GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 45, NO. 12 (DECEMBER 1980); P. 1753-1779, 20 FIGS.

Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Prestack partial migration

&doQan Yilmaz* and Jon F. ClaerboutJ:

Conventional seismic data processingcan be improved by modifying wide-offset data so that dipping events
stack coherently. A procedure to achieve this improvement is proposed here, which is basically a “partial”
migration of common offset sections prior to stack. It has an advantage over full migration before stack in
that, in the caseof the latter, the final product is a migrated section. However, the prestackpartial migration pro-
vides the interpreter with a high-quality common midpoint (CMP) stackedsection which can be subsequently
migrated.
The theory of prestackpartial migration is basedon the double square-rootequation, which describesseismic
imaging with many shots and receivers. The double square-root operator in midpoint-offset space can be
separatedapproximately into two terms, one involving only migration effects and the other involving only
moveout correction. This separationprovides an analysis of conventional processing. Estimation of errors in
the separationyields the equation for prestack partial migration.
Extension of the theory for separableapproximation to incorporate lateral velocity variation yields a signifi-
cant term proportional to the product of the first powers of offset, dip, and lateral velocity gradient. This term
was used to obtain a rough estimate of lateral velocity variation from a field data set.

INTRODUCTION
Conventional processingis robustenoughto handle
seismic field data from many different parts of the
world. Even in areas with flat beds, however, offsets
can be quite large to accommodate for accurate
velocity estimation. Dipping events at large offset
can have a degrading effect upon common midpoint
(CMP) stack. Moreover, in regions of complex struc-
tural setting, conventional processing has difficulty
delineating steeply dipping events. The underlying
reasonfor all this is related to two crucial assumptions
upon which conventional processing is based. The
first assumption is that the classic normal moveout
(NMO) equation is derived for the stratified earth
(zero-dip) model. This allows one to apply moveout
correction to each CMP gather independently. The
other assumptionis that the CMP stack is equivalent
to a zero-offset section, which in turn is considered
to be generatedby putting sourceson reflectors, tum-
ing them on at t = 0, and extrapolating the resulting
upcoming wave field to the surface using half the
medium velocity (the exploding reflectors model).
This makes it possible to migrate the stack section
with wave extrapolation techniques.
In recent years, considerable attention has been
given to tackling the problem with CMP stack so that
steeply dipping events could be delineated. Gardner
et al (1974) described a procedure to migrate simul-
taneously and do velocity analysis of seismic data
using an experimental model. Sattlegger (1975) and
Dohr and Stiller (1975) demonstrated on some field
data the successof migration before stack to produce
a more enhanced section of the earth. Doherty and
Claerbout (1976) developed the early wave equation
methods to downward continue moveout-corrected
seismic wave fields for a more reliable velocity
estimation in a nonlayered earth. Sherwood et al
(1976) implemented a migration before stack pro-
cedure by adjusting velocities for offset and success-
fully applied it on field data from the Gulf of Mexico.
However, it was realized that full migration of each
individual common offset section is computationally

Presented at the 49th InternationalSEG MeetingNovember7, 1979, in New Orleans. Manuscript received by the Editor
October 22, 1979; revised manuscript received March 20, 1980.
*Westem Geophysical Co., Box 2469, Houston, TX 77001; formerly Department of Geophysics, Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305.
$Geophysics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
0016-8033/80/1201-1753$03.00. 0 1980 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

