Applied Geophysics

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 399–405 | Cite as

Diffraction separation by plane-wave prediction filtering

  • Xue Kong
  • De-Ying Wang
  • Zhen-Chun Li
  • Rui-Xiang Zhang
  • Qiu-Yuan Hu
Signal processing/denoising


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.


Plane wave prediction filter separation diffraction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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.


  1. Bansal, R., and Imhof, M. G., 2005, Diffraction enhancement in prestack seismic data: Geophysics, 70(3), V73–V79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burnett, W. A., Klokov, A., Fomel, S., et al., 2015, Seismic diffraction interpretation at Piceance Creek: Interpretation, 3(1), SF1–SF14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Fomel, S., 2002, Applications of plane-wave destruction filters: Geophysics, 67(6), 1946–1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fomel, S., 2010, Predictive painting of 3-D seismic volumes: Geophysics, 75(4), A25–A30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fomel, S., Landa, E., and Taner, M. T., 2007, Poststack velocity analysis by separation and imaging of seismic diffractions: Geophysics, 72(6), U89–U94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Khaidukov, V., Landa, E., and Moser, T. J., 2004, Diffraction imaging by focusing-defocusing: An outlook on seismic superresolution: Geophysics, 69(6), 1478–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Klokov, A., and Sergey, F., 2012, Separation and imaging of seismic diffractions using migrated dip-angle gathers: Geophysics, 77(6), S131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Landa, E., and Keydar, S., 1998, Seismic monitoring of diffraction images for detection of local heterogeneities: Geophysics, 63(3), 1093–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Landa, E., Shtivelman, V., and Gelchinsky, B., 1987, A method for detection of diffracted waves on commonoffset sections: Geophysical Prospecting, 35(4), 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li, J. Y. and Chen, X. H., 2013, A rock-physical modeling method for carbonate reservoirs at seismic scale: Applied Geophysics, 10(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li, S. J., Shao, Y., and Chen, X. Q., 2016, Anisotropic rock physics models for interpreting pore structures in carbonate reservoirs: Applied Geophysics, 13(1), 166–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu, Y., Fomel, S., and Liu, G. C., 2010, Nonlinear structure-enhancing filtering using plane-wave prediction: Geophysical Prospecting, 58(3), 425–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Moser, T., and Howard, B. C., 2008, Diffraction imaging in depth: Geophysical Prospecting, 56(5), 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reshef, M., 2008, Interval velocity analysis in the dip-angle domain: Geophysics, 73(5), VE353–VE360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reshef, M., and Landa, E., 2009, Post-stack velocity analysis in the dip-angle domain using diffractions: Geophysical Prospecting, 57(5), 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reshef, M., and Rüger, A., 2008, Influence of structural dip angles on interval velocity analysis: Geophysics, 73(4), U13–U18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Tyiasning, S., Merzlikin, D., Cooke, D., et al., 2016, A comparison of diffraction imaging to incoherence and curvature: The Leading Edge, 35(1), 86–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang, D. Y., Huang, J. P., Kong, X., et al., 2017, Improving the resolution of seismic traces based on the secondary time-frequency spectrum: Applied Geophysics, 14(2), 236–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Editorial Office of Applied Geophysics and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xue Kong
    • 1
  • De-Ying Wang
    • 2
  • Zhen-Chun Li
    • 3
  • Rui-Xiang Zhang
    • 1
  • Qiu-Yuan Hu
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Petroleum Engineering, Shengli CollegeChina University of PetroleumDongyingChina
  2. 2.College of Earth Science and EngineeringShandong University of Science and TechnologyQingdaoChina
  3. 3.School of GeosciencesChina University of Petroleum (Hua Dong)QingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations