Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUMMARY
In reservoir geophysics applications, seismic imaging techniques are expected to provide as
much information as possible on fluid-filled reservoir rocks. Since seismograms are, to some
degree, sensitive to the mechanical parameters and fluid properties of porous media, inversion
methods can be devised to directly estimate these quantities from the waveforms obtained in
seismic reflection experiments. An inversion algorithm that uses a generalized least-squares,
quasi-Newton approach is described to determine the porosity, permeability, interstitial fluid
properties and mechanical parameters of porous media. The proposed algorithm proceeds
by iteratively minimizing a misfit function between observed data and synthetic wavefields
computed with the Biot theory. Simple models consisting of plane-layered, fluid-saturated and
poro-elastic media are considered to demonstrate the concept and evaluate the performance
of such a full waveform inversion scheme. Numerical experiments show that, when applied to
synthetic data, the inversion procedure can accurately reconstruct the vertical distribution of
a single model parameter, if all other parameters are perfectly known. However, the coupling
between some of the model parameters does not permit the reconstruction of several model
parameters at the same time. To get around this problem, we consider composite parameters
defined from the original model properties and from a priori information, such as the fluid
GJI Sesimology
saturation rate or the lithology, to reduce the number of unknowns. Another possibility is to
apply this inversion algorithm to time-lapse surveys carried out for fluid substitution problems,
such as CO2 injection, since in this case only a few parameters may vary as a function of time.
We define a two-step differential inversion approach which allows us to reconstruct the fluid
saturation rate in reservoir layers, even though the medium properties are poorly known.
Key words: Inverse theory; Permeability and porosity; Controlled source seismology; Com-
putational seismology.
C 2010 The Authors 1543
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
1544 L. De Barros, M. Dietrich and B. Valette
of the medium. In a second stage, the velocities are interpreted We first outline in Section 2 the poroelastic theory used to solve
in terms of poroelastic parameters by using deterministic rock the forward modelling of seismic wave propagation in poroelastic
physics transforms (Domenico 1984; Berryman et al. 2002). How- media. This theory is implemented for layered media with the gener-
ever, this approach does not resolve the ambiguities between the alized reflection and transmission matrix method of Kennett (1983).
parameters. A second class of methods is based on stochastic rock This computation method is checked with the semi-analytical so-
physics modelling, such as Monte-Carlo methods (Mosegaard & lution of Philippacopoulos (1997) for a homogeneous half-space.
Tarantola 2002). This approach is then combined with a Bayesian In Section 3, we briefly present the generalized least-squares inver-
description of the porous medium to evaluate the probability dis- sion procedure (Tarantola & Valette 1982) and the quasi-Newton
tribution of the parameters (Mukerji et al. 2001). For example, algorithm that we have implemented following the formalism of
Bachrach (2006) inverts for the seismic impedances to deter- Tarantola (1987). Section 4 of the article is dedicated to accuracy
mine the porosity and fluid saturation. Spikes et al. (2007) es- and stability checks of the inversion algorithm with synthetic data.
timate the clay content, fluid saturation and porosity from the Section 5 discusses and quantifies the coupling between model
seismic waveforms. Larsen et al. (2006) use an Amplitude Ver- parameters. Finally, Section 6 deals with strategies developed to
sus Offset analysis to infer the properties of porous media. Bosch circumvent this coupling problem. We introduce composite model
(2004) introduces a lithological least-squares inversion technique parameters such as the fluid saturation rate and lithology, and study
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
Full waveform inversion in porous medium 1545
same for K D and G (Korringa et al. 1979; Walton 1987). However, implemented a simplified version of this modelling scheme that
to minimize the number of model parameters, and following the retains only the seismic wave propagation. Similar methods have
recommendation of Pride (2005), we consider only a single con- been developed by Haartsen & Pride (1997) and by Pride et al.
solidation parameter to describe the frame properties. Parameter cs (2002).
