Downloaded 05/18/16 to 128.210.126.199. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.
org/
Macro velocity model estimation through model-based globally-optimized
residual-curvature analysis
Bin Wang*, Keh Pann, and Robert A. Meek, Mobil Exploration & Producing Technical Center
SUMMARY
In the past few years, significant progress has been made on
new velocity analysis algorithms. In the first part of this paper, we
will briefly summarize recent advances on velocity analysis. Then
we describe a new model-based globally-optimized residual
curvature analysis algorithm we have just developed. Like
conventional residual curvature analysis, the algorithm is based on
the principle that after prestack migration with a correct velocity
model, an image in the common image point (CIP) gather is
aligned horizontally regardless of structure. Unlike conventional
residual curvature analysis, this algorithm uses not only the
interpreted CIP gathers, but also the interpreted migrated depth
section as input. The algorithm is model-based, and uses model-
based CIP ray tracing to relate residual moveouts in CIP gathers to
errors in the velocity model. Residual moveouts measured in CIP
gathers are globally used in the optimization process for updating
the whole velocity model. Also model-based normal incident ray
tracing is used for updating the reflector boundaries.
REVIEW OF RECENT ADVANCES OF VELOCITY
ANALYSIS
Recent advances of velocity analysis can be summarized into
two categories: 1) traveltime inversion; 2) migration velocity
analysis.
Traveltime inversion
Traveltime Inversion (TI) (Bishop et al., 1985; Stork and
Clayton, 1991) estimates a depth velocity model from traveltimes
picked from prestack data. The main advantage of TI is that it is
formulated as an optimization problem and therefore model
updating is very effective and efficient. However, in areas of
complex geological structure, picking prestack traveltimes in
surface seismic data is almost unfeasible. Picking prestack
traveltimes may have the following problems: 1) in the case of
complex reflector geometry, seismic energies reflected from
different parts of a reflector may arrive at the same receiver
location; 2) reflection arrivals contaminated by diffraction energy;
3) low signal-to-noise ratio often associated with complex
structure.
In the past few years, a few researchers tried to solve the
traveltime picking problem. IFP (Institut Francais du Petrole)
developed a method called SMART (Sequential Migration Aided
Reflection Tomography) (Delprat-Jannaud and Lailly, 1993) to
solve the traveltime picking problem. The main idea of SMART is
to use an approximate velocity model to migrate seismic data, then
pick the imaged reflectors in the cube of migrated shot gathers,
finally trace rays that propagate in the same velocity model as the
one used for the migration and that are reflected on the picked
imaged reflectors. They claimed that because the ray tracing
undoes what the migration has done, even with an approximate
velocity model they can recover traveltimes. More recently
DATAID (1994) used a similar approach as IFP, but performed
migration and raytracing in the common-offset gather instead of
common-shot gather. The main point of these approaches is that
instead of directly picking events in the time domain, picking is
done after depth migration, and ray tracing is used to recover the
“observed traveltimes” for TI. After migration, different branches
of reflection events are migrated to the appropriate reflector. As
long as a velocity model is not too far away from the true model,
1084
S13.4
each reflector image becomes single valued. Migration also
collapses the diffraction energy. Also migration enhances the
coherent reflection events and suppresses random noise, thereby
improving the signal-to-noise ratio.
Migration velocity analysis
There are two commonly used migration velocity analysis
methods: Depth Focusing Analysis (DFA) and Residual Curvature
Analysis (RCA). DFA (Yilmaz and Chambers, 1984; Faye and
Jeannot 1986; McKay and Abma, 1992) is based on the principle
that if the true velocity model is used for migration then multi-
offset reflection energy will be well focused at the migration
depth. If a wrong velocity is used for migration, then reflection
energy will be focused at a depth different from migration depth.
Migration error, which is the difference between focusing depth
and migration depth, is measured by picking the location of a
focusing point in a depth focusing panel. RCA (Al-Yahya, 1989;
