

-+ ( o/v)2R2u = 0
dz2 This one-wayequation is a first-orderlinearequation, a
where R is defined as the positive square root type of equation considerednearthe beginning of every
bookondifferential equations. In thesetextbooks it is
R = + [ I - (~k,/w)~]”* shown that the solution is of the form
and k, = ( o / v ) R . Under the assumptionthatv(z)varies
with z , it follows that R(z) also varies with z, and in such a
[
U = A exp j / k , ( z) dz] (26)
case there is no closed-form solution of the differential
where A is a constant (with respect to z).Wecaneasily
equation (20). However, an approximate solution canbe
verify that this form is indeed a solution by substituting it
found by assuming that v(z) and hence R(z) are constants,
into the differential equation. We obtain the expression
and
thus
theresultingconstant-coefficient
differential
equation (20) can be factored to obtain
dz
Carrying out the differentiation, this expression becomes
This factorization yieldsthe two first-order differential
A exp
equations
dU
-
dz
+ j( W / V ) RU=0 (downgoing equation)(22)

dU
_ - j( w/v) R U =0 (upgoingequation).
dz
N o w the assumptionthatv(z)andR(z) are constants is
dropped, but the two first-order equations (22) and (23) are
retained. Thus in the given approximate method, the scalar
wave equation is replaced by two first-order equations (22)
and (23), the first of which is called the downgoing (one-
way)wave equation, andthesecond theupgoing(one-
way)wave equation.Neitherof these two equationsad-
mits multiple reflections. Because the full wave equation is
a second-order equation, two boundary conditions are re-
quired for its solution, such as the values of U and dU/dz
on a surface. However, in seismic practice we do not record
dU/dz. Also the use of the full wave equation can led to
unstable solutions. In addition, the full wave equation pro-
duces multiple reflections, which complicates the migration
problem to such an extent that suchmethods are not
generallyused at thepresent time.McMechan [22]and
Whitmore [23]giveingeniousmethodsthat use thefull
wave equation. O n the other hand, the one-way equations
do provide a viable way to do seismic migration. A one-way
equation requires only a single boundary condition, it has
stable numerical solutions, and it can produce no multiple
reflections.
In summary, the ordinary differential equation (20) with a
variable coefficient has no closed solution. As an approxi-
mation, the coefficient is assumed constant, the equation is
then factored,and the downgoing equation (22) and the
upgoing equation (23) result. The approximation then con-
sists of letting the coefficient be again variable in these two
equations. As pointed out by Gray, this gives a crude WBKJ
approximation (i.e., the phase term but not the amplitude
term).
Since
(23)
the expression is zero. Thus we have verified that the
solution is of the form given above.
The constant A in the solution is determined by an initial
condition. In the classic migration problem we assume that
we have an exploding-reflectors source given by u( x , z, r =
0) which produces upgoing waves that appear on the earth’s
surface as the seismic section u ( x , z = 0, t). Given that the
seismic section is known, the migration problem consists of
finding the exploding-reflectorssource. Letus now solve
the classic migration problem using the one-way upgoing
wave equation.
We compute the Fourier transform of the seismic section,
that is, we compute
U ( k , , O , o ) =//u(x,O,t)exp[-j(wt - k , x ) ] dxdr.
We then use U(k,,O, w ) as the boundary condition in the
solution of thedifferential equation. Thus the constant A is
U(k,,O, w ) and the solution becomes
U(k,,z,o) = U(k,,O,w)exp
We now take the inverse Fourier transform
.exp[j( or - k , x ) ] dk, d w
which, upon using the above solution (27) of the differen-
tial equation is