typically varies between 2 and 20 in a consolidated medium, but To verify the accuracy of the modelling algorithm, we compare
can be much greater than 20 in an unconsolidated soil. our numerical results with an analytical solution derived by Philip-
Finally, the wave attenuation is explained by a generalized pacopoulos (1997, 1998) in the frequency–wavenumber domain for
Darcy’s law, which uses a complex, frequency-dependent dynamic a homogeneous medium bounded by a free surface. The time do-
permeability k(ω) defined via the relationship (Johnson et al. main solution is obtained via an inverse Hankel transform followed
1994) by a Fourier transform. This solution has also been used by O’Brien
(2010) to check a 3-D finite difference solution. The properties of the
η 4 ω ω medium considered for the test are listed in Table 1. The medium
ρ̃ = i with k(ω) = k0 1−i −i .
ω k(ω) n J ωc ωc is excited by a vertical point force located 200 m below the free
(5) surface with a 40-Hz Ricker wavelet time dependence. Relaxation
frequency ωc is equal to 16 kHz. Receivers are located at 100 m
Table 1. Model parameters of the homogeneous half-space model used for the algorithm check.
φ() k 0 (m 2 ) ρ f (kg m−3 ) ρs (kg m−3 ) K s (GPa) G (GPa) K f (GPa) K D (GPa) η (Pa s)
0.30 10−11 1000 2600 10 3.5 2.0 5.8333 0.001
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
1546 L. De Barros, M. Dietrich and B. Valette
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
Full waveform inversion in porous medium 1547
the inversion, and that the model part of the cost function (eq. 6) is the classical approximation of the Hessian matrix in which the
dimensionless. The constant of proportionality, that is, the square second-order derivatives of f (m) are neglected. This leads to a
of the given percentage, is taken around 0.1. quasi-Newton algorithm equivalent to the iterative least-squares al-
The data covariance matrix CD is taken as gorithm of Tarantola & Valette (1982). The Hessian of the misfit
function for mn is then approximated by
|ti − t j |
(C D )i, j = σie σ je exp − , (8) ∂ 2 S
ξ Hn = F nT C D −1 F n + C M −1 . (13)
∂m2 mn
where σie is the effective standard deviation of the i th data, defined
as As the size of the Hessian matrix is relatively small with the 1-D
model parametrization adopted for laterally homogeneous media,
t we keep the full expression given above and do not use further
σi =
e
σ (ti ). (9) approximations of the Hessian by considering diagonal or block-
2ξ
diagonal representations. Since the Hessian matrix is symmetric
σ (ti ) is the standard deviation of the data at the time ti , t is the and positive definite, it can be inverted by means of a Cholesky
time step and ξ is a smoothing period. Each data sample is expo- decomposition. We find it more efficient to use a conjugate gradient
controlling the derivative of the signal, which vanishes with ξ/t. ∂k0 (z) k0
ωc
This is equivalent to adjusting both the particle displacement and (15)
particle velocity, a trick that incorporates more information on the In these expressions, U = U (z, ω; z S ), V = V (z, ω; z S ), W =
phase of the waveforms. Parameter ξ determines whether the inver- W (z, ω; z S ) and X = X (z, ω; z S ) denote the incident wavefields at
sion is dominated by the fit of the particle displacement (ξ < t) the level of the model perturbation. U and V , respectively, represent
or by the fit of the particle velocity (ξ > t) in the L 2 -norm sense. the vertical and radial components of the solid displacements; W
In practice, and in the following examples, ξ is kept around t, and and X stand for the vertical and radial components of the relative
σ (ti ) is assigned a percentage of the signal di . This implies that the fluid-to-solid displacements. Expressions G iklj = G iklj (z R , ω; z) rep-
cost function S(m) (eq. 6) is dimensionless and that the data and resent the Green’s functions conveying the scattered wavefields from
model terms can be directly compared. the inhomogeneities to the receivers. G iklj (z R , ω, z S ) is the Green’s
Our choice to use a quasi-Newton algorithm to minimize the function corresponding to the displacement at depth z R of phase
misfit function S(m) is justified by the small size of the model i (values i = 1, 2 correspond to solid and relative fluid-to-solid
space when considering layered media. This procedure was found motions, respectively) in direction j (vertical z or radial r) gener-
to be more efficient than the conjugate gradient algorithm in terms ated by a harmonic point force Fkl (z S , ω)(k = 1, 2 corresponding
of convergence rate and accuracy of results (De Barros & Dietrich to a stress discontinuity in the solid and to a pressure gradient in
2007). Thus, the model at iteration n+1 is obtained from the model the fluid, respectively) at depth z S in direction l (z or r). A total
at iteration n by following the direction of pre-conditioned steepest of 16 different Green’s functions are needed to express the four
descent defined by displacements U , V , W and X in the P − SV -wave system (4 dis-
placements × 4 forces). The √
parameter appearing in derivative
mn+1 − mn = −H n −1 .γ n , (11) ∂U/∂k0 is defined by
= n J − 4 i ω/ωc .
