2009
DOI: 10.1190/1.3110589
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Obliquity-correction imaging condition for reverse time migration

Abstract: The quality of seismic images obtained by reverse time migration ͑RTM͒ strongly depends on the imaging condition. We propose a new imaging condition that is motivated by stationary phase analysis of the classical crosscorrelation imaging condition. Its implementation requires the Poynting vector of the source and receiver wavefields at the imaging point. An obliquity correction is added to compensate for the reflector dip effect on amplitudes of RTM. Numerical experiments show that using an imaging condition w… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the elastic RTM, physically meaningful images can be obtained by crosscorrelating the pure wave modes of the source and receiver wavefields (Yan and Sava, 2008). For shot-profile migration, different imaging conditions have been extensively compared and tested (Chattopadhyay and McMechan, 2008;Schleicher et al, 2008;Costa et al, 2009). These studies show that the crosscorrelation imaging condition with illumination compensation produces fewer migration artifacts, obtains high stability, and has amplitudes that better represent the reflectivity of the model and exhibit the correct scaling and sign.…”
Section: Elastic Imaging Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the elastic RTM, physically meaningful images can be obtained by crosscorrelating the pure wave modes of the source and receiver wavefields (Yan and Sava, 2008). For shot-profile migration, different imaging conditions have been extensively compared and tested (Chattopadhyay and McMechan, 2008;Schleicher et al, 2008;Costa et al, 2009). These studies show that the crosscorrelation imaging condition with illumination compensation produces fewer migration artifacts, obtains high stability, and has amplitudes that better represent the reflectivity of the model and exhibit the correct scaling and sign.…”
Section: Elastic Imaging Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Yoon and Marfurt (2006) used the energy flux density vector to estimate the scattering angle between source and receiver wavefields to suppress the low wavenumber noise in an acoustic RTM. Costa et al (2009) calculated the dip-dependent weight function using the energy flux density vector to compensate for the reflector dip effect on the amplitudes of an acoustic RTM.…”
Section: Polarity Distribution Of the S-wave Componentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Especially for the P-and S-wavefields reflected or transmitted from the subsalt reflectors, separation at the image point reduces the artifacts from inaccurate separation. Accurate vector wavefield separation also gives an accurate Poynting vector for up/downgoing P-and S-waves at the image point and each time step, which helps reduce migration artifacts and greatly improves the migration image ͑Yoon and Marfurt, 2006; Costa et al, 2009͒. The final advantage is that the method does not suffer from salt-related interbed multiple artifacts introduced by strong reflectivity variations around the salt compared to standard RTM because only the target-oriented local velocity model is used in the local migration. The method also accounts for turning waves from the surface source to the image points compared to the conventional one-way wave-equation migration; however, it suffers from typical migration artifacts as a result of VSP receiver geometry with limited aperture.…”
Section: Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The right boundary of the tunnel model does not use the absorbing boundary in order to save computations. To eliminate waveform distortion near the source, we use obliquity-correction imaging conditions (Costa et al, 2004) instead of crosscorrelation imaging.…”
Section: Migration and Velocity Model-building In Tunnel Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%