Willis, 1990; Lafond and Levander, 1993) is based on the
principle that after prestack migration with the correct velocity, a
reflection event in the CIP gather should be aligned horizontally
regardless of structure. The failure of an event to line up
horizontally is an indication of error in the velocity model on
which the imaging is based.
As pointed out by Liu and Bleistein (1994), conventional
migration velocity analysis methods have the following
assumptions: (1) lateral velocity homogeneity; (2) small offset; (3)
horizontal reflector. In addition, they are all local methods. Each
time only a single CIP gather (for RCA) or a single depth
focusing panel (for DFA) is used for updating the local velocity.
Figures 1A and 1B schematically show that they cannot handle the
complex overburden problem. Figure 1A shows that migration
error at a dipping reflector is not caused by the velocity model
component which is directly above it, but by other parts of
velocity model. This indicates that a local updating scheme may
cause velocity corrections to a wrong spatial location. Figure 1B
shows that if there is complex overburden, such as a syncline, then
conventional migration velocity analysis will not work well,
because velocity updating is based on the raypath length
difference of different offsets assuming a flat layered model.
Obviously, if there is complex overburden, raypath lengths in each
layer can be significantly different from those for a flat layered
model.
TO solve the above stated problems of migration velocity
analysis, attempts (Stork, 1992, 1994, Lafond and Levander, 1993,
Liu and Bleistein, 1994, 1995, Wang et al., 1995) have been made
to formulate velocity updating as an optimization process. To
improve RCA, Liu and Bleistein (1994, 1995) proposed a method
called migration velocity analysis by perturbation. They
parameterized a velocity model as a blocky model, which consists
of different layer boundaries and each layer has different velocity
function. Liu and Bleistein’s method relaxes all three assumptions
of conventional RCA. Stork (1992, 1994) developed a method
called tomographic migration velocity analysis. Like reflection
tomography, he parameterized the velocity model as a grid model,
used ray tracing to relate residual moveouts in CIP gathers to
velocity model, and used inversion techniques to update the whole
grid model. Both Liu and Bleistein’s approach and Stock’s
approach can handle complex overburden problems. Also both of
their approaches used migration errors measured for all CIP
 Model-based globally-optimized residual-curvature
gathers globally.
Downloaded 05/18/16 to 128.210.126.199. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Upon improving DFA, recently Wang et al (1995) developed
a new migration velocity analysis method called Model-based
Globally-optimized Depth Focusing Analysis (MGDFA) method,
MGDFA uses the focusing panel to pick the migration errors, but
disregards the existing 1-D velocity updating formulas and uses
ray tracing and an inversion technique to update the velocity
model globally. Comparisons among these new TI, RCA, and DFA
methods are summarized in Table 1.
MODEL-BASED GLOBALLY-OPTIMIZED RESIDUAL
CURVATURE ANALYSIS
Algorithm of the method
(1) Model Parameterization
We use a similar model parameterization as Liu and Bleistein
(1994, 1995). We use a blocky velocity model instead of a grid
velocity model (Stock, 1992, 1994), even though the grid model
representation has more flexibility for representing complex
velocity models. The main reason for choosing the blocky model
representation is that it results in fewer unknowns, and inversion is
stable. If the grid model is used, the velocity value at every grid
point becomes an unknown, and the inversion problem becomes
either singular or ill-conditioned, To solve these under-
determined inversion problems, constraints are needed, and the
inversion results are very dependent upon the kind and the
amount of constraints added. If constraints are not used
appropriately, the inversion may not be stable or may result in
inversion artifacts. In our experience, we need a more highly
trained user for grid model inversion compared with blocky
model inversion. Also, by using the blocky velocity model
representation, depths to certain reflectors are more easily tied to
well information.
(2) Derivative Calculation
In Liu and Bleistein’s approach, for each iteration, two separate
Kirchhoff migrations are needed, and amplitude information of