Fig. 2 shows the gradient γ 0 , the Hessian H 0 and the term
where γ n is the gradient of the misfit function with respect to the
−H −10 .γ 0 at the first iteration of the inversion of the solid den-
model properties mn . Gradient γ n can be expressed in terms of
sity ρs for a 20-layer model. We note that the misfit function is
the Fréchet derivatives F n and covariance matrices CM and CD
mostly sensitive to the properties of the shallow layers of the model.
(Tarantola 1987)
However, we see that the term −H −1 0 .γ 0 used in the quasi-Newton
∂ S −1
approach results in an enhanced sensitivity to the deepest layers,
γn = = F nT C −1
D (dn − dobs ) + C M (mn − mprior ).
∂m mn and therefore, in an efficient updating of their properties during
(12) inversion. As shown by Pratt et al. (1998), the inverse of the Hes-
sian matrix plays an important role to scale the steepest-descent
In eq. (11), H n is the Hessian of the misfit function, that is, the directions, since it partly corrects the geometrical spreading.
derivative of the gradient function, or the second derivative of As the forward modelling operator f is non-linear, several it-
the misfit function with respect to the model properties. We use erations are necessary to converge towards the global minimum
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
1548 L. De Barros, M. Dietrich and B. Valette
solution provided that the a priori model is close enough to the true
model. To ensure convergence of the iterative process, a coefficient
n ≤ 1 is introduced in eq. (11), such as
mn+1 − mn = −n .H −1
n .γ n . (16)
If the misfit function S(m) fails to decrease between iterations n and
n+1, the value of n is progressively reduced to modify model mn+1
until S(mn+1 ) < S(mn ). The inversion process is stopped when the
misfit function becomes less than a pre-defined value or when a
minimum of the misfit function is reached.
4 O N E - PA R A M E T E R I N V E R S I O N :
CHECKING THE ALGORITHM
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
Full waveform inversion in porous medium 1549
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
1550 L. De Barros, M. Dietrich and B. Valette
the inversion process requires only one source and does not require
a very fine spatial sampling of the wavefields along the recording
surface to work properly. For the example given in Figs 3 and 4, 25
traces were sufficient to correctly reconstruct the model properties
down to 1000 m provided that the maximal source–receiver offset
be greater than 1000 m.
A classical approach to address the inversion of backscattered
waves is to gradually incorporate new data during the inversion
process rather than using the available data all together. A common
strategy followed by many authors (for instance Kormendi & Diet-
rich 1991; Gélis et al. 2007) for seismic reflection data is to partition
the data sets according to source–receiver offset and recording time,
and possibly temporal frequency. The inversion is then carried out in
successive runs, by first including the early arrivals, near offsets and
low frequencies, and by integrating additional data corresponding
We consider simple models to specifically address this issue. The where n represents any element of the model parameter arrays m
data sets used in this section are constructed from a generic two- and mt .