ROBINSON. MIGRATION OF SEISMIC DATA BY THE W K B J M E T H O D 433

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DA BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 medium. The Bremmer series is valid only for large values
of k,. With this model, the WKBJ approximation is the first
term in the series,that is, it is the primarywavethat has
- k , x + L z k , ( z ) d z ] ) dk, d o . suffered no internal reflections. In the language of reflec-
([
.exp j or
tion seismology, the WKBJwave is the primary, i.e., the
WKBJwave is not a multiple. TheWKBJwaverepresents
(28)
the high-frequency limit in which the velocity changes are
Equation (28) represents the required wavefield reconstruc- too small to produce reflections; in this limit there is no
tion. The required exploding-reflectorssource is obtained provision for transmission loss.
by setting t = 0 in (28); that is In all the usual migration processesused in the seismic
industry, it is assumed that all themultiples havebeen
removed beforehand by stacking and deconvolution. As a
result, each of the usual industrial migration processes deals
[
sexp - j k , x + j/'k,(z)
0 1
dz dk, d o . (29) onlywith traveling primarywaves. In this sense, all in-
dustrial migration processes have a relationship to the WKBJ
Equation (29) represents the required imaging. For compu- method (i.e., geometrical acoustics). Thus unlike predictive
tational purposes we rearrange this double integral as deconvolution, which was developed explicitly for explora-
tion seismology, migration does not involve a new model
but is simply a straightforward application of classical wave-
propagation techniques.
Much of the seismic data processing currently in use rests
on a basicassumption known as the stratifiedearth hy-
pothesis.Thishypothesis states thatforthepurposes of
exp ( - j k , x ) dk,. (30) wave propagation andwavedepropagation thevelocity
We see that the expression in curly brackets merely involves function depends only upon the depth coordinate z. Thus
integrating U(k,, z, o) given by (27) over a.We then only we can write the velocity function as v(z). This assumption
have to take the singleinverseFouriertransform with re- means that the velocity is the same on any horizontal plane,
spect to &, to obtain the required u(x,z,O). Reference is so the earth is made up as a stratification of these horizon-
made to the work of Gazdag and Sguazzero [24] for further tal planes. The velocity function v(z) caneithervarycon-
treatment of this approach. tinuously in z , or in discrete steps. However, for computer
In the case of constant velocity v, the vertical wavenum- processing, some discrete approximation is always made, so
ber k,(z) reduces to the constant the earth appears as a sequence of horizontal layers each of
finite thickness. Such a modelof discrete flat horizontal
k , = [(a/.)' - k y 2 layers is known as the layer-cake model.
Let us now describe the application of the WKBJ method
In this case, we have to seismic time migration. As we will show, the result for
L z k , ( z ) dz = k,/'dz = k,z the phase change is exactly the same result as that given in
0 Section Ill. In the derivation
whichfollows
we use
and hence (28) reduces to (9) and (29) reduces to (11) in the classic treatment of the WKBJ method given by
Section II. We havethus obtained the same result as we Brekhovskikh [31]. When k,(z) is a constant, the solution of
obtained in oursimplified treatment of wave depropa- the differential equation (17) is
gation. (J = Ae*lkzz
(31)
where A is a constantand the choice of sign in the
IV. WKBJ MIGRATION exponent depends upon the direction of thewave. With
TheWKBJ approximation is a classic methodwhich is the motivation of (31), let us write the solution of (17) in
applied to problemsinvolvingthe propagation of waves the form
through an inhomogeneousmedium.The applicationof U = A ( z ) e''(') (32)
the WKBJ method to seismic data is well established, and
discussion of its application to seismicinverseproblems in the case when k,(z) is a variable, but changes suffi-
including migration can be found in Aki and Richards [25], ciently slowly. Equation (32) is the usualhigh-frequency
Carrion andFoster[26],ClaytonandStolt[27],Robinson assumption; decoupling of upward and downward propa-
[28], Carter and Frazer [29], and other recent works. gating waves is assumed as in the one-way equations (22)
The following interpretation canbegiven to the WKBJ and (23). The functions A ( z ) and d8/dz will also be slowly
approximation. The WKBJ approximation for a wave in an varying, as we see when we compare (32) with (31).Sub-
inhomogeneous space represents the primary wave travel- stituting (32) into (17) we obtain
ing by refractions through themedium. The entire wave
motion is made up of all the internal reflections and refrac-
tions within the medium. This complete wave motion can where the prime represents differentiation with respect to
be represented by an infinite series, called the Bremmer [30] z. Let d be the distance over which the function A ( z ) and
series,each term of which represents a wave that is pro- e(z) vary significantly. Sufficiently slow variation means that
ducedbya particularnumber of reflectionsinside the d is much greaterthan the wavelength A . Theorder of