1753
 17!5i Yllmaz and~Cl&erbout
costly. Additionally, but also more importantly, sucha
procedure does not yield an unmigrated CMP stack
sectionasan intermediateproduct. Moreover, velocity
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
estimation provides only limited~accuracy. An urn+
gratedCMP stack section helps the interpreter a great
deal in resolving spurious events on a migrated sec-
tion due to inaccuratevelocities. Finally, Judsonet al
(1978) presented a procedure which produced an
unmigrated CMP stack section in which steeply
dipping events are enhanced. Even though the theory
of this procedure, namely “Devilish,” is based on
coarseray approximations (John Sherwood, personal
communication, 1979), it produced encouraging re-
sults from a particular field data set. We propose a
systematic procedure, based on the wave equation,
which will improve conventional processing by re-
moving the effect of offset on dipping events so that
they stack coherently. The process is basically a
partial migration of common offset sections prior
to stack.
The theory of prestack partial migration is closely
related to the problem of seismic imaging. A real
seismic experiment involves many shots and re-
ceivers. The earth image from the wave field acquired
by such an experiment is restored by downward con-
tinuation of both shots and receivers. The reflectivity
at any (x, z) is then seenin the limit of zero traveltime
and zero offset. The mathematical descriptionof such
an imaging process is given by the double square-
root equation (DSR). It turns out that conventional
processing can be understood as an approximation
to DSR. Imposing the zero-dip and zero-offset as-
sumptions, we separate the DSR operator into two
terms (Sep), one involving the zero-dip moveout
correction applied in offset space and one involving
the migration of zero-offset section applied in mid-
point space.
We formally define the deviation operator (Dev) as
the difference between DSR and Sep, which is effec-
tively the error involved in the separationof the DSR
operator. The recognition of a significant term in the
difference yields an equation for prestack partial
migration. A wide variety of model experiments and
field data examples demonstrates the fact that con-
ventional CMP stack is considerably improved by
incorporating this procedure into the mainstream of
seismic data processing. In particular, the mute zone
during stackis considerablyreduced, a better imaging
is achieved by migration after stack, and dipping
events can be delineated much more successfully.
In the final section, we extend our theoretical
analysis on separation of the DSR equation to the
case of lateral velocity variation. We discover an un-
familiar term that is a function of offset, dip, and
lateral velocity gradient. A simple experiment on
field data, in which a lateral velocity gradient of
roughly (so0 ftisecjiioo0 ft -was measured; shows
that this term can be used for estimating lateral
velocity variation. In particular, it is potentially use-
ful in statics problem where the near-surface lateral
velocity gradient is often significant.
THE DOUBLE SQUARE-ROOT EQUATION
AND RELATED OPERATORS
The DSR equation describes downward continua-
tion of both shots and receivers into the earth; thus,
it is of fundamental importance to seismic imaging.
It is exact in the sensethat it handles all wave angles
up to 90 degrees from vertical. Neglect of velocity
gradients causesthe kind of amplitude errors which
arise from neglect of multiple reflections. Thus the
equation can be described as exact in the sense that
there are no timing errors which increase with angle.
The double square-root equation
Seismic imaging can be expressedin simple terms
as follows: Given the upcoming seismic wave field
P(x, 0, t) recorded at the surface, we would like to
determine the reflectivity P(x, z, 0). This requires
extrapolating the surface wave field down to depth z
and collecting it at t = 0. The extrapolationprocedure
in the Fourier domain is described by
P(k,, z, w) = P(k,, O,u)erk~*, (la)
which is the solution to the one-way wave equation
$‘(k,. z, o) = ik,P(k,, z, w). (1’4
The physical implication of equations (1) is that,
given the wave field recordedat the surfaceP (x, 0, t),
we may double Fourier transform over (x, t) and get
P(k,, 0, w). Next, we simply multiply by the
all-pass filter exp(ik,z) to obtain the wave field
P(k,, z, o) at depth z. Subsequent inverse Fourier
transformation over (k,, o) yields P(x, z, t) from
which we obtain the earth image P(x, z, 0). In prac-
tice (Stolt, 1978), however, mapping is done in the
transform domain directly from (k,, o) to (k,, k,)
using
k, = - ; (1 - X2)“2, (2)
where X = vk,/w. Mathematical details of wave
field extrapolation are discussed in Appendix A.
Notice that the normalized wavenumber X is a sine-
 Prestack Partial Migration
like quantity. We will define extrapolation operators
in the simple form involving only the cosine-like
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
term Op(X) = (1 - X2)1’2, in which case k, =
- (o/v) OPCG.
Let usutilize these conceptsto downward continue
a complete seismic experiment with many shots and
receivers. We would like to downward continue both
shots and receivers. First, consider a continuous
stretch of receivers, each with a unique location g,
along the x-axis. Then, we can use equation (1) to-
gether with equation (2), by replacing x with g, to
downward continue these receivers. We use the
reciprocity principle and interchange shots and re-
ceivers. We then proceed similarly on a continuous
stretch of shots, each with a unique location s, along
the x-axis. In shot-receiver space, equation (la) will
read as
PVC,,k,, z, WI = P(k,, k,, 0, w)e rkzz. (3)
When all shots and receivers are at depth J dz, the
wave field has undergone a total phase shift of -o
./ (dt, + dt,). Following the mathematical develop-
ment in Appendix A, the correspondingvertical wave-
number then becomes
k, = _ $1 _ (2)““”
+ [I - ($J2 JU2j (4)
For convenience, we define the normalized shot-and-
receiver wavenumbers as
El =:[::I~ (5a, b) where z and t are invariant under the coordinatetrans-
causing equation (4) to take the simple form
k, = - ; DSR(G, S), (6)
where
DSR(G, S) = (1 - G2)“2 + (1 - S2)“2. (7)
Upon substitutingequation (6) into equation (3), we
have
P(k,, k,, Z, w)
= P(k,, k,, 0, m)e-r?DSR(G,S)z, (8)
which is the solution to the double square-root
equation
$ P(k,, k,, z, o) = - if DSR(G, S)
. PC&, k,, z, 0). (9)
1755
Equation (8) describes downward continuation of
both shots and receivers into the earth. We will refer
to equation (7) as the DSR operator. For simplicity,
we leave out the scaling wavenumber w/v from the
definition of DSR.
The DSR operator given by equation (7) is separ-
able in terms of shot-and-receiverwavenumbers. This
means that one can first organize the wave field re-
corded at the surface into common shot gathers and
use the first part of the DSR operator to downward
continue the receivers to depth z. Following this,
one can reorganize the already downward-continued
wave field into common receiver gathers and use the
second part of DSR to downward continue the shots
to depth z. Alternating between common receiver and
common shot gathers, the entire seismic wave field
can be downward continued until imaging is ac-
complished. Although no approximation, apart from
the stratifiedearth assumption,is made in this process,
it is clear that computationally this approach can be
exhausting. In fact, today’s seismic data processing
is essentially done in the space of midpoint y and
(half-)offset h rather than in shot-receiver (s, g)-
space. We therefore would like to put DSR defined
by equation (7) into (y, h)-coordinates. This re-
quires the following coordinate transformation:
(10)
The principle of invariance statesthat wave fields do
not change under a coordinate transformation; thus
P(s, g, 2, t) = P’(Y, h, 2, t), (11)
formation.
Applying the chain rule to equation (1 l),
ap
-=
apt ay ap' ah
--+xa,. (124
as ay as
and
ap
-=
ap' ay
--+__-_. ap' ah
(12b)
ag ay ag ah ag
Using equation (lo), we first simplify these differ-
entials, then Fourier transform both sidesof the result-
ing expressions, and finally canceling P = P’, we
obtain the midpoint-offset wavenumbers in terms of
shot-receiver wavenumbers:
[t] =i[::‘“,:]. (13a,b)
Multiplying by v/o, we normalize both sides and
 1756 Yilmaz and Claerbout
substituteequation (5) to get
[z]=[:T:], (14a,b)
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
where
(15a, b)
Final substitutionof equation (14) into equation (7)
yields the DSR operator in midpoint-offset space:
DSR(Y, H) = [1 - (Y + H)‘ll”
+ [I - (Y - H)2]“2. (16)
Is equation (16) an improvement ,over equation
(7)? We have lost the property of separationin terms
of spatial frequencies. Notice the strong coupling be-
tween Y and H. For instance, Taylor expansions of
the square roots in equation (16) will yield terms
containing cross products of the two wavenumbers.
This in turn will require the recorded wave field,
which is now transformed into (y, h, r)-space, to be
handled in its entirety, a problem we would like to
avoid.
Conventional processing
The conventional processing sequence comprises
two major and crucial components. First, the data are
organized into CMP gathers, and NM0 correction is
applied on each gather. The equation used for move-
out correction is
At = , - t’ = t’
([1 + ($)2]li2 - 1). (17)
where t is the two-way traveltime for a given (half-)
offset h, and t’ is the corresponding two-way zero-
offset time Total moveout correction is the difference
between t and t’. In this equation, v is taken to be
the rms velocity at t’. Equation (17) is based upon
the stratified earth (zero dip) assumption.The process
implied by equation (17) simulates mapping of the
CMP gather onto zero offset. Following the NM0
correction, tracesof the CMP gather are stacked. This
not only reduces the volume of the data but also en-
hances the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio.
The CMP stack is regarded as an upcoming wave
field ,recorded zero offset. This allows us to obtain
the migrated section by downward extrapolation. The
imaging condition is based on the so-called explod-
ing reflectors model (Loewenthal et al, 1974), in that
at t = 0, the reflectors explode in unison sending an
upcoming wave to the surface. Apart from being re-
corded on a one-way time scale, this wave field is
assumed to simulate a wave field that would be re-
corded at zero offset. The equation used for down-
ward extrapolation is the one-way wave equation
(1b). In order to account for the one-way traveltime
of the exploding reflectors model, however, the
velocity used in extrapolation is taken as half the
medium velocity. Thus, the vertical wavenumber
given by equation (2) is reexpressed as
k, = - y [I _ (fk,“]‘;“, (18)
Since migration is done in midpoint space, we re-
placed k, with k,. Some of the current techniques
of migration based on wave extrapolation utilize cer-
tain rational approximations to equation (18), and
some implement the exact form in the frequency
domain.
By now it is clear that conventional processing
has an advantage over the exact theory represented
by the DSR equation in midpoint-offset space. Un-
like the latter, the conventional approachis composed
of two separable operators, namely the NM0 +
stack applied in offset space and migration applied
in midpoint space. However, we should be reminded
that such an advantage is based on zero-dip and
zero-offsetassumptions.Where do we go from here?
On the one hand, we have an exact theory that can
handle all dips and offset angles, but it is difficult
to implement. On the other hand, we have a con-
ventional approach that has the convenient property
of separation, but it is based on assumptionswhich
can be severe, particularly in a region with a complex
structuralsetting. Let us investigatewhether thesetwo
approachesare related in any way. We will go back
to the exact theory and make the same two as-
sumptionswhich underlie the conventional approach.
The zero-dip assumption implies that the earth
model is stratified. The seismic energy recorded
over such an earth would be completely concentrated
at the zero spatial frequency, in this case k, = 0.
This in turn suggeststhat we set the normalized wave-
number Y = 0 in DSR defined by equation (16).
The resulting operator will be defined as the stacking
(St) operator, where
St(H) = 2(1 - H2)“2 - 2. (19)
The factor -2 may at first appear to be a post facto
addition to St(H). But, let us think what we want to
do with this operator. The first part of St(H) takes
each shot-receiver pair on a CMP gather down to a
reflecting point following raypaths with cos(8) =
(1 - H2)“2. Next, we would like to come back
to the surface following a vertical path to the point
 Prestack Partial Migration 1757
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