layer model (see Table 2) inspired by an example given in Haartsen The results of this test are summarized in Fig. 6 where the in-
& Pride (1997): a 100-m thick layer (with properties typical of con- verted parameters are along the horizontal axis and the perturbed
solidated sand) overlying a half-space (with properties typical of parameters are along the vertical axis. Fig. 6 displays uneven results
sandstone). The permeability, porosity and consolidation parameter where the reconstruction of some parameters (notably φ, ρ f , ρs and
differ in the two macrolayers whereas the five other model param- cs ) is only moderately affected by the small perturbations applied to
eters have identical values. This generic model is then subdivided other model properties, while the inversion of other parameters (K f ,
into 20 elementary layers having a constant thickness of 10 m. One K s and G s ) is strongly influenced by errors in single model proper-
or several properties chosen among the eight model parameters are ties. The rms errors greater than 10 per cent usually correspond to
then randomly modified in the elementary layers. The models thus reconstructed models which are very far from reality. Note that no
obtained are used to compute synthetic data constituting the input perturbation has been introduced in the model when parameters are
seismic waveforms for our inversion procedure. identical along both axes. In those cases, the inversion is not perfect
The data were computed for 50 receivers distributed along the (model errors may reach 2 per cent) as there exists minor differences
free surface, between 10 and 500 m from the source location. The in the deepest layers due to a lack of seismic information contained
seismic source is a vertical point force, with a 45-Hz Ricker wavelet in the seismograms. This sensitivity study shows that parameters
source time function. are poorly determined if the initial and a priori models of the other
Table 2. Model parameters of the generic two-layer model used in the inversion tests.
Depth (m) φ() k 0 (m 2 ) ρ f (kg m−3 ) ρs (kg m−3 ) K s (GPa) G s (GPa) K f (GPa) cs ( ) η (Pa s)
0–100 0.30 10−11 1000 2700 36 40 2.2 16.5 0.001
100–∞ 0.15 10−13 1000 2700 36 40 2.2 9.5 0.001
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
Full waveform inversion in porous medium 1551
parameters are not perfectly known, and as a result, multiparameter poroelastic model and its description in terms of eight material
inversion results must in general be considered with utmost care. properties.
As predicted by the sensitivity study conducted by De Barros
& Dietrich (2008), the seismic response of a poroelastic medium,
and therefore the inversion of this response are mostly sensitive to 6 I N V E R S I O N S T R AT E G I E S
parameters ρs , φ, cs and G s . In Fig. 6, the horizontal lines corre- We explore in this section two strategies to get around the parameter
sponding to these parameters display the largest errors. It is seen coupling, by first considering composite model parameters and a
that the inversions of the bulk moduli K s and K f are unstable if the priori information, and then a differential inversion procedure suited
four parameters mentioned above are not well defined in the starting for time-lapse surveys.
model. We also note that the inversion for G s is only sensitive to
ρs , and that the inversion for φ or cs does not depend on G s . On the
other hand, a poor knowledge of the permeability k 0 , of the fluid 6.1 Composite model parameters
modulus K f or of the fluid density ρ f in the starting model has little The first strategy to circumvent the difficulty of multiparameter
or no influence on the inversion of the other parameters. Among the inversion is to use as much external information as possible and
four most sensitive parameters, ρs and G s can usually be estimated
Figure 7. Models for the simultaneous inversion of the porosity (left-hand panel) and consolidation parameter (right-hand panel). Both panels show the initial
model, which is also the a priori model (dashed line), the true model (thick grey line) and the final model (black line). The corresponding seismograms are
displayed in Fig. 8.