434 PROCEEDINGS O F THE IEEE. VOL. 74, NO, 3, M A R C H 19%

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DA BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
magnitude of the derivatives can be estimated by the factor exp (j(wt - k,x)].Then, if the positive sign in
theexponentof (41) is chosen,we would have a wave
propagation in the negative z-direction (i.e., upgoing waves);
whereas, if the negativesign is chosen,we would have a
Also wave propagating in the positive z-direction (i.e., downgo-
ing waves). These two waves (i.e., upgoing and downgoing)
.
k,=k=--.
2r
propagate through the mediumindependentlyof one
x another (as, in advance,assumedby (32)), as there are no
Using these relations, the terms in (33)have the estimates reflectionswithin the present approximation. This ap-
proximation is known as the WKBj approximation. It is also
(34) called the geometric optics approximation in optics and the
geometrical acoustics approximation in acoustics. The term
[zje’x + j 8 ” ~ =
] 3-,
. m
(35) (“k,( z) dz
d
’2s
477’
[ k$(z) - (e’)’] A 1?A. in the exponent of (41) is the phasechange as the wave
travels from an arbitrary point z, to the point of observation
Note that since 8’ is itself slowly varying, (8’)’ is a second- z,. The z-dependence of wave amplitude in (41) is given by
order term. Since, for large d, term (34) is small in compari- the factor called the WKBj amplitude factor:
son with terms (35) and (36), it can be neglected. However,
since terms (35) and (36) have different orders of smallness
for large d, they mustbesetequal to zeroseparately.
Setting the left side of (36) equal to zero,we obtain the
equation, known as the eikonal equation TheWKBJ amplitude factor is an important resultof the
WKBJ solution. However as we show in Section V of this
(8’)’ = kS( z)
paper, the amplitude factor does not appear in the conven-
which has the solution tional theory of seismic migration, so we will not consider it
further in this section.
8’ = f k,( z) . (37)
Undertheexploding-reflector hypothesis the source is
Let z, denote the depth of the pulsesourceand z, considered to be at the subsurface interface at depth z and
denote the depth of the received pulse. For a downgoing the receiver on the surfaceat depth z = 0. Thuswehave
pulse, we would have z, < z, whereas for an upgoing pulse upgoing-wave motionso we choose the positive sign in the
we would have z, > z,. If we integrate (37) from z, to z, exponent of (41). Equation(41), with z, = z and z, = 0,
we obtain with thepositive sign in the exponent, and without the
amplitude factor, becomes (with k,(z) > 0)
8 = f j z ‘ k z ( z) dz. (38)
2s

Substituting f k, for 8’ in the left side of (35) and setting

the result equal to zero, we obtain the equation, known as
the first transport equation (43)
+[2kz# + k:A] = 0. We call this expression the WKBj filter (or WKBj operator)
This equation can be written as for the propagation of upgoing waves under the exploding
reflector hypothesis.
Because u(x, z, t ) denotes the wavefield, we see that
(39)
u(x,O, t ) denotes the wavefield at the surface z = 0 of the
If we integrate (39) from I,to z, we obtain earth. The Fourier transform of u(x, z, t) with respect to x
and t i s U(k,, z, 0 ) . We have not transformed with respect
1 to z because the wave velocity v(z) varies in the z-direc-
log A(z,) - log A(z,) - -[log k,(z,) - log k,( z,)]
2 tion. The inverse Fourier transform is then
which is

. exp [ j ( of - k,x)] dk, do.

If we normalize the pulse by requiring A(z,) = 1, then the Suppose now we know the upgoing wavefield u(x,O, t ) at
complete solution of (17) is obtained by substituting (38) the surface z = 0 of the earth, and suppose that we wish to
and (40) into (32). The result (with k,(z) > 0) is use the WKBJ methodtofind the upgoingwavefield
u(x, z, t ) depropagated to depth z. We proceed as follows.

u- - [ :1:1;]”2 exp [ kjP,( z) dz] . (41)

We first compute the Fourier transform U(k,,O, o) of the
surface wavefield u(x,O, t ) . Then we multiply this surface
Fourier transform by the inverse of theWKBJ filter UWKB,
In order to restore wave motion, we must multiply (41) by given by (43). This inverse is simply the reciprocal, namely,

