GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 86, NO. 1 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2021); P. R1–R14, 17 FIGS., 1 TABLE.
10.1190/GEO2018-0778.1
Model parameterization and amplitude variation with angle and azimuthal
inversion in orthotropic media
Zhaoyun Zong1 and Lixiang Ji1
ABSTRACT
Horizontal layered formations with a suite of vertical or
near-vertical fractures are usually assumed to be an approximate
orthotropic medium and are more suitable for estimating f
racture properties with wide-azimuth prestack seismic data in
shale reservoirs. However, the small contribution of anisotropic
parameters to the reflection coefficients highly reduces the sta-
bility of anisotropic parameter estimation by using seismic in-
version approaches. Therefore, a novel model parameterization
approach for the reflectivity and a pragmatic inversion method
are proposed to enhance the stability of the inversion for ortho-
tropic media. Previous attempts to characterize orthotropic
media properties required using four or five independent param-
eters. However, we have derived a novel formulation that
reduces the number of parameters to three. The inversion proc-
ess is better conditioned with fewer degrees of freedom. An
INTRODUCTION
Model parameterization, forward solver, and inversion algo-
rithms are the main factors influencing the accuracy of seismic in-
version in the estimation of the parameters of underground media
(Zong et al., 2013, 2015; Zong and Yin, 2017). For model param-
eterization, reasonable physical parameters and methods should be
selected according to the constitutive characteristics and actual re-
quirements of the equivalent model. For example, weak anisotropic
(WA) parameters are popular in the characterization of anisotropic
media (Thomsen, 1986). For seismic modeling problems, the for-
ward solver for amplitude-variation-with-offset (AVO) inversion
can be obtained by convolution of the seismic wavelet and reflec-
tion coefficients. Accurate or approximate equations of reflection
coefficients are popular for constructing the forward solver. The
Manuscript received by the Editor 21 November 2018; revised manuscript received 13 August 2020; published ahead of production 12 September 2020;
published online 14 December 2020.
1
China University of Petroleum, Qingdao 266555, China and Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology, Laboratory for Marine
Mineral Resources, Qingdao 266555, China. E-mail: zhaoyunzong@yahoo.com (corresponding author); 306174763@qq.com.
© 2021 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
R1
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf
by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
accuracy comparison of our formula with the previous ones
indicates that our approach is sufficiently precise for reasonable
parameter estimation. Furthermore, a Bayesian inversion
method is developed that uses the amplitude variation with angle
and azimuth (AVAZ) of the seismic data. Smooth background
constraints reduce the similarity between the inversion result
and the initial model, thereby reducing the sensitivity of the ini-
tial model to the inversion result. Cauchy and Gaussian prob-
ability distributions are used as prior constraints on the
model parameters and the likelihood function, respectively.
These ensure that the results are within the range of plausibility.
Synthetic examples demonstrate that the adopted orthotropic
AVAZ inversion method is feasible for estimating the aniso-
tropic parameters even with moderate noise. The field data
example illustrates the inversion robustness and stability of
the adopted method in a fractured reservoir with a single well
control.
approximate reflection coefficient equations are usually derived
from the exact reflectivity equation under the hypothesis of weak
parameter variation or directly derived by integrating the Born in-
tegral with stationary phase (Shaw and Sen, 2004). For inversion
algorithms, we can estimate the parameters with deterministic or
stochastic algorithms (Zong et al., 2015).
Model parameterization sets the foundation for the construction
of forward and inverse solvers. The way the model is parameterized
affects the rationality and reliability of analytical expressions of
seismic forward problems. In the parameterization of the exact re-
flectivity, P- and S-wave velocity and density parameters of media
across the horizontal interface were used to express the reflection
and transmission coefficient equations of seismic waves, under the
conditions of the plane-wave approximation (Aki and Richards,
1980), which laid a theoretical foundation for the study of AVO
 R2
(Vavryčuk and Pšenčík, 1998; Grechka, 1999; Zhu and Tsvankin,
2007). Ursin and Tjåland (1996) implement the exact inversion of
multiple parameters. To improve the inversion stability, the exact
reflection coefficient equation was derived in terms of the three
novel intermediate variables; it might also be expressed in terms
of the bulk modulus, shear modulus, and density (Kurt, 2007).
Although the exact equations provided perfect inversion accuracy,
their high algebraic complexity deeply influenced the stability and
efficiency of inversion (Hao and Stovas, 2017). The rewritten and
lower dimensional reflectivity equations help to improve the effi-
ciency and robustness of the inversion. In addition, they are helpful
in analyzing the influence of the variation in the medium parameters
across the interface on the reflection coefficients. For isotropic and
anisotropic media, approximate reflectivity equations have been
widely discussed in the literature. For example, in weakly anisotropic
media, P- and S-wave velocities (V P0 , V S0 ), and anisotropic param-
eters including ε, δ, and γ are used to describe the anisotropic strength
in transversely isotropic media (Thomsen, 1986). The popular
approximate reflection and transmission coefficient equations of ver-
tical transverse isotropy (VTI) and horizontal transverse isotropy (HTI)
media were introduced by Rüger (1997, 1998a, 1998b). Furthermore,
Schoenberg and Protazio (1990) calculate the exact solution of the
plane-wave reflection coefficient by using the submatrix of the coef-
ficient matrix of the quasi-Zoeppritz equation. Zong et al. (2015) de-
rive the seismic reflection coefficient equation in terms of Young’s and
Poisson’s impedance to avoid unstable estimation of density. Bachrach
(2014) reconstructs the P-impedance, S-impedance, and anisotropic
parameters in anisotropic fracture media, assuming horizontal trans-
verse anisotropy symmetry, using linearized analysis.
With the exploration and development of shale gas and shale oil,
the complex fractured shale reservoirs with a suite of aligned ver-
tical or near-vertical fractures are usually assumed to be orthotropic
media. Two sets of vertical orthotropic fractures embedded in an
isotropic background media or a set of parallel or orthogonal
vertical fractures embedded in VTI media is also equivalent to
orthotropic media (Schoenberg and Protazio, 1990; Tsvankin, 1997;
Bachrach, 2014; Pan and Zhang, 2018). Considering the weak
anisotropy theory (Thomsen, 1986), Tsvankin (1997) derives the
weak anisotropy characteristic parameters of orthotropic media.
The rock with parallel fractures or directionally arranged micro-
cracks were equivalent to a group of anisotropic media (Schoenberg
and Douma, 1988). Schoenberg and Helbig (1997) propose that the
horizontal layered formation with vertical fractures ere equivalent to
the orthotropic media and simulated seismic wave propagation in
this type of media. In addition, much research discusses the varia-
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of orthotropic media where a single
set of aligned vertical or near-vertical fractures in the yz-plane is
embedded in a VTI background.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf
by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
Zong and Ji
tion characteristics of reflection coefficients in orthotropic media in
terms of incidence angle and azimuth by using the approximate re-
flection coefficient equations (Rüger, 1998a; Pšenčík and Martins,
2001; Bachrach et al., 2009; Bachrach, 2014, 2015; Oh and Alkha-
lifah, 2016). Bachrach (2015) introduces two novel anisotropic gra-
dient parameters based on the reflection coefficient equation of the
orthotropic media. The fracture-induced anisotropy in weakly
anisotropic media with orthotropic symmetry was also widely stud-
ied (Pan et al., 2017a, 2017b; Osinowo et al., 2017; Pan and Zhang,
2018). For example, prestack anisotropic amplitude variation with
angle and azimuth (AVAZ) inversion for fracture characterization,
by using an orthotropic system of symmetry for analysis of VTI-
layered formation containing a suite of aligned vertical fractures,
which was equivalent to orthotropic media, was conducted for oil
and gas prediction and fluid identification (Narhari et al., 2015;
Kumar et al., 2018; Pan and Zhang, 2018).
Seismic AVAZ inversion is usually used to estimate the aniso-
tropic parameters of the underground media (Erik Rabben et al.,
2008; Zong et al., 2015, 2017; Minato and Ghose, 2016; Zong
and Yin, 2017; Pan et al., 2017b; Pan and Zhang, 2018). The
reflectivity characteristics of anisotropic media and the exact or
approximate reflection coefficient equations of HTI or VTI or
orthotropic media have been well-discussed (Rüger, 1997, 1998a,
1998b; Rüger and Tsvankin, 1997; Schoenberg and Helbig, 1997;
Tsvankin, 1997; Pšenčík and Martins, 2001; Bachrach, 2015; Zong
and Yin, 2017). However, current orthotropic reflection coefficient
equations are usually in terms of several parameters or variables.
For example, seven variables were used in the equation derived
by Bachrach (2014), which rendered the inversion unstable. The
small contribution of the orthotropic parameters to the reflectivity
made the inversion more difficult. Therefore, in this study, we de-
veloped a robust and pragmatic AVAZ inversion approach to esti-
mate the orthotropic parameters for improving inversion stability
and reliability. We initially derived a three-term approximate PP-
wave reflection coefficient equation in weak orthotropic media. By
convolving this equation with seismic wavelets as the forward
solver, a robust AVAZ inversion approach with smooth background
constraints under the Bayesian inversion framework was then used
to improve the stability of the inversion.
THEORY AND METHOD
Approximate PP-wave reflection coefficient equation in
orthotropic media
A suite of aligned vertical or near-vertical fractures embedded in
a VTI media can be taken as orthotropic media; a schematic dia-
gram of the above orthotropic media is displayed in Figure 1.
The proposed rewritten and reduced dimensional seismic reflection
coefficient equation in orthotropic media is (details are given from
equations A-1 to A-12f in Appendix A)
RPP ðθ; ϕÞ ¼ 1∕2Δðln cAÞ
− 1∕2K sin2 θ½Δðln BÞcos2 ϕ þ Δðln CÞsin2 ϕ; (1)
where
A ¼ ρα; (2a)
B ¼ α−K ρβ2 eηx ;
1
(2b)
 AVOZ inversion in orthotropic media R3