migration results are used for their derivative calculation. We use
the kinematic condition of zero-time imaging to derive the
derivative calculation formula which turns out to be similar to Liu
and Bleistein’s formula. By taking a different perspective, we
develop a new interpretation of the formula. The new
interpretation is that the derivative of image-depth to velocity is
related to the derivative of traveltime to velocity by a factor which
can be easily calculated through ray tracing.
If we start prestack migration with an initial velocity model
which typically is not correct, we expect an image in a CIP gather
not to be aligned horizontally. After we perturb the initial velocity
model, image-depths associated with different offsets will change
differently. The inversion process tries to find the correct velocity
perturbation, with which the migration depths are same for all
offsets. Therefore, we need to know the derivatives of migration-
depth to velocity for each offset.
In Figure 2, SPR is the ray path through an initial velocity
model, and SP’R is the ray path through the perturbed velocity
model. According to zero-time image condition, the traveltimes
associated with these two ray paths should be the same. In other
words, the traveltime difference between these two ray paths
should be zero.
at
(1)
i Testing with synthetic data
where pi’s are model parameters representing the velocity model,
m is the number of model parameters, AZ is the depth
perturbation of current reflector as shown in Figure 2.
By definition of partial derivative, from equation (l), we have
1085
2
the following equation:
(2)
From reflection tomography, we have the following traveltime
derivative formula:
= +
where v is the interval velocity right above the reflector being
imaged.
From equations (2) and we have the following equation:
at
(4)
i
This equation is similar to equation 6 of Liu and Bleistein
(1994). Equation (4) shows that the derivative of image-depth to
velocity is related to the derivative of traveltime to velocity by a
factor which can be easily calculated
through ray tracing. Therefore, any existing traveltime inversion
software can be modified for the calculation of the derivative of
image-depth to velocity.
The objective of our global inversion is to make the reflection
image flat for all CIP gathers. In addition, damping and
smoothing constraints are incorporated into the inversion process.
(3) Updating Layer Boundary
Liu and Bleistein (1994, 1995) used a layer-striping approach
for their velocity analysis. For each velocity model update layer
boundary locations are not updated. The new layer boundary
corresponding to the new velocity is obtained by another
migration. To improve the convergence speed, we develop a way
to update reflector positions for each iteration, also layer stripping
is not always necessary. In our approach, for each iteration two
sets of information are needed. One is the interpreted residual
moveout picked from each CIP gather. The other is the
interpreted migrated depth section, which is used for updating
layer boundaries.
The layer boundaries of the starting velocity model for
inversion are built based on a depth-migrated image. According
to the SMART approach (Delprat-Jannaud and Lailly, 1993),
which states that raytracing undoes migration, if normal incident
rays are traced for each reflector, then the calculated traveltimes
along these normal incident rays will approximate the true
“observed zero-offset traveltimes”. Therefore we can have another
set of equations associated with these normal incident rays.
Ideally, this set of equations and those equations describing
flatness criterion can be solved simultaneously for velocity and
reflector unknowns. In our current implementation, only those
parameters representing velocity functions are set to be unknown
and inverted, and the reflector positions are updated after the
velocity has been updated. Reflectors are updated using the
following equation:
+( (5)
i
where is the updated reflector position at the point where
normal incident ray is fired, is the corresponding reflector
position of the old model, is calculated using equation (3) for
normal-incident rays.
A synthetic seismic data set was generated for testing the new
velocity analysis method. The velocity model used for modeling
seismic propagation is shown in Figure 3A. This is a three layer
model, with the second layer reflector geometry highly irregular.
 3 Model-based globally-optimized residual-curvature