R O B I N S O N : M I G R A T I O N OF SEISMIC DATA BY THE W K B j M E T H O D 435

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DA BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

where
Thus the result ofmultiplying U ( k , 0, w ) with
U ( k , , z , o ) = U(k,,O,o)exp
The inverse WKBJ operator, as given by (4)
[/d
is,
j
aninverse
1
k,(z) dz . (46)
all-pass filter in the region where k,(z) is real. Here we use
the tern “all-pass” to designate a causal filter that produces
apure phase shift, andthe term ”inverseall-pass” to
designate an anticausal pure phase-shift filter. The required
solution is now obtained by taking theinverseFourier
transform of (46); that is, the depropagated wave motion at
depth z , according to the seismic WKBJ approximation, is
.exp[ j ( at - k , x ) ] dk,dw.
This is the WKBJ equation (without the amplitude factor)
for obtaining theupgoing wavefield depropagated to depth
z from the observedupgoing wavefield at the surface.
Because (47) is the sameas(28) in Section Ill, we therefore
see that WKBJ migration as given here is the sameas time
migration, as we wished to show. Thesame type of argu-
ment can also be applied to various other kinds of migra-
tion methods to show their relationship to the WKBJ method
(i.e., geometrical acoustics).
The method of approximate solution given in this section
is called the WKBJ method after its originators Wentzel [32],
Kramers [33], Brillouin [34], and Jeffreys [35]. As L. R. Lines,
and J. Scales (personal communication) observe, the WKB
part refers to the quantum mechanical research of Wentzel,
Kramers, and Brillouin which occurred in 1926.Thesame
method was presentedbyJeffreys in 1924 but was not
specifically applied to the Schroedinger equation solutions.
The work of Jeffreysdeveloped the mathematicaltech-
nique, which wasalsosimilar to the work ofRayleigh in
1912 as pointed out in the book by Aki and Richards [25].
In a uniform medium, the phase of thedepropagated
wave is ut - k , x +
k,z. In a stratified medium the phase is
ut - k,x + /dk,(z) dz
as the phase is simply the number of cycles undergone by
the wave along its depropagationpath fromthe surface
z = 0 to depth z in the earth.
V. EXPLODING-REFLECTORS MODEL
The exploding-reflectors model, upon which virtually all
post-stack migration methods including time migration are
based, is often referred to as the Loewenthal-Sherwood
model. The input data for the migration process consist of a
CMP (common midpoint) stacked seismic section. The CMP
section can be defined by its amplitude as a function of
436
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DA BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
one-way traveltime t and horizontal coordinate x along a
straight
surface line. Provided thatreasonable
stacking
velocitiesandamplitudecontrol have
beenused, the
primary reflections on this section approximate what would
be generated by a sequence of coincident source-receiver
points at equal increments along the x-axis. Each such point
would yield an independently recorded seismic trace, and
is all these traces would make up the stacked seismic section.
In the usualtreatments of post-stack migration methods,
the effects of the migration on multiple reflections as well
as o n reflection from locations outside of the vertical plane
of theearth crosssectionare not discussed.Finally,an
inherent(but incidental)assumption in the exploding-
reflectors model is that the basic seismic pulse is a simple
impulse and that its amplitude is invariant as it is trans-
mitted through the earth layers. The purpose of this section
is to discuss this inherentassumption in connection with
time migration.
The justification which Loewenthal et a/. [ I ] give for this
inherent assumption is based uponthe requirementthat
the medium be weakly inhomogeneous as well as an ap-
peal to the work of Foster [3] in 1975 who gives a pertinent
discussion of this subject. Foster’s work makesuse ofa