C ¼ α−K ρβ2 eηy ; where A ¼ ρα is the P-wave impedance, B and C represent the de-
1
(2c)
gree of development of fractures on different axes of the symmetry
plane, respectively, θ is the incidence angle, ϕ is the azimuth, α and

2 β are the P- and S-wave velocities in isotropic background media,
2β respectively, ρ is the density of the media, Δ represents the difference
K¼ ; (2d) between lower and upper media for each parameter, − represents the
α
average value of the two layers for each parameter, and Δα∕α is the P-
wave reflection coefficient. The combined anisotropic parameters ηx
and ηy are defined as ðεx − δx Þ∕ð1 þ 2δx Þ and ðεy − δy Þ∕ð1 þ 2δy Þ,
δx − 2Kγ x respectively, and they represent the difference between the weak
ηx ¼ − ; (2e) anisotropic parameters δx and γ x , δy , and γ y , respectively. They are
K
dependent on the degree of fracture development. The bigger the val-
ues of ηx and ηy , the greater the degree of fracture developed. The
weak anisotropic parameters are ε, δ, and γ, whereas the anisotropic
δy − 2Kγ y parameters’ subscripts x and y represent anisotropic parameter defi-
ηy ¼ − ; (2f)
K nition on axis of symmetry xz-plane and xy-plane, respectively.

Table 1. Model parameters.

Model Layer Vp(m/s) Vp(m/s) ρ(kg/m3) δx δy δz γx γy εx εy

1 Upper media 5000 3000 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lower media 5800 3200 2400 0.046 0.036 0.059 0.027 0.037 0.069 0.059
2 Upper media 5000 3000 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lower media 4800 3200 2500 0.046 0.036 0.059 0.027 0.037 0.069 0.059
3 Upper media 5000 3000 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lower media 3950 3200 2300 0.046 0.036 0.059 0.027 0.037 0.069 0.059
4 Upper media 5000 3000 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lower media 3950 2500 2750 0.046 0.036 0.059 0.027 0.037 0.069 0.059

Figure 2. Comparison of Zoeppritz’s equation (the

curves in black), Bacharach’s equation (the curves
in blue), Chen’s equation (the curves in red), and
the novel approximate equation 9 (the curves in
green) for the class I of AVO models. (a and b)
The reflection coefficients varying with the incident
angle when the azimuth angle is 0° and 90° for dif-
ferent models, respectively. (c and d) The reflection
coefficients varying with the azimuth angle when
the incident angle is 10° and 30° for different mod-
els, respectively.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf

by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
 R4 Zong and Ji

We used four models to demonstrate the accuracy of the novel
approximate reflection coefficient equation 1 with different types
of AVO. In this model, the upper layer is isotropic whereas the
lower layer is orthotropic. The model parameters are displayed
in Table 1. Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 display the comparison of the
Zoeppritz’s equation (the curves in black) (Zoeppritz and Erdbeb-
nenwellen, 1919), the Bachrach (2014) equation (the curves in red)
(Bachrach, 2014), the Chen and Yin (2015) equation (the curves in
green) (Chen and Yin, 2015), and the novel equation 1 (the curves
in green). Figures 2–5 display comparisons of the accuracy of
the reflection coefficients for the different types of AVO models
including class I, II, III, and IV. Although the reflection coefficients
calculated with the proposed novel approximate-orthotropic-reflec-
tivity equation diverge substantially from those calculated with
the Zoeppritz’s exact-reflectivity-equation at large incident angles,
they show a high degree of conformance with the approximate
Bachrach and Chen et al. equations. We thus conclude that the novel
equation is feasible for use in seismic inversion.
Bayesian AVAZ inversion in
orthotropic media
In the Bayesian inversion framework, the a posteriori probability
distribution of the estimated model parameters can be predicted by

Figure 3. Comparison of Zoeppritz’s equation (the

curves in black), Bacharach’s equation (the curves
in blue), Chen’s equation (the curves in red), and
the novel approximate equation 9 (the curves in
green) for the class II of AVO models. (a and b)
The reflection coefficients varying with incident an-
gle when the azimuth angle is 0° and 90° for differ-
ent models, respectively. (c and d) The reflection
coefficients varying with azimuth angle when the
incident angle is 10° and 30° for different models,
respectively.

Figure 4. Comparison of Zoeppritz’s equation

(the curves in black), Bacharach’s equation (the
curves in blue), Chen’s equation (the curves in
red), and the novel approximate equation 9 (the
curves in green) for the class III of AVO models.
(a and b) The reflection coefficients varying
with the incident angle when the azimuth angle
is 0° and 90° for different models, respectively.
(c and d) The reflection coefficients varying with
azimuth angle when the incident angle is 10° and
30° for different models, respectively.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf

by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
 AVOZ inversion in orthotropic media R5

a priori probability distribution of the model parameters and the Using the matrix parameterization, equation 3 is rewritten as
likelihood function. In this study, we use the Cauchy and Gaussian
distribution as an a priori probability distribution of the model Rpp ¼ AR: (5)
parameters (Alemie and Sacchi, 2011; Zong et al., 2015) and the
likelihood function (Buland and Omre, 2003; Zong et al., 2015), Supposing the number of the azimuth is n and the number of the
respectively. The decorrelated covariance matrix is constructed incidence angle is k. Equation 5 can be expressed as
using the model parameters to implement the decorrelation of
2 3 2 3
the parameters to estimate and improve the lateral continuity. In RPP ðθ1 ;ϕ1 Þ aA ðθ1 ;ϕ1 Þ aB ðθ1 ;ϕ1 Þ aC ðθ1 ;ϕ1 Þ
addition, smooth trends of the model parameters are added to 6 RPP ðθ2 ;ϕ1 Þ 7 6 aA ðθ2 ;ϕ1 Þ aB ðθ2 ;ϕ1 Þ aC ðθ2 ;ϕ1 Þ 7
6 7 6 7
the objective function to improve the inversion stability. 6 .. 7 6 .. 7
Simplifying equation 1 as 6 . 7 6 . 7
6 7 6 72 3
6 RPP ðθk ;ϕ1 Þ 7 6 aA ðθk ;ϕ1 Þ aB ðθk ;ϕ1 Þ aC ðθk ;ϕ1 Þ 7
6 7 6 7 RA
6 .. 7 6 .. 74 5
RPP ðθ; ϕÞ ¼ aA ðθ; ϕÞRA 6 . 7¼6 . 7 RB :
6 7 6 7
6 R ðθ ;ϕ Þ 7 6 aA ðθ1 ;ϕn Þ aB ðθ1 ;ϕn Þ aC ðθ1 ;ϕn Þ 7 R
þ aB ðθ; ϕÞRB þ aC ðθ; ϕÞRC ; (3) 6 PP 1 n 7 6 7 C
6 RPP ðθ2 ;ϕn Þ 7 6 aA ðθ2 ;ϕn Þ 7
aB ðθ2 ;ϕn Þ aC ðθ2 ;ϕn Þ 7
6 7 6
6 .. 7 6 .. 7
where 4 . 5 4 . 5
RPP ðθk ;ϕn Þ aA ðθk ;ϕn Þ aB ðθk ;ϕn Þ aC ðθk ;ϕn Þ
1
aA ðθ; ϕÞ ¼ ; (4a) (6)
2
The seismic synthetic model can be expressed as
K 2
aB ðθ; ϕÞ ¼ − sin θ cos2 ϕ; (4b) S ¼ WRpp : (7)
2
Combining equations 5 and 7 as
K 2
aC ðθ; ϕÞ ¼ − sin θ sin2 ϕ; (4c) S ¼ WAR ¼ GR; (8)
2
where S is the matrix of the observable azimuthal seismic reflection
data, W is the matrix of the wavelet, G is the forward solver, and R
is the matrix of the model parameter.
R ¼ ½ RA RB RC  ¼ ½ Δ ln A Δ ln B Δ ln C :
To keep the length of seismic records consistent with that of the
(4d) reflection coefficients, the dimension of the wavelet matrix should

Figure 5. Comparison of Zoeppritz’s equation

(the curves in black), Bacharach’s equation (the
curves in blue), Chen’s equation (the curves in
red), and the novel approximate equation 9 (the
curves in green) for the class IV of AVO models.
(a and b) The reflection coefficients varying with
incident angle when the azimuth angle is 0° and
90° for different models, respectively. (c and d)
The reflection coefficients varying with azimuth
angle when the incident angle is 10° and 30° for
different models, respectively.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf

by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
 R6 Zong and Ji

2 3
be determined according to the number of sampling points k. The wð1;1Þ · aA ðθ1 ;ϕ1 Þ wð1;1Þ · aB ðθ1 ;ϕ1 Þ wð1;1Þ · aC ðθ1 ;ϕ1 Þ
wavelet matrix can be expressed as 6w wð2;1Þ · aB ðθ2 ;ϕ1 Þ wð2;1Þ · aC ðθ2 ;ϕ1 Þ 7
6 ð2;1Þ · aA ðθ2 ;ϕ1 Þ 7
6 7
6 .. 7
6 7
6 . 7
2 3 6 7
wk 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 wðk;1Þ · aA ðθk ;ϕ1 Þ wðk;1Þ · aB ðθk ;ϕ1 Þ wðk;1Þ · aC ðθk ;ϕ1 Þ 7
6 7
6 wkþ1 wk 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 7
6 7 6 .. 7
6 .. 7 ¼6 . 7
6 . wkþ1 wk 0 0 0 0 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 .. 7 6 wð1;nÞ · aA ðθ1 ;ϕn Þ wð1;nÞ · aB ðθ1 ;ϕn Þ wð1;nÞ · aC ðθ1 ;ϕn Þ 7
6 0 7 6 7
W ¼ 6 wi−1 . wkþ1 wk 0 0 7; 6 7
6 .. 7 6 wð2;nÞ · aA ðθ2 ;ϕn Þ wð2;nÞ · aB ðθ2 ;ϕn Þ wð2;nÞ · aC ðθ2 ;ϕn Þ 7
6 wi 0 7 6 7
6 wi−1 . wkþ1 wk 0 7 6 .. 7
6 .. 7 6 7
6 0 0 7 4 . 5
4 wi wi−1 . wkþ1 wk 5
.. wðk;nÞ · aA ðθk ;ϕn Þ wðk;nÞ · aB ðθk ;ϕn Þ wðk;nÞ · aC ðθk ;ϕn Þ
0 0 wi wi−1 . wkþ1 wk 2 3
RA
(9) 6 7
× 4 RB 5: (10)
RC
where w is the value of the seismic wavelet in different sample
points.
Equation 8 can be further written as There is a general correlation between each model parameter.
This problem can be resolved by the preconditioned-conjugate-gra-
dient optimization method (Zong et al., 2015). The covariance ma-
trix of the reflection coefficients for the model parameter is
2 3 2 3
Sðθ1 ;ϕ1 Þ aA ðθ1 ;ϕ1 Þ aB ðθ1 ;ϕ1 Þ aC ðθ1 ;ϕ1 Þ
6 Sðθ2 ;ϕ1 Þ 7 6 aA ðθ2 ;ϕ1 Þ aB ðθ2 ;ϕ1 Þ aC ðθ2 ;ϕ1 Þ 7 2 3
6 7 6 7 σ 2A σ AB σ AC
6 .. 7 6 .. 7 4
6 . 7 6 . 7 Cr ¼ σ BA σ 2B σ BC 5; (11)
6 7 6 7
6 Sðθk ;ϕ1 Þ 7 6 aA ðθk ;ϕ1 Þ aB ðθk ;ϕ1 Þ aC ðθk ;ϕ1 Þ 72 3 σ AC σ BC σ 2C
6 7 6 7 RA
6 . 7 6 .. 74 5
6 .
. 7 ¼W 6 . 7 RB
6 7 6 7
6 Sðθ ;ϕ Þ 7 6 aA ðθ1 ;ϕn Þ aB ðθ1 ;ϕn Þ aC ðθ1 ;ϕn Þ 7 RC where σ 2A is the variance of A, σ AB is the covariance of A and B, and
6 1 n 7 6 7
6 Sðθ2 ;ϕn Þ 7 6 aA ðθ2 ;ϕn Þ aB ðθ2 ;ϕn Þ aC ðθ2 ;ϕn Þ 7 more. Applying the singular value decomposition to matrix Cr ,
6 7 6 7
6 .. 7 6 .. 7
4 . 5 4 . 5 2 3
Sðθk ;ϕn Þ X σ 2A 0 0
aA ðθk ;ϕn Þ aB ðθk ;ϕn Þ aC ðθk ;ϕn Þ
Cr ¼ u uT ¼ u4 0 σ 2B 0 5uT ; (12)
0 0 σ 2C

Figure 6. The synthetic seismic traces: (a) synthetic seismic traces with no noise, (b) synthetic seismic traces when the S/N is 5, and (c) syn-
thetic seismic traces when the S/N is 2.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf

by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
 AVOZ inversion in orthotropic media R7

where u is the eigenvector. Defining the inverse of u as The posterior probability distribution function of the estimated
2 3 model parameters is
u11 u12 u13
u−1 ¼ 4 u21 u22 u23 5: (13) N 
Y 
1
u31 u32 u33 pðR 0 jSÞ ∝
i¼1
1 þ R2i ∕σ 2R
 
Considering T time samples, the inverse of eigenvector u−1 be- −ðS − G 0 R 0 ÞT ðS − G 0 R 0 Þ
comes U−1 , · exp ; (19)
2σ 2k
2u 0 ··· u12 0 ··· u13 0 ··· 3
11
where N represents the number of sampling points, and σ 2k and σ 2R are
6 0 u11 0 · · · u12 0 · · · u13 0 7
6 7 the variance of the noise and the model parameters, respectively.
6 ··· 7
6 7 Substituting equation 17 into the marginalization equa-
6 u21 0 ··· u22 0 ··· u23 0 ··· 7
−1 6 7 tion (Downton, 2005) and maximizing the posterior probability dis-
U ¼ 6 0 u21 0 · · · u22 0 · · · u23 0 7; tribution, the objective function FðR 0 Þ is
6 7
6 ··· 7 X
6 7 N
6 u31 0 ··· u32 0 ··· u33 0 ··· 7 FðR0 Þ¼ðS−G0 R0 ÞT ðS−G0 R0 Þþ2σ 2k lnð1þR2i ∕σ 2m Þ:
4 5
0 u31 0 · · · u32 0 · · · u33 0 i¼1
··· (20)
(14)
To improve the stability of the inversion, the model smoothness
decorrelating the parameters for equation 8. The preconditioned constraint is added to the objective function. Finally, we obtain the
wavelet matrix G 0 and model matrix R 0 are objective function as

