Velocity continuation and the anatomy of residual prestack time migration

Next: Kinematics of Residual DMO Up: KINEMATICS OF VELOCITY CONTINUATION Previous: Kinematics of Zero-Offset Velocity

## Kinematics of Residual NMO

The residual NMO differential equation is the second term in equation (1):
 (22)

Equation (22) does not depend on the midpoint . This fact indicates the one-dimensional nature of normal moveout. The general solution of equation (22) is obtained by simple integration. It takes the form
 (23)

where is an arbitrary velocity-independent constant, and I have chosen the constants and so that . Equation (23) is applicable only for different from zero.

For the case of a point diffractor, equation (23) easily combines with the zero-offset solution (16). The result is a simplified approximate version of the prestack residual migration summation path:

 (24)

Summation paths of the form (24) for a set of diffractors with different depths are plotted in Figures 3 and 4. The parameters chosen in these plots allow a direct comparison with Etgen's Figures 2.4 and 2.5 (Etgen, 1990), based on the exact solution and reproduced in Figures 8 and 9. The comparison shows that the approximate solution (24) captures the main features of the prestack residual migration operator, except for the residual DMO cusps appearing in the exact solution when the diffractor depth is smaller than the offset.

vlcve1
Figure 3.
Summation paths of the simplified prestack residual migration for a series of depth diffractors. Residual slowness is 1.2; half-offset is 1 km. This figure is to be compared with Etgen's Figure 2.4, reproduced in Figure 8.

vlcve2
Figure 4.
Summation paths of the simplified prestack residual migration for a series of depth diffractors. Residual slowness is 0.8; offset is 1 km. This figure is to be compared with Etgen's Figure 2.5, reproduced in Figure 9.

Neglecting the residual DMO term in residual migration is approximately equivalent in accuracy to neglecting the DMO step in conventional processing. Indeed, as follows from the geometric analog of equation (1) derived in Appendix A [equation (A-17)], dropping the residual DMO term corresponds to the condition

 (25)

where is the dip angle, and is the reflection angle. As shown by Yilmaz and Claerbout (1980), the conventional processing sequence without the DMO step corresponds to the separable approximation of the double-square-root equation (A-4):
 (26)

where is the reflection traveltime, and and are the source and receiver coordinates: , . In geometric terms, approximation (26) transforms to
 (27)

Taking the difference of the two sides of equation (27), one can estimate its accuracy by the first term of the Taylor series for small and . The estimate is (Yilmaz and Claerbout, 1980), which agrees qualitatively with (25). Although approximation (24) fails in situations where the dip moveout correction is necessary, it is significantly more accurate than the 15-degree approximation of the double-square-root equation, implied in the migration velocity analysis method of Yilmaz and Chambers (1984) and MacKay and Abma (1992). The 15-degree approximation
 (28)

corresponds geometrically to the equation
 (29)

Its estimated accuracy (from the first term of the Taylor series) is . Unlike the separable approximation, which is accurate separately for zero offset and zero dip, the 15-degree approximation fails at zero offset in the case of a steep dip and at zero dip in the case of a large offset.

 Velocity continuation and the anatomy of residual prestack time migration

Next: Kinematics of Residual DMO Up: KINEMATICS OF VELOCITY CONTINUATION Previous: Kinematics of Zero-Offset Velocity

2014-04-01