FIG. 1. Real part of (y, t)-planes at z = 200,400,600, and 800 m superimposed.(a) DSR with h = 0 m, (b)
DSR with h = 400 m, and (c) Sep with h = 400 m. These frames represent impulse responsesof DSR and
Sep operators to point scatterersburied at the depths indicated.
 1758 Yilmaz and Claerbout
halfway between the shot and receiver. This is simply
equivalent to a constantphaseshift (time retardation),
which accountsfor the factor -2.
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
It turns out that the NM0 shift given by equation
(17) is a stationary phase approximation to equation
(19). What the operator St(H) does is condensepri-
mary information on a CMP gather down to zero
offset. As far as this operator is concerned, stacking
amountsto selecting off the zero offset and abandon-
ing all other offsets. Therefore, equation (19) is a
zero-dip NM0 + stack-type operator.
Incorporating the zero-offset (h = 0) assumption
into the DSR operator is relatively more subtle. On a
CMP gather, at and near h = 0, energy is essentially
concentrated at zero spatial frequency, in this case
kh = 0. In fact, the task that the NM0 correction
attemptsto accomplish is to push the primary energy
on a CMP gather toward kh = 0. So, setting the
normaiized offset wavenumber Hi = D in equation
(16), we define the exploding reflectors (ER) migra-
tion operator as
ER(Y) = 2(1 - Y2)1’2. (20)
Using the definition for Y (equation 15a), we obtain
the zero-offset vertical wavenumber associatedwith
equation (20) which turns out to be identical to equa-
tion (18). Thus, we conclude that the zero-offset
operator ER (Y) derived from the double square-root
equation is identical to the migration operator that is
based on the ER model of conventional processing.
Let us now define the following operator:
Sep(Y, H) = DSR(Y, Ha) + DSR(Ya, H)
- DSR(Yc,, Ho), (21)
where He and Ya are scalars. In order to grasp the
nature of the operator Sep (Y, H), let us consider the
simplest case: If He = Ye = 0, using the definition
for DSR given by equation (16), we have
Sep(Y, H) = 2(1 - Y’)“’
+ 2(1 - H2)“2 - 2. (22)
Adding equations (19) and (20) and comparing with
equation (22), we have
Sep(Y, H) = ER(Y) + St(H). (23)
Hence, the operator Sep(Y, H) defined by equation
(23) describes the total downward continuation in-
volved in conventional processing. Notice that if
Y = 0 we have, from equations (16) and (22),
Sep(Y = 0, H) = DSR(Y = 0, H) and if H = 0,
we have Sep(Y, H = 0) = DSR(Y, H = 0). How-
ever, if Y and H are both nonzero, the Sep (Y, H)
operatorfails to include terms with cross productsof
Y and H, which would be present in the Taylor series
expansion of DSR (Y, H). It is the absence of such
terms that makes it possible to express Sep(Y, H)
in the separableform equation (22). The generalized
expression (21) for Sep(Y, H) allows us to define
other forms of separable approximations to DSR by
assigning nonzero values to Ho and/or to Ya.
In conclusion, we made a rigorous analysis of con-
ventional processing and showed that it can be de-
veloped from the theory of the DSR equation. We
discovered that conventional processing simply
utilizes a separableapproximation to DSR. The zero-
dip and zero-offset assumptionsare the basis for the
separability.
How severe are these assumptions?We study the
following transfer functions
”
exp i w DSR(k,,
[
kh, o)z
1 (244
and
exp i f Sep(k,, kh, o)z
L 1 @W
Inverse Fourier transforming expressions (24a) and
(24b) over k,, kh and o yields the impulse response
of each of the extrapolation filters (24a) and (24b).
Figure 1 shows the (y, t)-plane for constant h
and z. Each figure is actually a superpositionof four
(y , t)-planes at different z-levels. These figuresrepre-
sent the impulse responsesof DSR and Sep to point
scatterers buried at indicated depths z. The zero-
offset case (a) has hyperbolic, while the nonzero
offset case (b) has the well-known table top trajec-
tories, as can be verified by the stationary phase ap-
proximation to equation (16). The difference between
the zero offset and the nonzero offset is quite evident,
particularly for the two shallow scatterers.The move-
out is also obvious as one comparesthe arrival times.
Although the Sep operator handles the NM0 to a
certain extent (perfect at the top of each trajectory),
it cannot account for the table-top trajectories in-
dicated by the nonzero offset section (b). Impulse
responsecharacteristicsclearly demonstrate that the
Sep operator does not handle wide offsets properly,
especially in the shallow portion of common offset
sections.
THE DEVIATION OPERATOR
We really do not want to abandon the separable
form [equation (22)] unless there is a strong reason
to do so, becauseit gives us the advantageof working
either in midpoint or offset space independently. So
we ask ourselves the following question: Can we
 Prestack Partial Migration 1759

build a theory for the Sep(Y, H) operator such that it number of z-steps
will relax the zero-dip and zero-offset assumptions,
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

at least to a certain degree of accuracy?

Fundamental concepts
Common sense suggeststhat the answer must be
present in the discrepancy between the operators
DSR (Y, H) and Sep (Y, H). Therefore, we are
motivated to make the following formal definition:

Dev(Y, H) = DSR(Y, H) - Sep(Y, H). (25)

The operator Dev(Y, H) describes the deviation of

conventional processing from the exact theory of ;;b I
wave extrapolation. Substituting equations (16) and :
(22) into equation (25), we obtain the full expression - o
for this operator 03

Dev(Y, H) = [I - (Y + H)211’2
+ [l - (Y - H)2]“2
-2(1 - YZ)l’2
- 2(1 - H2)“2 + 2. (26)
Equation (26) looks rather formidable. We would
like to obtain a simpler expression for it. To second
order in Y, i.e., 1 > H * Y, we expand the DSR and
Sep operators using the square-root expansions pro-
vided in Appendix B. With equation (B- l), equa-
tion (22) is expanded as follows:
Sep(Y, H) = - Y2 + 2(1 - H2)1’2. (27)
FIG. 2. Extrapolation and interpolation of wave fields
with the prestack partial migration equation. We
start at the bottom of the (z, t)-plane and work our
way up in f. At each t-level, H is a fixed scalar. As
we move upward in section, we interpolate between
z-stepsof level t to extrapolate the wave field at level
t - At. Notice that the number of z-steps increases
as we go up the section as shown in (a) for the post-
NM0 equation (42) and in (b) for the pre-NM0
equation (49). Poles are indicated by the arrows.

Similarly, using equation (B-2), equation (16) is

expanded as follows:

DSR(Y, H) z 2(1 - H2)“2

_ (1 _ ~2j-312~2.
(28) that fi does not depend upon the spatial frequency
We substitute equations (27) and (28) into equa- kh which couples adjoining offsets. We therefore
tion (25), and obtain the approximate form for the redefine the deviation operator by substituting fi
deviation operator for H in equations (25), (29), and (30). An approxi-
mate form of the operator Dev(Y, fi) can now be
Dev(Y, H) = [l - (1 - H2)-3’2]Y2. (29)
implemented in midpoint space.
Expanding equation (29) to second order in H yields How do we estimate A? To answer this question,
a simpler but coarser approximation in H: we recall the Fourier solution exp( -iwt + ikhh),
upon which His defined. Staying at a constantphase
Dev(Y, H) i= -;H2Y2. (30) implies

- o dt + k,,dh = 0
A closer look at these approximations will reveal
the fact that in both, H and Y are coupled. This de- or
feats. the whole point of improving the separable
form Sep(Y, H) of conventional processing. Specifi- (31)
cally, we would like to come up with a procedure
which, together with moveout correction, maps For a constant velocity medium, the moveout equa-
common offset sections onto zero offset more tion reads
accurately. The only possibility of utilizing the devia-
tion term is to replace H by an estimate of fi such (h2 + z2)1’2 = ;, (32)
 1760 Yllmaz and Claerbout
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

FIG. 3. Synthetic common offset sections over 8 point scatterersburied at depths between 150-1200 m at
intervals of 150 m in a constantvelocity medium (v = 3000 mlsec). (a) The zero-offset section (h 7 0), and
(b) common offset section with h = 400 m. Note the table-top appearanceof the responseof the shallow event
on the far offset section. Sampling interval is 4 msec and midpoint spacing is 12.5 m. The bandwidth is 6,
12-36, 48 Hz. Amplitudes decay as t-1’2.