G 0 ¼ GU
; (15)
R 0 ¼ U−1 R

and

S ¼ G 0R 0; (16)

where G 0 represents the wavelet coefficient ma-

trix after decorrelation, U represents the decorre-
lation matrix, which is the inverse of U−1 , and R 0
represents the reflection coefficient of parameters
to be estimated after decorrelation.
Using Cauchy distribution as the priori distri-
bution, and considering the reflection coefficient
of parameters to be estimated after decorrelation Figure 7. The estimated and real values of A, B, C, ηx , and ηy when the data are noise-
as R 0 and the observed seismic data as S, the pri- free. The curves in blue represent the estimated values, those in red represent real values,
and those in green represent the initial model.
ori Cauchy distribution pCauchy ðR 0 Þ is

YM  
1 1
pCauchy ðR 0 Þ ¼ ;
ðπσ R 0 ÞM i¼1 1 þ R2i ∕σ 2R 0
(17)

where M represents the number of sampling

points and σ 2R 0 represents the variance of the
model parameters after decorrelation.
Assuming that the noise obeys the Gaussian
distribution, the likelihood function pðSjR 0 Þ is

1
pðSjR 0 Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi
2π σ k
 
−ðS − G 0 R 0 ÞT ðS − G 0 R 0 Þ
exp ; (18)
2σ 2k Figure 8. The estimated and real values of A, B, C, ηx , and ηy when the S/N is 5:1. The
curves in blue represent the estimated values, those in red represent real values, and
where σ 2k is the variance of the noise distribution. those in green represent the initial model.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf

by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
 R8 Zong and Ji

X
N ηA ¼ 1∕2 × lnðmA ∕mA0 Þ; (23b)
FðR 0 Þ ¼ ðS−G 0 R 0 ÞT ðS−G 0 R 0 Þþ2σ 2k lnð1þR2i ∕σ 2m ÞþΛ;
i¼1
(21) ηB ¼ 1∕2 × lnðmB ∕mB0 Þ; (23c)
where

Λ ¼ λA ðηA − PA RA0 ÞT ðηA − PA RA0 Þ þ λB ðηB − PB RB0 ÞT ηC ¼ 1∕2 × lnðmC ∕mC0 Þ; (23d)
× ðηB − PB RB0 Þ þ λC ðηC − PC RC0 ÞT ðηC − PC RC0 Þ; (22)

and λA , λB , and λC are the constraint coefficients for the parameter to m ¼ ½ mA mB mC  ¼ ½ A B C ; (23e)
be inverted A, B, and C, respectively.
Z where mA0 , mB0 , and mC0 are the initial values of the model param-
ti eters, respectively.
Pi ¼ dτ; (23a) Minimizing the objective function equation 21 yields
t0

ΓR ¼ Ψ; (24)

where
Γ ¼ G 0T G 0 þλc Qc þλA PTA PA þλB PTB PB
þλC PTC PC ;
(25a)

Ψ ¼ G 0T S þ λA PTA PA þ λB PTB PB
þ λC PTC PC : (25b)

The model parameters can be resolved with

Figure 9. The estimated and real values of A, B, C, ηx , and ηy when the S/N is 2:1. The equation 24, and the estimated A, B, and C
curves in blue represent the estimated values, those in red represent real values, and can be used to predict the anisotropic parameters
those in green represent the initial model. with equation 1.

Figure 10. Azimuthal observable seismic data at different incidence angles, with an average azimuth of 15° (and a range of 0°–30°). The black
curve represents the (smoothed) P-wave impedance from sonic and density logs.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf

by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
 AVOZ inversion in orthotropic media R9

EXAMPLES
Synthetic examples
By using a suite of well log data in a fractured field containing
anisotropic information as the model parameters, we test the fea-
sibility of the proposed method for estimating the anisotropic
parameters. The synthetic seismic traces are simulated with the con-
volution of reflection coefficient equation 1 and seismic wavelets.
The ranges of incidence angles are 0°–10°, 10°–20°, and 20°–30°,
and the average incidence angles used in equation 1 are 5°, 15°,
and 25°, respectively. The ranges of azimuths are 0°–30°, 30°–60°,
60°–90°, 90°–120°, 120°–150°, and 150°–180°, and the average azi-
muths used in equation 1 are 15°, 45°, 75°, 105°, 135°, and 165°,
respectively. Figure 6 shows the synthetic seismic traces with the dif-
ferent signal-to-noise ratios (S/Ns), whose incidence angles range
from 0°–30°. The real (the curves in red) and estimated (the curves

Figure 11. Azimuthal observable seismic data at different incidence angles, with an average azimuth of 45° (and a range of 30°–60°). The black
curve represents the (smoothed) P-wave impedance from sonic and density logs.

Figure 12. Azimuthal observable seismic data at different incidence angles, with an average azimuth of 75° (and a range of 60°–90°). The black
curve represents the (smoothed) P-wave impedance from sonic and density logs.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf

by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
 R10 Zong and Ji

in blue) A, B, C, ηx , and ηy are displayed in Figure 7. The elastic
isotropic and anisotropic combined parameters could be reasonably
estimated even with fairly smooth initial models (Figure 7).
Gaussian random noise is added into the synthetic traces to test
the stability of the proposed inversion method, and we implement
the seismic inversion using synthetic traces with different S/N. The
estimated values of A, B, C, ηx , and ηy with S/N are 5:1 and 2:1 are
displayed in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. By comparison of the
estimated and the real parameters, we can still reasonably estimate
A, B, C, ηx , and ηy even with moderate noise. These synthetic ex-
amples demonstrate the feasibility and robustness of the proposed
inversion approach.

Figure 13. Azimuthal observable seismic data at different incidence angles, with an average azimuth of 105° (and a range of 90°–120°). The
black curve represents the (smoothed) P-wave impedance from sonic and density logs.