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
1552 L. De Barros, M. Dietrich and B. Valette
2X − X max − X min
X
= erf −1
X max − X min
and
dX X max − X min −X
2 (19)
= √ e .
dX
π
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
Full waveform inversion in porous medium 1553
can be generalized as soon as these two requirements are fulfilled. The first step in this approach is to perform a baseline or reference
Following the same process, let us mention here that the number survey to estimate the solid properties before the fluid substitution
of parameters describing the medium can be further reduced if occurs. We have shown in the section on multiparameter inver-
the properties characterizing the solid part of the porous medium sion that the model properties are poorly reconstructed in general
(mineral properties ρs , K s and G s , consolidation parameter cs and (Fig. 7), whereas the seismic data are reasonably well recovered
porosity φ) can be measured via laboratory experiments. This may (Fig. 8). Thus, in spite of its defects, the reconstructed model re-
seem obvious but if the medium can be represented by two different spects to some degree the wave kinematics of the input data. In
facies (sand and shale, for example), we can invert for the volume other words, the inverted model provides a description of the solid
percentage of each facies. In this case, the number of unknowns Earth properties which can be used as a starting model for sub-
would be reduced to two: the type of facies (sand or shale), and its sequent inversions. The latter would be used to estimate the fluid
fluid content. variations within the subsurface from a series of monitor surveys
(second step). To test this concept, we perturb the fluid proper-
ties of the true model of Fig. 7 to simulate a fluid variation over
6.2 Differential inversion
time. Two 30-m thick layers located between 50 and 80 m depth
A second possibility to reduce the ambiguities of multiparameter in- and between 110 and 140 m depth are water depleted due to gas
version is to consider and implement a differential inversion. Instead injection. The water saturation varies between 60 and 80 per cent
of dealing with the full complexity of the medium, we concentrate in these two layers (Fig. 11). We assume that air is injected in the
on small changes in the subsurface properties such as those occur- water, with properties K f = 0.1 MPa and ρ f = 1.125 kg m−3 ).
ring over time in underground fluid-filled reservoirs. This approach We consider air properties, even though is not corresponding to
may be particularly useful for time-lapse studies to follow the ex- injection problems, to keep the problem as general as possible with
tension of fluid plumes or to assess the fluid saturation as a function regard to any kind of fluid substitution problem (involving CO2 ,
of time. gas, etc.). The starting models for the porosity φ and consolida-
For example, the monitoring of underground CO2 storage sites tion parameter cs are the ones reconstructed in Fig. 7. The initial
mainly aims at mapping the expansion of the CO2 cloud in the seismograms (INIT) of Fig. 12 are the same as the output data
subsurface and assessing its volume. Time-lapse studies performed (SYNT) of Fig. 8 (with different normalization). Our goal is to esti-
over the Sleipner CO2 injection site in the North Sea (see e.g. Arts mate the fluid properties by inverting the seismic data for the water
et al. 2004; Clochard et al. 2010) highlight the variations of fluid saturation.
content as seen in the seismic data after imaging and inversion. In The model obtained is displayed in Fig. 11. We see that the loca-
this fluid substitution case, the parameter of interest is the relative tion and extension of the gas-filled layers are correctly estimated.
saturation of saline water/CO2 although the fluid density is affected The magnitude of the water saturation curve, which defines the
as well by the CO2 injection. We can then rearrange the model pa- amount of gas as a function of depth, is somewhat underestimated
rameters to invert for the relative H2 O/CO2 saturation. A differential in the top gas layer but is nevertheless reasonably well estimated.
inversion process will allow us to free ourselves from the unknown In the bottom gas layer, the inversion procedure only provides a
model parameters, to a high degree. This approach is valid for any qualitative estimate of the water saturation. The data residuals are
type of fluid substitution problem, such as water-table variation, oil quite strong in this example because they correspond to the sum
and gas extraction or hydrothermal activity. of the residuals of both inversion steps. These computations show
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
1554 L. De Barros, M. Dietrich and B. Valette
Figure 12. Seismograms corresponding to the models depicted in Fig. 11: synthetic data used as input (DATA), seismograms associated with the initial model
(INIT), seismograms obtained at the last iteration (SYNT) and data residuals (RES) computed from the difference between the DATA and SYNT sections. For
convenience, all sections are displayed with the same scale, but the most energetic signals are clipped.