FIG. 4. Impulse responsesof the pre- and post-NM0 partial migration operators. Imagine we had a common
offset section with wint-like resoonses(which are due to semiellidical reflectors). With h = 200 m. the zero-
offset mapping us&g the pre-NkO opeiator is shown in (a), and-with h = 400 k in (b). The responseof the
post-NM0 operator to the case of h = 400 m is shown in (c). We observe that the mapping involves a larger
number of midpoints for large values of offset (h) and for shallower events (small r). Notice the anisotropic
behavior near the pole indicated by the arrow in (b). Note the similarity of behavior to the responseof the pre-
NM0 operator. The pole for the post-NM0 operator is at t’ = 0 indicated by the arrow in (c).
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
 1762 Yilmaz and Claerbout
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

FIG. 6. A critical test of the performance of the prestack partial migration procedure is to image a common
offset section with and without applying this procedure. (a) The migrated zero-offset section shown in Figure
3a; (b) the migrated version of the moveout-corrected common offset section shown in Figure 3b; and (c) the
migrated version of the partially migrated common offset section shown in Figure 5d. Even though the 15
degree finite-difference algorithm was used for migration, no migration scheme can collapse the dominant
zero spatialfrequency as seen in (b). Note the better imaging obtained by partially migrated section (c). Under-
migration of very high dips in all three cases is due to the 15degree accuracy.

FIG. 7. Sensitivity of the partial migration operator to variation in velocity. The true velocity of the medium is
3000 m/set. Figure 5c after partial migration with v = 2400 misec (a), and v = 3600 m/set (b). Comparison
with Figure 5d, partial migration with the correct velocity, clearly indicates the processis quite robust, i.e.,
insensitiveto significant variations in velocity. This is a desirable property for sucha procedure since velocity
estimation is usually not completely accurate.
 Prestack Partial Migration 1763
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

FIG. 8. Sensitivity of the partial migration operator to offset value. True offset value is h = 400 m. (a) The
partial migration of the moveout-correctedsection shown in Figure 5c with a smaller offset value (h = 300 m),
as is (b), but with a larger offset value (h = 500 m). As we would expect, with a small offset value the section
is underprocessed,and with a large offset value it is overprocessed.

from which we may compute the stepout dt/dh, V

dt
_=_ 4h
(33)
dh v’t’
Substitutingequation (33) into equation (3 1) and re-
calling the definition of equation (15b) for H, we
have the estimate
vt
Equation (34) defines A in terms of surface offset
and two-way traveltime. This supportsour intuition
that we expect to see different stepouts dt/dh at
different offsets and times. The moveout equation
(32) is also valid for stratified earth if we take v to be
the rms velocity down to depth z, in which case the
velocityinequation(34) becomesv,, Noticealsothat
equatioh (34) is in the form that we wish, i.e., the
offset value enters as a parameter into the deviation
operator. Another estimate for Z? could be made to
improve equation (34) by including a regional dip
factor. It is well known that therms velocity estimated
from CMP gathers has a dip dependency given by
(Levin, 1971)
v,, = - (35)
cos (e) ’
where t3is regional dip and v is true medium velocity.
In more general cases, fi could be determined by
ray tracing from theoretical velocity models or per-
haps estimated by smoothing data. As will be seen
from model experiments, the main point to keep in
mind is that great accuracy is not required.
Our estimate for fi makes the coefficients of the
approximate Dev(Y, A) operators (29) and (30)
scalar-like quantities. Computational cost of these
two approximations is the same, but their accuracies
differ. Therefore, we are inclined to choose equation
(29), which is a better approximation in H.
Adding Dev (Y, A) to Sep (Y, H), we have
NewSep(Y, H) = Sep(Y, H) + Dev(Y, fi). (36)
Recalling that Sep (Y, H) represents conventional
processing, it is proper to say that NewSep(Y, H)
represents “improved” conventional processing.
Actually, equation (36) can be directly obtained
from the definition of Sep(Y, H) given by equation
(21). We derived equation (22) by setting Ho = Y. =
0 in equation (21). Now, letting Ho = A, Y. = 0,
 1764 Yilmaz and Claerbout
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

FIG. 9. (a) A synthetic zero-offset and (b) a far offset section with h = 1000 m section over point scatterers
buried at several depths, z = 150-1500 m at intervals of 150 m, in a constant velocity medium (v = 3000
misec). The sampling interval is 4 msec and the midpoint interval is 12.5 m. The bandwidth is 6, 12-36,48 Hz,
and the amplitudes decay as t-l”

we have Adding equations (37b) and (37~) and comparing

the result with equation (37a), we have
Sep(Y, H; Ho = f?, Y, = 0) = DSR(Y, A)
+ DSR(0, H) - DSR(0, A). (37a) Sep(Y, H;H, = A, Y, = 0)
= Sep(Y, H;Ho = 0, Y, = 0)
Rewriting equation (21),
+ Dev(Y, I?).
Sep(Y, H; Ho = 0, Y, = 0) = DSR(Y, 0)
+ DSR(0, H) - DSR(0, 0). (37b) Comparing this result with equation (36), we see that

Now recall the definition for Dev(Y, 6)
equation (25):
Dev(Y, a) = DSR(Y, fi) - Sep(Y, A).
Setting H = fi in equation (37b) and substitutingfor
Sep(Y, A),
Dev(Y, fi) = DSR(Y, fi)
- [DSR(Y, 0) + DSR(O, fi)
- DSR(0, O)].
from NewSep(Y, H) = Sep(Y, H;Ho = fi, Y, = 0),
(38)
which implies that NewSep is the old Sep with a
nonzero Ho = fi, which conventional processing
takes as zero.
Prestack partial migration equation
We now describe the implementation of the ap-
(37c) proximate form [equation (29)] of the deviation
 Prestack Partlal migration 1765
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

II l~llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll~llllil~l
IY

FIG. 10. CMP gathersover the model of Figure 9. (a) Raw gathers,(b) moveout-corrected gathers,and
(c) moveout-corrected and partially migrated gathers.Note the overcorrectedsteeplydipping events on
moveout-correctdagathers. H definedby equation(34) was not adjustedfor dip angle (0 = 0). In practice,it
is betterto adjustH for a regionaldip an le. The NM0 performssatisfactorilyfor flat or nearly flat eventsat
very smalloffsets[right sideof frame(b)B. Partialmigrationcorrectsfor dippingeventsandremovestheeffect
of far offsets[frame (c)l.

operator.The associatedvertical wavenumberis equation(18). The differencebetweenthem is that

the extrapolationvelocity in equation(40) is not the
k, = - f Dev(Y, fi). (39) mediumvelocitybut theonedefinedby equation(41).
Since this velocity is r-dependent, equation (40)
Making all the relevant substitutionsfrom equations cannot be implementedin o-space. Assuming no
(Ea), (29), and (34) and simplifying, we have the lateralvariationin velocity, it can be implementedin
final expression (k,, t)-space.
Referringto equation(41), Gis actuallydefinedas
a negative quantity since fi 5 1. Keeping this in
mind, equation (40) yields the following partial
where differentialequation:

G = Y [l - [l - (z)2]-3’2]. (41)

Noticethatequation(40) is in theform of theretarded This is the prestack partial migration equation

H-degreeapproximationto the zero-offsetmigration appliedon commonoffsetsection,whichis not move-
 1766 Yilmaz and Claerbout

out corrected. 5 is interpreted as the velocity of

propagation adjusted for offset in the manner de- t’ = I [ 1 - (2)‘]“‘, (45a)
scribed by equation (41).
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Equation (40) can also be used in the case of a and

stratified medium. It is convenient, however, to
h’=h. (45b)
make the conversion
We also have the principle of invariance
= dz
r=2 -, (43) P(y, h, 7, r) = P’(y, h’, 7, 2’).
I 0 v(z) (46)

which yields The critical partial differentiation is

p’~~~(l_[l-(~)2]-3’z]pyy, (44) Z=$$+$$. (47)

aP’/ah’ is negligible for moveout-corrected data.

where we used the rms velocity in equation (34). Using equations (45),
Notice, however, that rrms is really a function of
the two-way zero-offset traveltime. We therefore $ = [ 1 + (~)2]? (48)
need to transform equation (44) to NM0 coordinates
defined as follows: Inverting equation (45a) and using equation (48),

FIG. 1I. (a) Conventional stackof the 6fold CMP gathersshown in Figure lob. (b) Stackof the 6-fold partially
migrated CMP gathers shown in Figure 10~. Note the severe interference on the shallow portion of the con-
ventional stack; this part is muted during stack. The partially migrated CMP gathersproduce a more coherent
stackthat is comparable to the zero-offset section shown in Figure 9a. We also managed to narrow the mute
zone.
 Prestack Partial Migration 1767

we obtain the moveout-corrected form of equation them properly, and (2) nonzero data for t < 2h/v
(44: would not fit a wave propagation model.
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

i The 15-degree finite-difference computational star

P Ttl = -v Pm, (49) described by Claerbout (1976) can be used to solve
4
equations (42) and (49) numerically. Writing equa-
where tion (42) in difference form,

f =; (I - [I + (~)z]3’2j. 6,6tP = -a f&.&P, (51)

where 6 is the difference operator, and

[I +($)“]-‘-.‘ (50) (52)

A final consideration is that the pre-NM0 equa-
tion (42) has a pole at t = 2h/v [equation (41)],
whereas the post-NM0 equation (49) has a pole at
t’ = 0 [equation (50)]. At first, the presence of the
poles seems worrisome. However, we may stop the
extrapolation at the poles for two reasons:(1) angles
become so large that our equations cannot handle
The t-outer algorithm (Claerbout, 1976) was used in
the present analysis for two reasons:(1) less memory
is required, and (2), more important, fi is constant
along the extrapolation path. Notice that the extra-
polation coefficient “a” defined by equation (52) is
a function of offset and traveltime using (41). Nu-
merically, for stability reasons, we prefer a to be a

FIG. 12. Migration of (a) the conventional stack shown in Figure 1la, and (b) that of the stack improved by
the prestack partial migration procedure shown in Figure 1lb. It is apparent that we achieve better imaging
with the prestack partial migration.
 1766 Vilmaz and Claerbout

global constant over the entire (z, t)-plane. This property for an algorithm that operates mostly on
suggeststhat the number of z-stepswill vary with time wide offset angles (large h or small t). although it
t. Solving equation (52) for AZ, we determine the does necessitate an interpolation procedure to re-
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

numberof z-stepsat a given time t. Figure 2 is a graph
of the number of z-steps as a function of time for
pre- and post-NM0 equations. Notice that the num-
ber of z-steps increasesrapidly near the pole. Figure
2 suggeststhat we startwith a small number of z-steps
at the bottom of the (z, t)-frame, i.e., we use a very
coarse extrapolation interval, which is not how we
would proceed using a finite-difference migration
scheme. As we go up the section in time we extra-
polate at much finer intervals. This is a desirable
sample the (z, y)- or (z, k,)-plane. The interpola-
tion problem is described in detail in Appendix C.
Model experiments
We will test the performance of the prestackpartial
migration procedure, both before and after moveout
correction. We also would like to determine some
of its properties, such as sensitivity to velocity varia-
tion and offset value. An ideal testing model is point
scatterers buried at various depths. Such a model

FIG. 13. Conventional processingof the Gulf data: moveout correctionplus stackplus a band-passwith cut-off
frequencies 6, 12-48, 72 Hz. Note that the steeply dipping events are not stacked properly, as verified by
Figure 14.
 Prestack Partial Migration 1769
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

5
a b
FIG. 14. Moveout-corrected CMP gathers from the Gulf data. Flat events (a) have been corrected properly,
but dipping events (b) are obviously overcorrected. Offset increases to the right.

would consistof a wide range of dips. Figure 3 shows
common offset sections with h = 0 and h = 400 m
over such an earth model.
Figure 4 shows the impulse responsesof the pre-
and post-NM0 partial migration equations, which
clearly demonstratesthe role of the offset; the larger
the offset and shallower the event, the wider the range
of midpoints involved in mapping to zero offset. We
can also see the response near the pole that pro-
duces evanescentenergy.
Figure 5 illustrates the comparative performance
of the pre- and post-NM0 differential equations.
These and subsequentmodel studies were done in
the (k,, r&domain. The post-NM0 operatoris clearly
superior to the pre-NM0 operator. As we near the
pole t’ = 0, we observe the anisotropic dispersion.
A proper test of the performance of our equations is
to migrate the outputsof Figures 5b and 5d, and com-
pare the results with the migrated zero-offset section
of Figure 3a. Figure 6 clearly shows the effect of the
post-NM0 operatoron the performance of migration.
Here we usedthe 15degree migration scheme for the
sake of convenience. Certainly other schemes, such
as the 45-degree or the frequency domain algorithms,
can be used for better imaging. However, no migra-
tion algorithm can possibly collapse the energy at or
near k,, = 0 as seen in Figure 6b.
How sensitiveis the operatorDev (Y, fi) to velocity
variation and offset value? Figure 7 shows that a
Z20 percent deviation from the true medium velocity
made no significant difference. However, a ? 25
percent change in offset value did have an effect on
the output, as shown in Figure 8.
Let us now simulate the entire sequenceof seismic
dataprocessingby consideringa 6-fold point scatterer
model. Offset values are h = O-1000 m with an
increment of 200 m. The zero and the farthest offset
sections are shown in Figure 9 for comparison.
Figure 10a shows every twelfth CMP gather starting
from the left and going to the center of the model.
First let us follow the conventional route. Moveout
corrected CMP gathers are shown in Figure lob. We
can clearly see the effects of steep dip and large off-
sets on the NM0 correction. The CMP gather from
the central trace where dip is zero is perfectly
flattened. Moving up to the left, however, we see
the overcorrected gathers [Levin effect (Doherty,
1975)]. The resulting CMP stack is shown in Figure
 Yllmaz and Claerbout
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

a b
FIG. 15 Moveout-corrected CMP gathersafter partial migration. (a) The processdid not affect flat events, but
(b) corrected dipping events so that they stack coherently.