Figure 14. Azimuthal observable seismic data at different incidence angles, with an average azimuth of 135° (and a range of 120°–150°). The
black curve represents the (smoothed) P-wave impedance from sonic and density logs.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf

by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
 AVOZ inversion in orthotropic media R11

Field data examples Then, the anisotropic combined parameters ηx and ηy can be further
estimated with equations 2e and 2f. Figure 17a-17e shows the esti-
The proposed inversion approach is further tested on a real shale mated results of the combined parameters A, B, and C, and the novel
oil data set from a work site in eastern China where vertical or near-
anisotropic combined parameters ηx and ηy , respectively, wherein
vertical fractures developed within layered formations. In this case,
the yellow and green sections in the well interpretation column il-
we treat the shale reservoirs with a single set of vertical or near-
lustrate the target layers where fractures and nonfractures develop,
vertical fractures as orthotropic media. To ensure that the strength
respectively. We can see that the estimated anisotropic combined
of the subsurface reflection interfaces is correct, we use wide azi-
parameters have good lateral continuity in Figure 17d and 17e,
muthal observed seismic reflection data that have
been processed by a contractor. We use the angle
stack seismic gathers, which are the common in-
cidence angle stacks and the common azimuth
stacks, to improve the S/N of the observed seis-
mic data. The average azimuths are 15°, 45°, 75°,
105°, 135°, and 165°, respectively. Figures 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 show the partial azimuthal
stack seismic profiles with different incident an-
gle ranges, and the average angles for the near,
middle, and far stacks are 5°, 15°, and 25°, re-
spectively. The red line demonstrates the well po-
sition, and the black curve represents the P-wave
impedance smoothed from sonic and density
logs. Figure 16 shows the results of a fracture’s
quantitative interpretation and formation micro-
scanner image (FMI) characteristics, fracture true
dip, fracture depth, and fracture tendency, frac-
ture direction, and fracture dip of the different
layers developing fractures. From Figure 16,
we can see that fractures are mainly developed
in the layers below 3 km, where the fractures
are more effective and ductile.
The terms A, B, and C are first estimated by Figure 16. Fractures’ quantitative calculation results for well A, which show the FMI,
fracture true dip, fracture depth and the fracture tendency, fracture direction, and fracture
implementing the proposed Bayesian inversion dip of different fracture types.
on the field azimuthal observed seismic data.

Figure 15. Azimuthal observable seismic data at different incidence angles, with an average azimuth of 165° (and a range of 150°–180°). The
black curve represents the (smoothed) P-wave impedance from sonic and density logs.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf

by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
 R12 Zong and Ji

CONCLUSION
Orthotropic models are usually used for reservoir forecasting in
shale oil and gas reservoirs with a single set of aligned vertical or
near-vertical fractures. We derived and tested a new approximate
equation for PP-wave reflection coefficient calculation that reduces
the number of estimated parameters and improves the robustness of
the inversion. A pragmatic Bayesian AVAZ inversion method with
smooth background constraints was used to estimate the parame-
ters. The anisotropic parameters in orthotropic media were reason-
ably estimated in the synthetic and field data examples, which
demonstrates the feasibility of the proposed novel reflection coef-
ficient equation and the stability of the inversion method in frac-
tured reservoirs. The proposed approach for model and seismic
reflectivity parameterization helps to enhance the robustness and
reduce the inversion multiplicity in orthotropic parameter estima-
tion for horizontal layered formations with a single set of aligned
vertical or near-vertical fractures. This will be helpful to guide the
fracture prediction and sweet spot evaluation of shale oil and gas
reservoirs with pre-tack azimuthal seismic data.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the sponsorship of the National
Nature Science Foundation of China (41974119, U1762103), the
Science Foundation for Innovation and Technology Support Pro-
gram for Young Scientists in Colleges of Shandong Province,
and Ministry of Science and Technology of China
(2020RA2C620131).

DATA AND MATERIALS AVAILABILITY

Data associated with this research are confidential and cannot be
released.

APPENDIX A
THE APPROXIMATE REFLECTION COEFFICIENT
EQUATION IN ORTHOTROPIC MEDIA
In this appendix, we describe the derivation process of the
approximate reflection coefficient equation (as in equation 1). The
approximate reflection coefficient in orthotropic media presented
by Bachrach (2014) is

Figure 17. The estimated parameters in orthotropic media: (a) the RPP ðθ; ϕÞ ¼ Riso
PP ðθ; ϕÞ þ RPP ðθ; ϕÞ;
Aniso (A-1)
inversion result of combined parameters A, (b) the inversion result
of combined parameters B, (c) the inversion result of combined where
parameters C, (d) the inversion result of anisotropic parameters
ηx , and (e) the inversion result of anisotropic parameter ηy.
PP ðθ; ϕÞ ¼ A þ b1 sin θ þ b2 sin θ tan θ;
Riso 2 2 2
(A-2)

PP ðθ; ϕÞ ¼ ðb3 cos ϕ þ b4 sin ϕÞ sin θ

RAniso
and the estimated anisotropic combined parameters show anoma- 2 2 2

lously high values at the oil reservoir position where the fractures
develop. This demonstrates that the high value of the anisotropic þ ðb5 cos4 ϕ þ b6 sin4 ϕ þ b7 cos2 ϕ sin2 ϕÞ sin2 θ tan2 θ;
combined parameters may be used to characterize the fractured res- (A-3)
ervoirs. The estimated novel anisotropic parameters are reasonably
consistent with prior knowledge of the target reservoir, which where
demonstrates that the proposed method is helpful in the oil and
1 ΔI P
gas prediction of shale reservoirs with a single set of vertical or A¼ ; (A-4a)
near-vertical fractures. 2 IP

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf

by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
 AVOZ inversion in orthotropic media R13


2 
2
1 Δα 2β Δðρβ2 Þ 1 β
b1 ¼ − ; (A-4b) ΔΓy ¼ ðΔδy − 8 Δγ y Þ: (A-6d)
2 α α ðρβ2 Þ 2 α

1 Δα Equation A-5 can be further expressed as

b2 ¼ ; (A-4c)
2 α 1 Δρα
RPP ðθ;ϕÞ¼
2 ρα

2 0

2
2  1
1 β Δðρβ2 Þ β
b3 ≡ ΔΓx ¼ ðΔδx − 8 Δγ x Þ; (A-4d) 1 Δα
B2 α − α
2β
þΔδx −8 α Δγ x cos ϕ C
2
2 α B ðρβ2 Þ C 2
þB

2
2  Csin θ:
@ 1 Δα Δðρβ Þ 2
β A
þ2 α − α 2β
þΔδy −8 α Δγ y sin ϕ
2

2 2 ðρβ Þ
1 β
b4 ≡ ΔΓy ¼ ðΔδy − 8 Δγ y Þ; (A-4e)
2 α (A-7)

