Laplace-domain waveform inversion versus refraction-traveltime tomography

Abstract

SUMMARY Geophysicists and applied mathematicians have proposed a rich suite of long‐wavelength velocity estimation algorithms to construct starting velocity models for subsequent pre‐stack depth migration and inversion. Refraction‐traveltime tomography derives subsurface velocity models from picked first‐arrival traveltimes. In contrast, Laplace‐domain waveform inversion recovers long‐wavelength velocity structure using the weighted amplitudes of first and later arrivals. There are several implementations of first‐arrival traveltime inversion, with most based on ray tracing, and some based on the damped monochromatic wave equation, which accurately represent simple and finite‐frequency first arrivals. Computationally, Laplace‐domain wavefield inversion is quite similar to refraction‐traveltime tomography using damped monochromatic wavefield, but the objective functions used in inversion are radically different. As in classical ray trace‐based traveltime inversion, the objective of refraction‐traveltime tomography using damped monochromatic wavefield is to match the phase (traveltime) of the first arrival of each measured seismic trace. In contrast, the objective of Laplace‐domain wavefield inversion is to match the weighted amplitudes of both first and later arrivals to the weighted amplitudes of the measured seismic trace. Principles of refraction‐traveltime tomography were used to generate velocity models of the earth one century ago. Laplace‐domain waveform inversion is a more recently introduced algorithm and has been less rigorously studied by the seismic research community, with many workers believing it be equivalent to finite‐frequency first‐arrival traveltime tomography. We show that Laplace‐domain waveform inversion is both theoretically and empirically different from finite‐frequency first‐arrival traveltime tomography. Specifically, we examine the Jacobian (sensitivity) kernels used in the two inversion schemes to quantify the different sensitivities (and hence the inversion results) of the two methods. Analysing both surface responses and sensitivity results, we show that the Laplace‐domain waveform inversion's sensitivity to later arrivals provides significantly improved resolution of deeper velocity structure than the first‐arrival traveltime tomography. We demonstrate this capability using numerical inversion examples using a synthetic five‐layer model and the synthetic BP benchmark model. Because of the similar algorithmic structure, Laplace‐domain waveform inversion fits neatly as a starting velocity model pre‐processing component of a larger (multi) frequency‐domain wave equation inversion solution package.

Imaging the P‐Wave Velocity Structure of Arctic Subsea Permafrost Using Laplace‐Domain Full‐Waveform Inversion

“…In previous research, the LFWI algorithm was verified for constructing meaningful velocity models from seismic field data sets by comparing it with other waveform inversion algorithms (Bae et al., 2012; Ha & Shin 2012; Kang et al., 2012; Shin et al., 2010). Especially, the LFWI algorithm is known for working well with inversion targets such as salt domes with significantly higher velocities than the surrounding sediment or rapidly changing velocity areas.…”

Smooth 2‐D ocean sound speed from Laplace and Laplace‐Fourier domain inversion of seismic oceanography data

“…The application of the Laplace and Laplace‐Fourier transforms to seismic inversion has been documented in numerous publications [e.g., Shin and Cha , , ; Ha et al , , ; Bae et al , ]. Here we provide a brief overview of the method and refer the reader to the cited works for more details.…”

Gaussian beam first-arrival waveform inversion based on Born wavepath

“…The sensitivity kernels of FVT are derived from the wave equation, and the traveltime of the main energy of the seismic wave is used, thus it can achieve better results than RFTT in both synthetic tests and field data processing. Bae et al (2012) compared the sensitivity kernels of FVT and Laplace FWI, and pointed out that Laplace FWI can reveal deeper structures than FVT even it is still using the first-arrival traveltime. Sheng et al (2006) showed that the first-arrival waveform contains little information of the deep structure, but it can be used to reconstruct the fine near-surface velocity structure.…”