lla. Ideally, we would like to have a zero-offset
section like the one shown in Figure 9a. Let us now
include the prestack partial migration process in the
conventional sequence. Applying the post-NM0
operator on moveout-corrected common offset sec-
tions, we have the CMP gathersshown in 1 (gure 10~.
Notice the considerable improvement in the wide
offset and steep dip regions. In the upper part of the
CMP gathers, we see events that are not corrected
properly. This is becausethese events have dips that
are beyond the range of dips our operator can handle.
The improved CMP stack is shown in Figure 1lb.
The usual practice is to mute the top portion of the
stack. By improving the CMP stack, we manage to
narrow the mute zone considerably. By doing so,
we are able to recover primary energy under the inter-
ference zone shown in Figure 1la. Migrations of the
CMP stacks with and without the post-NM0 partial
migration are shown in Figure 12. Better imaging is
achieved with prestack partial migration.
Field data example
A field data set provided by Digicon, Inc. from the
Gulf of Mexico was processed using the prestack
partial migration equation. The data are 4%fold with
offsets varying between 1037-12,740 ft. The pro-
cessing sample rate is 4 msec, and total record length
is 5 sec. The number of midpoints is 282, with an
interval of 83 ft.
The processing sequence is as follows.
(1) At every sixth midpoint, velocity estimation
was done by the semblance technique. The velocity
function was chosen which stacked flat or near-flat
events best, free of any dip effects.
(2) CMP gathers were moveout corrected, simul-
taneously stacking every four adjacent offsets. Thus,
we reduced the size of the data by creating substacks
while enhancing the SIN ratio. Considerable subse-
quent computational effort was also saved in this
way. Certainly, substacksare allowable for only a
narrow range of offset values.
(3) Figure 13 shows the conventional stack of
moveout-correctedCMP gathers. Referring to Figure
14, we seethat dipping events are over-corrected, thus
resulting in poor coherency in stack.
(4) The moveout-corrected common offset sec-
tions were partially migrated using equation (49). in
which fi was adjustedfor a regional dip of 45 degrees.
The effect of this processis seen on the CMP gathers
 Prestack Partlal Migration 1771

shown in Figure 15. Note that flat events are left as lateral velocity variation. In particular, we will study
they are, but on dipping events the offset effect was the Sep(Y, H) operator and investigate terms that
removed. may be of significance.
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

(5) Subsequentstacking (Figure 16) is superior to

the conventional stack shown in Figure 13. Dip-
ping events present in the far-offset data are well
preserved.
LATERAL VELOCITY VARIATION
Lateral variation in velocity is of great concern in
areaswith complex structural settings or rapid facies
changes. With this motivation, we would like to
extend the theory developed earlier to incorporate
The double square-root equation
We would like to define explicitly the DSR equa-
tion for laterally variable media. This in effect implies
that we distinguish between the velocity along the
shot axis and the velocity along the receiver axis.
This allows us to use equation (1) to extrapolate
wave fields in media with lateral velocity variations.
It is convenient to express the associated vertical
wavenumber k, of equation (2) as

FIG. 16. Stack of the partially migrated CMP gathers. Comparison with the conventional stackshown in Figure
13 indicatesconsiderableimprovement of dippingevents. Processingsequenceis identical to that of Figure 13,
with addition of partial migration before stack. H was adjusted for a regional dip of 8 = 45 degrees.
 1772 Yllmaz and Claerbout

Making all the relevant substitutions,

k, = - 0 (f - $,l’, (53)
NewSep = [M(s) - (Y - ti)2]1’2
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Writing equation (53) once for receivers and once + [M(g) - (Y + I)2]l’2
for shots, then summing, yields + (M(s) - H2)“2 + (M(g) - H2)l”
- (M(s) - liy - (M(g) - A2)“2.
(60)
The third and fourth squareroots are NMO-like terms
similar to equation (19), i.e., the stacking operator.
(54)
Abandoning them, we are left with the retarded
migration part:
Using equation (13), we put equation (54) into
midpoint-offset space Mig = [M(s) - (Y - fi)2]1’2
+ [M(g) - (Y + A)2]1’2
k, = - o I[-& - (?)‘I”
’ - (M(s) - As)“2 - (M(g) - A2)“2.
(61)
Referring to the second order square-root expansion
+ [-& - (%,‘]‘-“,. (55)
provided in Appendix B [equation (B-3)], we expand
For brevity, we leave the variables s and g in the the first two terms and obtain
velocity function. For convenience, we redefine the
normalized wavenumbers

[i] =+-[:I. Wa,b) (62)

We make the following further definitions: where

Mb) = -& (574 C(s) = (M(s) - A2)1’2, (63a)

and
and
C(g) = (M(g) - A2)1’2. (63b)
M(g) = J- W’b) The second term on the right-hand side of equation
v(d2’ (62) is a typical 15-degree-like migration equation
where M is the square of the slowness function. which is adjusted for offset using equation (63). But
the first term is entirely a stranger to us
Upon substitutionof equations(56) and (57), equa-
tion (55) takes the form
A Y. (64)
I
k, = - o {[M(s) - (Y - H)2]“2
+ M(g) - (Y + w211. (58) Substituting equations (56a) and (63), we have

Omitting the scaling frequency w, we define the DSR k, = - o NewMig

operator in laterally varying media as
1
DSR(Y, H) = [M(s) - (Y - H)2]“2
+ [M(g) - (Y + H)2]1’2. (59)
kz = - 1
(M(s) _ fi2)1'2

The separable approximation :65)

We defined the improved conventional processing
by the NewSep(Y, H) operator. Let us derive this
operator using the newly defined DSR(Y, H) given
by equation (59). We make use of the short-cut
derivation equation (38):
Notice that the new definitions of Y and H [equa-
tion (56)] are the old Y and H [equation (15)] divided
by v. We may also define the new A as the old fi
[equation (34)] divided by v; thus

NewSep(Y, H; Ho = f?, Y, = 0) = DSR(Y, I!?) &?!I,

+ DSR(0, H) - DSR(0, A). v2t
 Prestack Partial Migration 1773

Using the new definition for fi and assuming it is

small, equation (65) becomes
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

k = _ h v(s) - v(g) k
z v2 Y’
t
which transforms to

p = _ h v(s)- v(g) p
z
t
v2 Y’ (66)
2.5
where v is considered to be the average of v(s) and
v(g). This equationimplies a pure lateral shift. Notice
the coefficient is strongly dependent upon the offset
value and the lateral velocity gradient. For zero
offset, this equation meansno operation. However, in
a laterally varying medium, the thin lens term of the
migration process still needs to be applied even to
zero offset. If we imagine a point scatterer in a
medium with lateral velocity, equation (66) implies
the following: If the top of the diffraction hyperbola
on a common offset section (hr) is located under
midpoint (yr), then on a common offset section (hs),
the top will be located under a different midpoint 2.5
(y2). The lateral shift (y2 - yr) will depend upon
how strongthe lateral velocity gradient is and how far
apart the two offsets are (h2 - hr).
Let us investigatethe significance of equation (66).
During the processing of the field data set described FIG. 17. Portions of the two moveout-corrected and
in the previous section, it was observed that some of partially migrated common offset sections from the
the dipping events showed evidence that some lateral Gulf data. Notice the phase shift of nearly 112 wave-
phase shift from one common offset to another was length across a lateral extent of roughly 4000 ft be-
tween midpoints 100-150. The event marked is an
still presenteven after moveout correction and partial
indicator of this phase shift possibly due to lateral
migration. An example is shown in Figure 17. One variation in velocity.
possibleexplanation is that there may be lateral varia-
tion in velocity due to overpressurized shale or
prominent structural complexity.
First let us transform equation (66) to NM0 co-
ordinates. The transformation defined by equation P(k,, z, W) = P(k,, 0, CO)~-~~~Y’. (70)
(59) will simply change the coefficient of equation
Given the phase shift @ = C k,z, we can estimate
(66):
the lateral velocity gradient. Solving for v(s) - v(g)
P, = -c P,, (67) in equation (68) and substituting k, = (o/v) sin (0)
where, with the small-offset approximation, and z = vt’/2, we obtain