one-dimensional earth model (namely,one in which all
(47) physical propertied depend only upon depth z, and not on
lateral coordinate x ) . In otherwords, Foster’s propagation
model is the usual plane-wave, normal-incidence, stratified
earth model, an extremely important model which is often
used for rationalizations ofseismic processing methods. It is
common in petroleumexploration to lower instruments
down an oil well to record rock properties as a function of
depth z. One such recording is the continuous velocity log
(CVL) which gives the compressionalvelocity v(z) as a
functionofdepth z. Fromsuch a logit is possible to
compute the corresponding synthetic seismic trace, which
in turn can be compared to an actual seismic trace obtained
from a seismic survey near the oil well.
One common method of treating synthetic seismograms
is highly simplified mathematically. It is based on a discrete
layeredapproximation in whichonlythe leading term is
treated in a decomposition of the seismic trace by order of
reflection. Such a synthetic is known as the primary reflec-
tion synthetic seismogram, butthis syntheticcannot be
realized by a model made out of physical materials because
it neglects all multiple reflections.Theother common
method of constructing syntheticseismogramsmakesuse
of the discretelayeredapproximation, but now all higher
order reflections are calculated as well, and the result is the
synthetic trace with multiple reflections as well as primary
reflections. All thesecalculations, as we havesaid,are
based on a layered approximation to the CVL. This second
type of synthetic seismogram (the one with multiples as
well as primaries) is physically realizable in the sense that it
can be constructed physically from suitable materials. It is,
of course, true in such layered models that there are both a
local reflection coefficient and a local transmission coeffi-
cient associated with each interface between adjacent
layers.
In the mathematicalapproximationsthere has always
been a question of how totreat the transmission effects. As
we haveseenabove, the inherentassumption in the ex-
ploding-reflectors hypothesis is thatthe amplitude of a
PROCEEDINGS O F THEIEEE. VOL. 74, NO. 3, MARCH 1 9 8 6
seismic pulse is unchanged as the pulse is transmitted
through the layers. In other words, the inherent assumption
in time migration is that there is no transmission loss due to
the inhomogeneous earth.
In order to shed light on theproblem oftransmission
losses, Foster [3] starts with a continuous formulation,rather
than the discrete formulation of the layered model. He then
considers a realizable layered approximation to the continu-
ous model. A related layered model without transmission
losses is then formulated. Although such a model can be
mathematically calculated on a computer, it certainly can-
not be realized physically by any real materials.By a limiting
process,Fosterconverts this nonphysical model (theone
without transmission losses) into a continuous model. This
nonphysical model is then compared to the original physi-
cal continuousmodel to reveal explicitlythe effects of
transmission losses.
Instead of using the depth variable z , Foster introduces a
variable T , with the dimensions of time, by the relation
where v(z) is the compressional velocity as a function of
depth. In exploration geophysics, T is called the vertical
traveltime. The downgoing wave in the physical model at
vertical traveltime T and time t is then denoted by u + ( T , t ) ,
whereas in the nonphysical model it is P ( T , t). Similarly,
theupgoing waves at T , t are denoted by u - ( T , t ) and
C-(T, t ) , respectively. However, as we will see in the next
paragraph, the conclusions of Foster which we are about to
present must be modified according to the work of Gray [4].
Thewave motions in the models with and without trans-
missioneffects (that is, in thephysical model and the
nonphysical model) satisfy
u + ( T , ~ )= T(T)~+(T, t)