ΔX
with X
≈ ΔInX,
Δε
b5 ¼ x ; (A-4f) 1
2 RPP ðθ;ϕÞ ¼ ΔlnðραÞ
2
0

2
2  1
1
Δ ln α− 2β
Δ lnðρβ 2 ÞþΔlneδx −8 β Δlneγ x cos2 ϕ
B2 α α C
Δεy B C 2
þB

2
2  Csin θ;
b6 ¼ ; (A-4g) @ 1 δ β γ
A
2 þ 2 Δ ln α− α Δ lnðρβ ÞþΔlne −8 α Δlne sin ϕ
2β 2 y y 2

(A-8)
Δδ
2
b7 ¼ z ; (A-4h) with 2β
¼ K, then
2 α

where Γx and Γy are the anisotropic gradients of different symmetry 1

RPP ðθ;ϕÞ ¼ ΔlnðραÞ
axes, respectively;I P ¼ ρα is the P-wave impedance; θ is the inci-
1
2

dent angle; ϕ is the azimuth angle; α and β are the P- and the S-wave ðΔ ln α−KΔ lnðρβ2 ÞþΔlneδx −2KΔlneγ x Þcos2 ϕ
þ 2 sin2 θ;
velocity in isotropic background, respectively; ρ is the density of þ 12 ðΔ lnα−KΔ lnðρβ2 ÞþΔlneδy −2KΔlneγ y Þsin2 ϕ
media; Δ represents the differences between the lower and upper (A-9)
media parameters, − represents the average of the two layers; Rearranging equation A-9 yields
Δα∕α is the P-wave reflection coefficient in an isotropic back-
ground; and ε, δ, and γ are the weak anisotropic parameters, and 1
their subscripts represent different anisotropic parameter definitions RPP ðθ; ϕÞ ¼ Δ lnðραÞ
2
on the axis of symmetry plane, respectively.


K
− sin2 θ cos2 ϕΔ ln α−K ρβ2 eηx
1
When the incidence angle is less than 30°, equation A-1 becomes
(Chen and Yin, 2015) 2


þ sin2 ϕΔ ln α−K ρβ2 eηy
1
RPP ðθ; ϕÞ ¼ P þ ðGiso þ ΔΓx cos2 ϕ þ ΔΓy sin2 ϕÞ sin2 θ; : (A-10)
(A-5)

where The novel seismic reflection coefficient equation is

1 ΔI P RPP ðθ; ϕÞ ¼ 1∕2Δðln AÞ

P¼ ; (A-6a)
2 IP
− 1∕2Ksin2 θ½Δðln BÞcos2 ϕ þ Δðln CÞsin2 ϕ:
(A-11)

2 
1 Δα 2β Δðρβ2 Þ
Giso ¼ − ; (A-6b) where
2 α α ðρβ2 Þ
A ¼ αρ; (A-12a)

2
1 β
ΔΓx ¼ ðΔδx − 8 Δγ x Þ; (A-6c)
α B ¼ α−K ρβ2 eηx ;
1
2 (A-12b)

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf

by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
 R14
C ¼ α−K ρβ2 eηy ;
1
(A-12c)

2
2β
K¼ ; (A-12d)
α rhombic anisotropic effects for reservoir fracture characterization of a natu-
δx − 2Kγ x
ηx ¼ − ; (A-12e)
K weaknesses in weakly anisotropic elastic media: Surveys in Geophysics,
δy − 2Kγ y
ηy ¼ − ; (A-12f)
K tion with offset and azimuth inversion in weakly anisotropic media with
where A is the P-wave impedance and B and C represent the degree
of development of fractures on different axes of symmetry planes,
respectively. The combined anisotropic parameters ηx and ηy re-
present the difference between the weak anisotropic parameters
δx and γ x , δy , and γ y , respectively; ε, δ, and γ are the weak aniso-
tropic parameters; and the anisotropic parameters’ subscripts x and
y represent anisotropic parameter definition on the axis of symmetry
xz-plane and xy-plane, respectively.
REFERENCES
Aki, K., and P. G. Richards, 1980, Quantitative seismology: Theory and
methods: University Science Books.
Alemie, W., and M. D. Sacchi, 2011, High-resolution three-term AVO in-
version by means of a Trivariate Cauchy probability distribution: Geo-
physics, 76, no. 3, R43–R55, doi: 10.1190/1.3554627.
Bachrach, R., 2014, Linearized orthorhombic AVAZ inversion: Theoretical
and practical consideration: 84th Annual International Meeting, SEG,
Expanded Abstracts, 528–532, doi: 10.1190/segam2014-0767.1.
Bachrach, R., 2015, Uncertainty and nonuniqueness in linearized AVAZ for
orthorhombic media: The Leading Edge, 34, 1048–1056, doi: 10.1190/
tle34091048.1.
Bachrach, R., M. Sengupta, A. Salama, and P. Miller, 2009, Reconstruction
of the layer anisotropic elastic parameters and high-resolution fracture
characterization from P-wave data: A case study using seismic inversion
and Bayesian rock physics parameter estimation: Geophysical prospec-
ting, 57, 253–262, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00768.x.
Buland, A., and H. Omre, 2003, Bayesian linearized AVO inversion: Geo-
physics, 68, 185–198, doi: 10.1190/1.1543206.
Chen, H., and X. Yin, 2015, Study on methodology of pre-stack seismic
inversion for fractured reservoirs based on rock physics: China University
of Petroleum.
Downton, J., 2005, Seismic parameter estimation from AVO inversion:
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Calgary.
Erik Rabben, T., H. Tjelmeland, and B. Ursin, 2008, Non-linear Bayesian
joint inversion of seismic reflection coefficients: Geophysical Journal
International, 173, 265–280, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03710.x.
Grechka, V., 1999, Joint inversion of P- and PS-waves in orthorhombic me-
dia: Theory and a physical modeling study: Geophysics, 64, 146–161,
doi: 10.1190/1.1444512.
Hao, Q., and A. Stovas, 2017, Approximate reflection coefficients for a thin
VTI layer: Geophysics, 83, no. 1, C1–C11, doi: 10.1190/geo2016-0638.1.
Kumar, R., P. Bansal, B. S. Al-Mal, S. Dasgupta, C. Sayers, P. H. D. Ng, A.
Walz, A. Hannan, E. Gofer, and C. Wagner, 2018, Seismic data condition-
ing and orthotropic rock-physics-based inversion of wide-azimuth P-wave
seismic data for fracture and total organic carbon characterization in a
north Kuwait unconventional reservoir: Geophysics, 83, no. 4, B229–
B240, doi: 10.1190/geo2017-0673.1.
Kurt, H., 2007, Joint inversion of AVA data for elastic parameters by boot-
strapping: Geosciences 33, 367–382, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2006.08.012.
Minato, S., and R. Ghose, 2016, AVO inversion for a non-welded interface:
Estimating compliances of a fluid-filled fracture: Geophysical Journal
International, 206, 56–62, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggw138.
Narhari, S. R., B. Al-Qadeeri, Q. Dashti, J. Silva, S. Dasgupta, A. Hannan,
M. Walz, L. Lu, C. Wagner, and C. M. Sayers, 2015, Application of
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geophysics/article-pdf/86/1/R1/5229123/geo-2018-0778.1.pdf
by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz user
Zong and Ji
prestack orthotropic AVAZ inversion for fracture characterization of a
deep carbonate reservoir in northern Kuwait: Geophysics, 34, 1488–1493,
doi: 10.1190/tle34121488.1.
Oh, J. W., and T. Alkhalifah, 2016, Elastic orthorhombic anisotropic param-
eter inversion: An analysis of parameterization: Geophysics, 81, no. 6,
C279–C293, doi: 10.1190/geo2015-0656.1.
Osinowo, O. O., M. Chapman, R. Bell, and H. B. Lynn, 2017, Modelling ortho-
rally fractured tight carbonate reservoir, Onshore Texas, USA: Pure and
Applied Geophysics, 174, 4137–4152, doi: 10.1007/s00024-017-1620-0.
Pan, X., and G. Zhang, 2018, Model parameterization and pp-wave ampli-
tude versus angle and azimuth (AVAZ) direct inversion for fracture quasi-
39, 937–964, doi: 10.1007/s10712-018-9481-3.
Pan, X., G. Zhang, H. Chen, and X. Yin, 2017a, McMC-based AVAZ direct
inversion for fracture weaknesses: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 138,
50–61, doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.01.015.
Pan, X., G. Zhang, and X. Yin, 2017b, Azimuthal seismic amplitude varia-
orthorhombic symmetry: Surveys in Geophysics, 39, 99–123, doi: 10
.1007/s10712-017-9434-2.
Pšenčík, I., and J. L. Martins, 2001, Properties of weak contrast PP reflection/
transmission coefficients for weakly anisotropic elastic media: Studia Geo-
physica et Geodaetica, 45, 176–199, doi: 10.1023/A:1021868328668.
Rüger, A., 1997, P-wave reflection coefficients for transversely isotropic
models with vertical and horizontal axis of symmetry: Geophysics, 62,
713–722, doi: 10.1190/1.1444181.
Rüger, A., 1998a, Reflection coefficients and azimuthal AVO analysis in
anisotropic media: SEG.
Rüger, A., 1998b, Variation of P-wave reflectivity with offset and azimuth in
anisotropic media: Geophysics, 63, 935–947, doi: 10.1190/1.1444405.
Rüger, A., and I. Tsvankin, 1997, Using AVO for fracture detection: Ana-
lytic basis and practical solutions: The Leading Edge, 16, 1429–1434, doi:
10.1190/1.1437466.
Schoenberg, M., and J. Douma, 1988, Elastic wave propagation in media
with parallel fractures and aligned cracks: Geophysical Prospecting,
36, 571–590, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1988.tb02181.x.
Schoenberg, M., and K. Helbig, 1997, Orthorhombic media: Modeling elas-
tic wave behavior in a vertically fractured earth: Geophysics, 62, 1954–
1974, doi: 10.1190/1.1444297.
Schoenberg, M., and J. Protazio, 1990, “Zoeppritz” rationalized, and gen-
eralized to anisotropic media: Seismic Exploration, 88, S46, doi: 10.1121/
1.2029011.
Shaw, R. K., and M. K. Sen, 2004, Born integral, stationary phase and lin-
earized reflection coefficients in weak anisotropic media: Geophysical
Journal International, 158, 225–238, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004
.02283.x.
Thomsen, L., 1986, Weak elastic anisotropy: Geophysics, 51, 1954–1966,
doi: 10.1190/1.1442051.
Tsvankin, I., 1997, Anisotropic parameters and P-wave velocity for ortho-
rhombic media: Geophysics, 62, 1292–1309, doi: 10.1190/1.1444231.
Ursin, B., and E. Tjåland, 1996, The information content of the elastic re-
flection matrix: Geophysical Journal International, 125, 214–228, doi: 10
.1111/j.1365-246X.1996.tb06547.x.
Vavryc̆ uk, V., and I. Ps̆ enc̆ ik, 1998, PP-wave reflection coefficients in
weakly anisotropic elastic media: Geophysics, 63, 2129–2141, doi: 10
.1190/1.1444506.
Zhu, Y., and I. Tsvankin, 2007, Plane-wave attenuation anisotropy in ortho-
rhombic media: Geophysics, 72, no. 1, D9–D19, doi: 10.1190/1.2387137.
Zoeppritz, K., and V. Erdbebnenwellen, 1919, On the reflection and penetra-
tion of seismic waves through unstable layers: Göttinger Nachrichten, 1,
66–84.
Zong, Z., K. Li, X. Yin, M. Zhu, J. Du, W. Chen, and W. Zhang, 2017,
Broadband seismic amplitude variation with offset inversion: Geophysics,
82, no. 3, M43–M53, doi: 10.1190/geo2016-0306.1.
Zong, Z., and X. Yin, 2017, Model parameterization and P-wave AVA direct
inversion for Young’s impedance: Pure and Applied Geophysics, 174,
1965–1981, doi: 10.1007/s00024-017-1529-7.
Zong, Z., X. Yin, and G. Wu, 2013, Elastic impedance parameterization and
inversion with Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio: Geophysics, 78,
no. 6, N35–N42, doi: 10.1190/geo2012-0529.1.
Zong, Z., X. Yin, and G. Wu, 2015, Geofluid discrimination incorporating
poroelasticity and seismic reflection inversion: Surveys in Geophysics,
36, 659–681, doi: 10.1007/s10712-015-9330-6.
Biographies and photographs of the authors are not available.