2 @ vz
C = ; [1 - ; c3j2] ‘(‘) izv(‘). (68) v(s) - v(g) = Av =
sin (0)~
!
For the sake of a crude estimation, let us consider
(71)
a constant lateral velocity gradient. This will allow
us to write an analytical solution to equation (67). where 0 can be regarded as the average dip over the
Fourier transforming equation (67) in t and y, P = distance s - g.
P(k,, z, w), we obtain Let us plug some numbers into the expression (71).
Referring to Figure 17, between midpoints 100-150,
P, = -iCk,P. (6%
we have @ = rr radians, h = 5200 ft, t’ = 2.5 set,
The solution to equation (69) is v(t’) = 7500 ftisec, 0 = 15 degrees, and w =
 1774 Yilmaz and Claerbout
2a X (25 Hz). The resulting value for A v is approxi-
mately 500 ft/sec per 1000 ft of lateral distance. Even
this crude estimate gives an idea as to the significance
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
of equation(64). A closer study of this term may lead
to a procedure by which one can accurately estimate
lateral variation in velocity. In particular, the statics
problem can now be reconsideredto take into account
offset dependency.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
We reviewed the fundamentals of extrapolation of
wave fields which are acquired via seismic experi-
ment with many shotsand receivers. Mathematically,
the wave field extrapolation is described by the DSR
equation. We determined that conventional process-
ing is equivalent to a separable approximation to the
DSR operator. Underlying this separation are two
assumptions-zero-dip NM0 and zero-offset
migration. Through the separable approximation,
downward extrapolation is achieved in two in-
dependent steps: seismic data are moveout corrected
and stacked in offset space, and then migrated in
midpoint space.
To the conventional processing scheme, we added
partial migration before stack. The theory for this
process is also based on the DSR equation. The
algorithm emergesfrom the deviation operator, which
is formally defined as the difference between the DSR
operator and its separable form. Prestack partial
migration is applied on common offset sections in-
dividually. It removes the effect of offset on dipping
events, thus producing a more coherent stack. The
processis robust, i.e., insensitive to any significant
velocity variation.
In the case of lateral velocity variation, a new
term emerged from our analysis of the separable
approximation. This term involves pure lateral shift
due to nonzero offset and the lateral velocity gradient.
A rough estimate (500 ft/sec difference over a dis-
tance of loo0 ft) on a field data set indicates that a
lateral velocity estimation scheme may be formulated
based on the theory developed in the previous sec-
tion. In particular, the offset angle and lateral
velocity gradient are both significant near surface.
Therefore, the theory has important implications for
the statics problem.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are indebted to John Sherwood who developed
the concept of prestack partial migration, to Robert
W. Clayton who played a large part in the develop-
ment of the double square-rootequation, and to David
Brown who clarified our understanding of the
separability of operators.
This work was supportedin part by the sponsoring
members of the Stanford Exploration Project (SEP)
and in part by the Scientific and Technical Research
Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) and The Turkish
Petroleum Corp. (TPAO). We are thankful to all
of them. The field data set was provided by Digicon,
Inc., who first brought to our attention a devilishly
clever procedure which is a shortcut to migration
before stack.
REFERENCES
Claerbout, J. F., 1976, Fundamentals of geophysicaldata
processing: New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co.. Inc.
1978, Class notes: Stanford University, ‘Depart-
ment of Geophysics.
Conte, S. D., 1965, Elementary numerical analysis: New
York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.
Doherty, S. M., 1975, Structure independent velocity
estimation: Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Doherty, S. M., and Claerbout, J. F., 1976, Structure in-
dependent velocity estimation: Geophysics, v. 41, p.
850-881.
Dohr, G. P., and Stiller, P. K., 1975, Migration velocity
determination: part II: Applications: Geophysics, v. 40,
p. 6-16.
Gardner, G. F., French, W. S., and Matzuk, T., 1974,
Elements of migration and velocity analysis: Geo-
physics, v. 39, p. 81 l-825.
Judson, D. R., Schultz, P. S., and Sherwood, J. W. C.,
1978, Equalizing the stacking velocities of dipping events
via Devilish: Presented at the 48th AM& International
SEG Meeting, October 30, in San Francisco.
Levin, F. K., i971, Apparent velocity from dipping inter-
face reflections: geophysics v. 36. o. 510-516.
Loewenthal, D., Lu, i.: Robe&, R., and Sherwood,
J. W. C., 1976, The wave equation applied to migration:
Geophys. Prosp., v. 24, p. 380-399.
Sattlegger, J. W., 1975, Migration velocity determination:
part I: Philosophy: Geophysics, v. 40, p. l-5.
Sherwood, J. W. C., Schultz, P. S., and Judson, D. R.,
1976, Some recent developments in migration before
stack: Released by Digicon, Inc.
Stolt, R. H., 1978, Migration by Fourier transform: Geo-
physics, v. 43, p. 23-48.
Yilmaz, O., 1979, Pre-stack partial migration: Ph.D. thesis,
Stanford University.
 Prestack Partial Migration 1775

APPENDIX A
WAVE FIELD EXTRAPOLATION
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

We start with the scalar wave equation, which as may be readily verified by substituting equation
describesthe propagation of the compressionalwave (A-4) into equation (A-5). Let us define the vertical
field P(x, z, I) in a medium with velocity v(x, z) and wavenumber as
constant material density
k, = _ !!![l _ (%)“l”“. (A-6)
a2
;;;i+-&”
a2
v2
2

at2 1 P=O. (A-1) VL \w/ J

With this, equation (A-4) takes the simple form

P(k,, z, o) = P(k,, 0, co)eLkzz. (A-7)

We would like to determine the reflectivity P (x, z, 0),
given the upcoming wave field P (x, 0, t) recorded at
the surface. This requires extrapolating the surface
wave field down to depth z and collecting it at
t = 0.
It is to our advantageto decompose the wave field
into monochromatic plane waves with different
angles of propagation from the vertical. Therefore,
we would like to work in the Fourier domain when-
ever possible. We may Fourier transform the wave
field over time j. If we assume no lateral velocity
variation, we may also Fourier transform over the
horizontal axis x. Thus, we have
rk,x-id&
P(k,, z, 0) = P(x, Z, r)e
II
and inversely,
Our main objective here is to interpret equation
(A-7) as a tool for downward extrapolating the wave
field given at the surface. The Fourier transform
allowed us to decompose this wave field into mono-
chromatic plane waves, each traveling at a different
angle from the vertical. We identify these plane
waves by attaching them to a unique (w, k,) pair of
numbers. Let us now consider one of these plane
waves as depicted in Figure A- 1. Imagine that this
plane wave passed point P at t = 0, traveled up-
ward, and was recorded by a receiver at the surface
point A at time 1. We would like to take the waveform
dj,
at point A sitting on the wavefront at time t back
(A-2a) to where it actually was, i.e., the reflection point P.
It seems sensible to travel back using the same ray-

P(x, z, t) = P(k,, z, co)e-(ikxx-Lwt) dk,do.

II
(A-2b)

Applying the differential operator of equation (A- 1)

onto (A-2b), we get

-$PL z, o) + c$ - k:) P(k,, z, w) = 0.

(A-3)
For simplicity, let us further assume the constant
velocity case. We will look into the case of stratified
earth later in the section. The upcoming wave solu-
tion to equation(A-3) can be immediately recognized
as

P(k,, z, w) = P(k,, 0, 0) .

(A-4)
which is also the solution to the one-way wave
equation

f Pk, z, o) = -i $ - k:)“” P(k,, z, co),

(A-5) FIG. A-l. On extrapolating wave fields.

 1776 Yilmaz and Claerbout

path. This means that downward continuation does which is exactly what equation (A-7) implies, except
not change the horizontal wavenumber k,. Let us 1that equation (A-7) was derived for constant v.
move the wavefront so that the waveform at A is How do we know that we reached our destination
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

now at A’ at depth AZ. If we actually had a buried
receiver at A ’ , it would have recorded our plane wave
at t - At, where At is the traveltime between
A - A’. In other words, going down AZ, we changed
the traveltime by -At. From the geometry of Figure
A- I, we have
point P and did not passbeyond it? Seismic imaging
is not completed unless we impose a stopping con-
dition onto downward continuation. Here, we simply
terminate the process when our clock, which mea-
sures

At = t cos(B) AZ, (A-8)

t-
I At,

reads zero traveltime. This completes our discussion

where v/cos(t3) is known as the vertical phase
velocity. What we know about the plane wave is its
k, and o. Suppose the distance between A - A ’ is
X wavelength. At time (t - At), the wavefront
intersects the x-axis at a distance of A, from A.
Referring to the geometric relation in Figure A- 1,
of the fundamentals of seismic imaging.
Let us now turn our attention to the case of a strati-
fied earth. Since we have not Fourier transformed P
over z, the one-way wave equation (A-5) is also
valid for v(z)

A 2 P(k,, z, o) = -i (-$ - k:)1’2P(k,, z, w),

- = sin(E)). (A-9a)
A, (A-l 1)

Thus, using the definitions A = 2n/(o/v) and in which case equation (A-6) becomes
h, = 2v/k,, we obtain
k,(z) = - --$ [I - (+j21Li2. (A-12)
sin(e) = $, (A-9b)
Equation (A-l 1) has the following solution
and
P(k,, z, 0) = P(k,, 0, 4 .
cos(0) = [I - (?r]“‘, (A-9c)
. exp [i [ k,(z)dz], (A-13)

where w/v is the wavenumber along the raypath and

which immediately verifies equation (A-l 1) when
k, is the wavenumber along the x-axis. Substituting
substituted.However, in order for this to be a proper
equation (A-9c) into equation (A-8), we have
wave solution, we also would like it to satisfy the
two-way scalar wave equation (A-3). From equa-
At = i [1 - /J$)‘]“‘A~. (A-1Oa)
tion (A-l 1),

As we move down, we do not want to change the d2 dk, (z) dv (z)

-- P + i k,(z)%,
wave amplitude. Given the change in traveltime -A t d22p=i dv (z) dz
by equation (A-IOa), the corresponding phase shift
where P = P(k,, z, w). Substituting equation
will simply ‘be --WAC Atea& Ar-step of descent,
(A- 11) for dP/dz,
we may assign a different velocity v(z) to the wave-
form. This suggests that we change the angle (0) d2 dk, (z) dv (z)
- - P - k;(z)P.
from the vertical as we continue our journey along d22p=i dv(z) dz
the raypath down to the destinationpoint P. The total
If we ignore the velocity gradient dv(z)/dz, the final
phase shift to which the waveform has been subject
expression is
when we arrive at P is -J odt. In Fourier domain,
all we have to do is multiply the transformed surface
wave field P(k,, 0, o) by
$ P + k;(z) P = 0.

(A-lob)
 Prestack Partial Migration 1777

Substitutingequation (A- 12) into this expression, we stratified earth model if we neglect the vertical gra-
obtainthe scalarwave equation(A-3). Consequently, dient of material velocity.
the DSR equation can be extended to the case of the
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

APPENDIX B
SECOND ORDER SQUARE-ROOT EXPANSIONS

B-l [l - (a + A)2]1/2
Consider the simplest case
2 = (1 - a2P2 [I - 5 - 2t1 A2,2,2]-

(1 - 4 l/Z=pA_A (B-l)
2 8’ (B-2)
where 1 + A. B-3

B-2 To second order in A, i.e., b > a + A,

To second order in A, i.e., 1 > a S=-A, [b2 - (a + A)2]1'2

= [(b2 - a2) - (2uA + A2)]1'2.
[l - (a + A)2]'/2 = [I - (a2 + 2aA + A2)]1'2.
Similarly to the development of equation (B-2),
a could be close to 1; therefore, factoring (1 - a2)
from the square root prior to expansion, we get ~ 03 - a2)1/2 [I - 2by’a;2]1’2
[l - (a + A)2]'/2
5 (b2 - a2)lf2.
5 (1 - a2)1/2 [1 - 2y_+a;2]
1’2
2aA+A2 (2uA + A2)2

Applying equation (B-l) to the square root on the

’ - 2(b2 - a2)- 8(b2 a2)2 1
right, Finally,
[I - (a + A)2]1'2 [b2 - (a + A)2]"2

= (1 - a2)1’2 [I - i;“;‘JatI = (b2 - u2)1/2 [ 1 - e2

- (2aA + A2)' b2A2

8(1 - a2)2 I .
-
2(b2 - uy2 1 (B-3)
Expanding the right-hand side and ignoring terms of Setting b = 1, equation (B-3) reduces to equation
higher than secondorder in A, the final expression is (B-2), as should be the case.

APPENDIX C
WAVE FIELD INTERPOLATION
Figure C-l illustrates different numerical tech- of Aitken’s algorithm for interpolation (Conte, 196.5),
niques for the interpolation required during extra- andthe techniqueof cubic spline (L. Morley, personal
polation in z. Although the nearestneighbor technique communication) perform equally well; the latter,
is the cheapest, it is obviously an undesirablechoice, however, is computationally more attractive. Model
becausecoarse interpolation creates artificial diffrac- tests and field data processing were done using the
tors, thereby causing a noisy appearance. Linear cubic spline technique for interpolation.
interpolation could be considereda possible means of Figure C-l illustrates a problem of concern to us.
interpolation in production-oriented implementa- Notice that near the pole there is actually a discon-
tion of prestack partial migration. The four-point tinuity. This is due to the limitation on the number
Lagrangian technique, which is a specialized form of z-steps that can be handled by the computer.
 1778 Yilmaz and Claerbout
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

n
-Y

FIG. C-l. Illustrating possible means of interpolation required during resampling of the (z, y)-plane with a
different AZ(~) at each time sample [equation (52)]. (a) Nearest neighbor results in undesired numerical arti-
facts; (b) linear interpolation may be considered for production-oriented algorithms even though it has some
undesirablefeatures, as can be seen on the margins; (c) the four-point Lagrangian, and (d) cubic spline are the
most desirable types of interpolation. Arrows indicate the time beyond which the number of z-steps is fixed
due to limitation in data storage. This caused underprocessingof the data above the arrows.
 Prestack Partial Migration 1779
Downloaded 05/17/15 to 130.132.123.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

FIG. C-2. Insufficient number of z-stepsin (a) and undersamplingin A z in (b) clearly show incomplete mapping
of the top event to zero offset. Dispersion near the top event is partly anisotropic, which is due to the limited
accuracy of equation (42) very near the pole at t = 2h/v.

Theoretically, one needs to take an immense number
of z-steps near the pole. If we make an attempt to
allow more z-steps, we introduce dispersion, as
shown in Figure C-2a. If we take coarser z-steps, the
resulting output is poorer (Figure C-2b). As we near
the pole, t approaches2h/v. This implies extremely
large offset angles, which are not accurately handled
by our equation, and it explains the anisotropic
dispersion near the pole in Figure C-2a.