U-( 7 , f)= T(T) fi-( 7 , t ) .
In these relations the effect of transmission corrections is
starklyrevealed. It is seen to be unsubstantial,merely a
depth-dependent amplitude factor T ( T ) which according to
Foster is (in the case of pressure waves)
where P ( T ) and V ( T ) are thedensityandcompressional
velocity, respectively, at the depth specified by the vertical
traveltime T . From (50) it is clear that at T = 0, that is, at the
surface ofthe earthwherethe field seismictrace is re-
corded, we have T(0) = 1. Foster, therefore, concludes that
there is no effect of transmissioncorrectionswhatever at
the surface of the earth. In his words: “Transmission effects
in the continuous one-dimensional seismic model are un-
substantial, and at the surface are not present at all. To the
extent that they significantly change the result of calcula-
tions based upon discrete approximations, the calculations
areat fault.” In the nonphysicalmodel, the seismicpulse
travels through the earth without any change in amplitude,
whereas in the physical model the amplitude suffers trans-
mission losses. However, any given reflected pulse recorded
at the surface has the same amplitude in both models, and
therefore as far as a surface-recordedseismogram is con-
ROBINSON:
Authorized licensedOF
MIGRATION useSEISMIC DATA
limited to: BY THE WKBl
UNIVERSIDADE METHOD
FEDERAL DA BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
cerned Foster concludes that all the primary reflected pulses
may be considered as havingtraveled through theearth
with nochange in amplitude. Thus the inherent assumption
oftheexploding reflectorshypothesis,namely,that the
amplitude of a seismic pulse is invariant as the pulse is
transmitted through the earth layers, in upheld according to
the conclusions of Foster.
In summary, Foster investigated mathematically the con-
sequence of replacing thetransmission coefficients by unity
in the calculation of a normal-incidence plane-layer seismic
trace. He concluded that in the limit of infinitesimal layer
thicknesses and smooth variation of material properties this
replacement of transmission effects by unity has exactly no
effect on the resulting seismic trace. Gray [4] in 1984 shows
that this result can be at odds with the discrete case where
transmission losses ofdowngoing and upgoing pulses
through interfaces can produce a nontrivial effect on reflec-
tion seismograms. As a result, Gray examines the applicabil-
ity of Foster’sconclusionsbyisolatingtheassumptions
implicit in Foster’s derivation,andshowsthat Foster’s as-
sumptions are consistent with those of geometrical acous-
tics. Such geometricalacousticsrepresent a frequency-
domain theory, that is, onevalidfor high frequencies or
short wavelengths, and in fact the one used in the theory of
the WKBJ approximation. As Grayshows, when the high-
frequency (or WKBJ) assumption breaks down, then so do
the conclusions of Foster. In effect, Foster has inadvertently
omitted the transmission losses, so his conclusions are valid
only to the lowest order.
For convenience, Gray considers density to be constant,
so that relative impedance variations are equal to relative
velocity variations.Thisassumption of constant density is
what we have used in the preceding sections of this paper,
and it is not a badassumption for in the realearthmost
of the significant impedancechangesaredue to velocity
changes and not densitychanges.The depth-dependent
(49) amplitude factor T ( T ) given by (50) then becomes
From Section IV we recall that the WKBJ amplitude factor
(42) is
[-1”’.
In the case of normal incidence (which we are treating in
this section) we have k , = 0, so the WKBJ amplitude factor
becomes
In terms ofthe verticaltraveltime,the WKBJ amplitude
factor is, therefore,
[-1’”
(53)
where T~ is the vertical traveltime corresponding to depth
zs, and T~ corresponding to z,. In the case of a downgoing
wave traveling from T~ = 0 to T~ = T , the WKBJ amplitude
factor is
437

