Diffraction separation by plane-wave prediction filtering
- 60 Downloads
Seismic data processing typically deals with seismic wave reflections and neglects wave diffraction that affect the resolution. As a general rule, wave diffractions are treated as noise in seismic data processing. However, wave diffractions generally originate from geological structures, such as fractures, karst caves, and faults. The wave diffraction energy is much weaker than that of the reflections. Therefore, even if wave diffractions can be traced back to their origin, their energy is masked by that of the reflections. Separating and imaging diffractions and reflections can improve the imaging accuracy of diffractive targets. Based on the geometrical differences between reflections and diffractions on the plane-wave record; that is, reflections are quasi-linear and diffractions are quasi-hyperbolic, we use plane-wave prediction filtering to separate the wave diffractions. First, we estimate the local slope of the seismic event using planewave destruction filtering and, then, we predict and extract the wave reflections based on the local slope. Thus, we obtain the diffracted wavefield by directly subtracting the reflected wavefield from the entire wavefield. Finally, we image the diffracted wavefield and obtain high-resolution diffractive target results. 2D SEG salt model data suggest that the plane-wave prediction filtering eliminates the phase reversal in the plane-wave destruction filtering and maintains the original wavefield phase, improving the accuracy of imaging heterogeneous objects.
KeywordsPlane wave prediction filter separation diffraction
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
We are grateful to the seismic wave propagation and imaging research group at the Department of Geophysics, China University of Petroleum (East China) for their support. We also thank the reviewers for constructive criticism as well as the chief editor Fan Wei-Cui.
- Cheng, J. B., Wang, H. Z., and Ma, Z. T., 2001, Prestack depth migration with finite-difference method in frequency-space domain: Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 4(3), 389–395.Google Scholar
- Decker, L., and Klokov, A., 2014, Diffraction extraction by plane-wave destruction of partial images: 84th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, 3862–3867.Google Scholar
- Decker, L., and Fomel, S., 2013, Comparison of seismic diffraction imaging techniques: plane wave destruction versus apex destruction: 83th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, 4054–4059.Google Scholar
- Klokov, A., Baina, R., and Landa, E., 2010a, Separation and imaging of seismic diffractions in dip angle domain: 72th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Extended Abstracts, G40.Google Scholar
- Klokov, A., Baina, R., Landa, E., et al., 2010b, Diffraction imaging for fracture detection: synthetic case study: 80th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, 3354–3358.Google Scholar
- Landa, E., Fomel, S., and Reshef, M., 2008, Separation, imaging, and velocity analysis of seismic diffractions using migrated dip-angle gathers: 78th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, 2176–2180.Google Scholar
- Merzlikin, D., Fomel, S., and Bona, A., 2016, Diffraction imaging using azimuthal plane-wave destruction: 86th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, 4288–4293.Google Scholar
- Taner, M. T., Fomel, S., and Landa, E., 2006, Separation and imaging of seismic diffractions using plane-wave decomposition: 76th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts, 2401–2405.Google Scholar