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
Full waveform inversion in porous medium 1555
the sense that the models obtained are not reliable. The additional Biot, M., 1956. Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated
information carried by the waveforms propagating in poroelastic porous solid. I. Low-frequency range, II. Higher frequency range, J.
media does not help to better constrain the multiparameter inver- acoust. Soc. Am., 28, 168–191.
sion for the source–receiver configuration considered in this article. Bosch, M., 2004. The optimization approach to lithological tomography:
combining seismic data and petrophysics for porosity prediction, Geo-
Several strategies can be used to circumvent the coupling be-
physics, 69, 1272–1282.
tween the model parameters, either by using auxiliary information
Bouchon, M., 1981. A simple method to calculate Green’s functions for
or by considering only perturbations in the medium properties over elastic layered media, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 71(4), 959–971.
time. In the former case, the solution consists in defining compos- Brossier, R., Operto, S. & Virieux, J., 2009. Seismic imaging of complex on-
ite parameters from the original medium properties, by using basic shore structures by 2D elastic frequency-domain full-waveform inversion,
knowledge on the material properties. For example, a priori infor- Geophysics, 74(6), WCC105–WCC118.
mation on the nature of the saturating fluids can be exploited to Choi, Y., Min, D.-J. & Shin, C., 2008. Two-dimensional waveform inversion
invert for the fluid saturation rate. In other cases, we may consider of multi-component data in acoustic-elastic coupled media, Geophys.
inverting for the volume rate between two different lithologies if Prospect., 56(19), 863–881.
the rock formations are known beforehand from well log data. Our Clochard, V., Delépine, N., Labat, K. & Ricarte, P., 2010. CO2 plume imaging
using 3D pre-stack stratigraphic inversion: a case study on the Sleipner
inversion algorithm can easily be modified to introduce new model
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS
1556 L. De Barros, M. Dietrich and B. Valette
Morency, C., Luo, Y. & Tromp, J., 2009. Finite-frequency kernels for wave Pride, S., 2005. Relationships between seismic and hydrological properties,
propagation in porous media based upon adjoint methods, Geophy. J. Int., in Hydrogeophysics, pp. 253–284, Water Science and Technology Library,
179(2), 1148–1168. Springer, The Netherlands.
Mosegaard, K. & Tarantola, A., 2002. Probabilistic approach to inverse Pride, S., Gangi, A. & Morgan, F., 1992. Deriving the equations of motion
problems, International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seis- for porous isotropic media, J. acoust. Soc. Am., 92(6), 3278–3290.
mology, pp. 237–265, Academic Press Inc., London. Pride, S., Tromeur, E. & Berryman, J., 2002. Biot slow-wave effects in
Mukerji, T., Jorstad, A., Avseth, P., Mavko, G. & Granli, J.R., 2001. Map- stratified rock, Geophysics, 67, 271–281.
ping lithofacies and pore-fluid probabilities in a North Sea reservoir: Pride, S. et al., 2003. Permeability dependence of seismic amplitudes, The
seismic inversions and statistical rock physics, Geophysics, 66(4), 988– Leading Edge, 22, 518–525.
1001. Pride, S., Berryman, J. & Harris, J., 2004. Seismic attenuation due to wave-
O’Brien, G., 2010. 3D rotated and standard staggered finite-difference so- induced flow, J. geophys. Res., 109, B01201.
lutions to Biot’s poroelastic wave equations: stability condition and dis- Sahay, P., 2008. On the Biot slow S-wave, Geophysics, 73(4), 19–33.
persion analysis, Geophysics, 75(4), doi:10.1190/1.3432759. Sirgue, L., Etgen, J. & Albertin, U., 2008. 3D frequency domain waveform
Operto, S., Virieux, J., Dessa, J.X. & Pascal, G., 2006. Crustal-scale seismic inversion using time domain finite difference methods, in Proceedings of
imaging from multifold ocean bottom seismometer data by frequency- the 70th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Rome, Extended Abstracts, no.
domain full-waveform tomography: application to the eastern Nankai F022.
C 2010 The Authors, GJI, 182, 1543–1556
Journal compilation
C 2010 RAS