[ $ 4 / 2
(54)
and, in the case of an upgoing wave traveling from T~ = T to
T,= 0, the WKBJ amplitude factor is
[ I@]1’2
(55)
We see that these two amplitude factors are the reciprocals
of each other, a fact that we will soon exploit.
We recognize Foster’s factor (51) to be the same as the
WKBJ amplitude factor (54). In fact, this result must be so,
because Foster’s high-frequency assumption is nothing more
than the one used for WKBJ approximation.
We can now explain Foster’s result in terms of the WKBJ
approximation. Consider a seismicpulse with unit ampli-
tudeoriginating from a surfacesource.Thepulsetravels
down where it is reflected from an interface at depth
corresponding to T . The pulse then travels up to the surface
whereit is recorded. In the nonphysical model (the one
with unit transmission coefficients), the recorded pulse will
have amplitude equal to the reflection coefficient C ( T ) of
theinterface in question. In thephysical model (the one
with the WKBJ approximation), the WKBJ amplitude factor
for the downgoingleg is [ v(~)/v(O)]’/~, the reflection coef-
ficient is c ( T ) , andtheWKBJ amplitude factor for the
upgoing leg is [ V(o)/V(T)]’/2. Thus the recorded pulse will
have amplitude
which is also equal to the reflectioncoefficient. Hence,
both models give the same amplitude for the reflected
pulserecorded at the surface, in total agreement with
Foster’s conclusions.
We have shown in this section that one of the inherent
assumptions of the exploding-reflectors hypothesis as used
in post-stack migration theory is consistent with the use of
the WKBJ approximation. Therefore, not only in phase but
also in amplitude, the conventional theory of time migra-
tion rests on the WKBJ method of approximation. However,
thequestionoftheapplicability of WKBJ theory to the
migration of actual seismicdata from different geological
environments (e.g., slowing varying earth structures, etc.) is
a major field of research activity.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
When wave equation migration was introduced by
Loewenthal et a/. [ I ] it was commonly believed that it was a
method that made use of the full power of the wave
equation. Today a greatmany of the routinemigration
methods used in petroleumexploration makeuse of the
pioneering work of Loewenthal et a/. as to the exploding-
reflectorsmodel, the stratified earth assumption,and the
numerical methods resulting from factoring the wave equa-
tion into upgoing and downgoing equations. Such migra-
tion methods generallycomeunder the heading of time
migration to differentiate them from the moreadvanced
techniques called depth migration. In this paperwehave
shown that time migration methods represent an applica-
tion of the classic WKBJ approximation of applied physics.
438
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DA BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The downgoing and upgoing legs of a reflection raypath
result in thecancellation of the amplitude factor in the
WKBJ approximation. As a result, the phase factor of the
WKBJ method becomes critical, and it is for this reason that
several successful extensions of time migration procedures
to depth migrationschemes are known as phase-shift meth-
ods.
In this paper we mayhave unduly emphasizedthe in-
fluence of the paper by Foster [3] on post-stack migration.
Manus Fosterwas a greatgeophysicistwhose untimely
death has left the profession poorer, and when we consider
all his other work on the early theory of wave-equation
migration, much of which was unpublished, things balance
out somewhat. We are indebted to the work of Samuel
Gray [4] who put the referenced paper of Foster on a firm
theoretical footing, and in so doing Grayhas united many
disparate procedures in geophysical processing.
The approach we have taken in this paper is certainly not
unique nor necessarily the most straightforward one. A
more natural approach, as suggested by Gray, would be to
justify using the WKBJ approximation by showing that the
background velocity generally varies more slowly than the
solution U(k,, z, a) of ( I n , except near turning points. An
additional motivation for using the WKBJ approximation is
the fact that the exploding-reflectors hypothesis is essen-
tially a restatement of Huygens’ principle, which requires
high frequencies. This would clear the way for the deriva-
tion of phase-shiftmigration with theWKBJtransmission
factor and its equivalence to the migration formula without
the transmission factor.Then the relationship to Foster’s
work could be discussed.
AsGray points out, a problem not discussed is that of
imaging nearly vertical dips. Since this involves waves near
turning points, the WKBJ approximation is not valid, so that
the amplitude of strongly dipping migrated events is not
correct.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to thank S. Gray, L. Lines, A.