We used finite difference acoustic modeling to generate synthetic domian: Geophysics, 57 (5), p. 680-692.
Downloaded 05/18/16 to 128.210.126.199. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

seismic data. We purposely designed the second reflector to be Stork, C., 1994, Demonstration of MVA tomography with controls
highly irregular. With reflector geometry like this, conventional and constraints for determining an accurate velocity model for
stacking velocity analysis and traveltime inversion methods will prestack depth migration: 64 th Ann. Intemat. Mtg., Soc. Expl.
Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 1338-1342.
not work well because of complex traveltime pattern (multiple Wang, B., Pann, K., and Malloy, J.E., 1995, Macro velocity model
arrivals). Figure 3B shows an example of the synthetic data in a estimation through model-based globally-optimized depth
common offset gather. focusing analysis: 57 th Annual EAEG meeting. Expanded
We start the velocity analysis by using a constant velocity Abstracts, in press.
model with the velocity equal to the first layer velocity of 2000 Willis, M.E., 1990, Private communications.
m/s to perform the prestack depth migration. Notice that Yilmaz, O., and Chambers, R., 1984, Migration velocity analysis
compared with the true velocity model, this initial velocity model by wavefield extrapolation: Geophysics, 49, 1664-1674.
has about 30% lower velocity for the second layer, and 50% lower
velocity for the third layer. Figure 4 shows one example of a CIP
gather. Figure 5A shows an example of CIP ray tracing, which is
used to relate the residual moveouts measured from CIP gathers to
the velocity model. Figure 5B shows normal incident ray tracing
which is used for updating reflector positions. Figure 6A is the
output of the second iteration. Compared with the true velocity
model (Figure 3A), the velocity model obtained after two
iterations works reasonably well for migration. Figure 6B is the
seismic depth migrated section using the velocity model obtained
by two iterations of this velocity analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
A new model-based globally-optimized residual curvature
analysis method has been developed. This method needs an
interpreted migrated depth section in addition to the traditional
interpreted CIP gathers as input. CIP ray tracing is used to relate
the residual moveouts measured from CIP gathers to the whole
velocity model, and normal incident rays are traced for updating
reflector positions. Testing on prestack synthetic seismic data
indicates that this method provides a practical means of solving
velocity problems with complex structures, and importantly the
convergence speed is fast.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Rick Cook, Dave Hinkley, and Mark
Willis for many helpful discussions. Thanks also go to John
Anderson and Dana Jurick for reviewing this paper and for their
constructive comments. We would also like to thank Terry Young
for his support and encouragement of this work, and Mobil
management for permission to publish this work.
REFERENCES
Al-Yahya, K., 1989, Velocity analysis by iterative profile
migration. Geophysics, 54, 718-729. Figure 1. Ray path diagram showing the limitations of
Bishop, T.N., Bube, K.P., Cutler, R.T., Langan, R.T., Love, P.L., conventional RCA and DFA. (A) migration errors for a dipping
Resnick, J.R., Shrey, R.T., Spindler, D.A., and Wyld, H.W., 1985, reflector are not caused by part of the velocity model directly
Tomographic determination of velocity and depth in laterally above it; (B) problems caused by complex overburden.
varying media: Geophysics, 50, 903-923.
DATAID, 1994, private communications.
Delprat-Jannaud, F., and Lailly, P., 1993, Tomography with
multiple arrivals: how to handle noise corrupted data? 63 rd Ann.
Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts,
11911194. 587-590.
Faye, J.P., and Jeannot, J.P., 1986, Prestack migration velocities
from focusing depth analysis: 56th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc.
Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 438-440.
Lafond, C.F., and Levander, A.R., 1993, Migration moveout
analysis and depth focusing: Geophysics, 58, 9 l-100.
Liu, Z., and Bleistein, N., 1994, Velocity analysis by perturbation:
64 th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded
Abstracts, 11911194.
Liu, Z., and Bleistein, N., 1995, Migration velocity analysis: theory
and an iterative algorithm: Geophysics, 60, 142-l53,
Stork, C., and Clayton, R.W., 199 1, Linear aspects of tomographic
velocity analysis: Geophysics, 56, 483-495. Figure 2. Schematic diagram showing ray paths of initial and
Stork, C., 1992, Reflection tomography in the postmigrated perturbed velocity models.

1086
 Model-based globally-optimized residual-curvature 4
Downloaded 05/18/16 to 128.210.126.199. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 5. (A) model-based CIP ray tracing is used to relate

residual moveouts of CIP gathers to velocity model; (B) model-
based normal-incident ray tracing is used for updating reflector
positions.

Figure 3. (A) velocity model used for generating synthetic seismic

data; (B) an example of synthetic seismic data in a common-offset
gather.

Figure 6. (A) velocity model obtained after two iterations of this

Figure 4. An example of an interpreted CIP gather, which is sorted velocity analysis; (B) migrated depth image using the velocity
from partial images of common offst migration. model shown by Figure 6A.

1087