Gersztenkorn, and R. Stolt for their significant contributions
to this paper. He also wants to thank Rosa Jackson of the
University of Tulsa for her fine work in word-processing the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
D. Loewenthal, L. Lu, R. Roberson,and J. Sherwood, “The
wave equation applied to migration,” Ceophys.Prospect.,
vol. 24, pp. 3PO-399, 1976.
P. Hubral, “Time migration, someray theoreticalaspects,”
Ceophys. Prospect., vol. 25,pp. 726-745, 1977.
M. Foster, ”Transmissioneffects
of the continuous one-
dimensional seismic model,” Ceophys. /. Roy.Astron. SOC.,
VOI.42, pp. 519-527,1975.
S. H. Gray, “A problem ofdiscreteapproximationstoan
arbitrarily varying one-dimensional seismic model” Ceophys.
1. Roy. Astron. SOC., vol. 78,no. 2, pp. 431-438,1994.
E. Robinson,
A. Seismic lnversion and Deconvolution.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Geophysical Press, 1984.
M. T. Taner and F. Koehler, “Velocity spectra,” Ceophys., vol.
34,pp. 859-881,1969.
V. Bardan, “Despre migrareasectiunilorseismice prin utili-
zarea ecuatiei scalarea undelor,” St. Cerc. Geol., Ceofiz.,
Ceogr., Ceofizica, vol. 18, pp. 41-59, Bucuresti,Romania,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. VOL. 74, NO. 3, MARCH 1%
 1980.
A. J. Berkhout, Seismic Migration-lmaging of Acoustic Energy
byWavefield Extrapolation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Elsevier, 1980.
[91 N. Bleistein and J , K. Cohen, “Velocity inversion, present
status, new directions,” Geophys., vol. 47, pp. 1497-1511,
1982.
G. Cheng and S. Coen, “The relationship between Born
inversion and migration for common-midpoint stacked data,”
Geophys., vol. 49, pp. 2117-2131, 1984.
J . H. Chun and C.A. Jacewitz, “Fundamentals of frequency
domain migration,” Geophys., vol. 46, pp. 717-733 1981.
J. Claerbout, Fundamentals of GeophysicalDataProcessing.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.
J. Cazdag, “Wave equationmigrationwith the phase shift
method,” Geophys., vol. 43, pp. 1342-1351, 1978.
H. Jakubowicz and S. Levin, “A simple exact method of 3-D
migration theory,” Geophys.Prospect., vol. 31, pp. 34-56
1983.
I. R. Mufti, “Recent developments in seismic migration,” in
Time SeriesAnalysisTheory and Practice, voi. 6, 0. D.
Anderson, J. K. Ord, and E. A. Robinson, Eds. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Elsevier, 1985, pp. 193-221.
S. Raz, ”A procedure for multidimensional inversion of seismic
data,” Geophys., vol. 47, pp. 1422-1430,1982,
W. A. Schneider, “Integral formulation for migration in two
and three dimensions,” Geophys., vol. 43, pp. 49-76, 1978.
R. Stolt, “Migration by Fourier transform,” Geophys., vol. 43,
pp. 23-48, 1978.
A. B. Weglein, “Multidimensional seismic analysis, migration
and inversion,” Geoexploration, vol. 20, pp. 47-60,1982.
0. Yilmaz, ”Prestack partial migration,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, 1979.
P. Hubral and T. Krey “Interval Velocities from Seismic Reflec-
tion Time Measurements,” SEC Monograph, K. L. Larner,Ed.
ROBINSON:
Authorized licensedOF
MIGRATION useSEISMIC DATA
limited to: BY THE W K B
UNIVERSIDADE I M E T H ODA
FEDERAL
Tulsa, OK: SOC.Exploration Ceophys., 1980.
C . A. McMechan, ”Migration by extrapolation of time depen-
dentboundary values,” Ceophys.Prospect., vol. 31, pp.
413-420, 1983.
N. D. Whitmore,“Iterative depth migration by backward time
propagation,” paper presented at the 1983 SEC Meet., Las
Vegas, NV.
J. Cazdag and P. Sguazzero, “Migration of seismic data,” Proc.
/FEE, VOI. 72, pp. 1302-1315,1984.
K. Akiand P. C. Richards, Quantitative Seismology. San
Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, 1980.
P. M. Carrion and D. J. Foster, ”Inversion of seismic data using
the precritical reflection and refraction data,” Ceophys., vol.
50, pp. 759-765, 1985.
R. W. Clayton and R. H. Stolt, “A Born-WBKJinversion method
for acoustic reflection data,” Geophys., vol. 46, pp. 1559-1567,
1981.
E. A. Robinson, ”Time seriesanalysis of geophysical inverse
scattering problems,” in Applied Time Series Analysis, vol. 2,
D. F. Findley, Ed. New York: Academic Press, 1981, pp.
101-168.
J. A. Carter and L. N. Frazer, ”Accommodating lateral velocity
changes in Kirchhoff migration by means of Fermat’s princi-
ple,’’ Geophys., vol. 49, pp. 46-53, 1984.
H. Bremmer, “The WKB approximation as the first term of a
geometrical-optical series,” in The Theory of Electromagnetic
Waves, A Symposium. New York: lnterscience Publ., 1951,
pp. 169-1 79.
L. M. Brekhovskikh, Waves in Layered Media. New York:
Academic Press, 1960.
C. Wentzel, Zeits. f. Physik, vol. 38, pp. 518-529, 1926.
H. A. Kramers, Zeits. f. Physik, vol. 39, pp. 828-840, 1926.
L. Brillouin, Comptes Rendus, vol. 183, pp. 24-26, 1926.
H. Jeffreys, Proc. Lond. Math. SOC., pt. 2, vol. 23, pp. 428-436,
1924.
D BAHIA. Downloaded on June 25, 2009 at 06:59 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply. 439