GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 73, NO. 6 共NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2008兲; P. C31–C38, 6 FIGS., 1 TABLE.

10.1190/1.2978388
Downloaded 10/09/15 to 129.78.139.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Two-term AVO inversion: Equivalences and new methods

Charles P. Ursenbach1 and Robert R. Stewart2

ABSTRACT
Most amplitude-variation-with-offset 共AVO兲 studies use
two-parameter inversion methods that are approximations of
a more general three-parameter method based on the Aki-Ri-
chards approximation. Two-parameter methods are popular
because the three-parameter inversion is often plagued by nu-
merical instability. Reducing the dimensionality of the pa-
rameter space stabilizes the inversion. A variety of con-
straints can accomplish this, and these lead to the multiplicity
of current two-parameter methods. It would be useful to un-
derstand relationships between various two-parameter meth-
ods. To this end, we derive formal expressions for inversion
errors of each method. Using these expressions, conversion
formulas are obtained that allow the flexibility to convert re-
sults of any two-parameter method to those of any other two-
parameter method. The only requirement for the equivalence
of methods is that the maximum angle of incidence be at least
a few degrees less than the critical angle. In addition, error ex-
pressions result in a new formulation for a two-parameter
AVO tool that combines strengths of two commonly used
methods. The expressions also suggest a simple way to incor-
porate information from well-log calibration into legacy
AVO inversions. These results should be helpful in resource
exploration.
INTRODUCTION
The goal in amplitude-variation-with-offset 共AVO兲 inversion is
to determine earth-property contrasts across an interface from
the angle dependence of seismic amplitudes. The starting point is
often RPP共␪ 1兲, where RPP is the P-wave reflection coefficient deter-
mined from seismic amplitudes and ␪ 1 is the angle of incidence at
the interface. The objective is a set of relative contrasts of the form
⌬x/x, where ⌬x ⳱ x2 ⳮ x1 is the difference of property x across the
interface, and x ⳱ 共x1 Ⳮ x2兲/2 is its average. These can also be ex-
pressed as reflectivities Rx or fractional property changes as defined
in Table 1.
The Aki-Richards approximation 共Aki and Richards, 1980兲,
R␣
A-R
RPP 共 ␪ 1兲 ⳱ ⳮ 8␥ 2 sin2 ␪ R␤
cos2 ␪
ⳮ 共4␥ 2 sin2 ␪ ⳮ 1兲R␳ , 共1兲
is a linearization of the Zoeppritz equations in parameters R␣ , R␤ ,
and R␳ . Here, ␪ is the average of incidence and P-wave transmission
angles across the interface. As defined in Table 1, ␪ is a function of
the incidence angle ␪ 1, so we can still write RPP A-R
as function of ␪ 1,
even though the right-hand side of equation 1 is expressed in terms
of ␪ . The Aki-Richards approximation can also be written in terms
of other reflectivity triplets, such as 兵RI,RJ,R␳ 其 共Fatti et al., 1994兲,
兵R␣ ,R␮,R␳ 其 共Goodway, 2001兲, or 兵R␭,R␮,R␳ 其 共Gray et al., 1999兲. To
order linear, they are all equivalent, so it is possible to convert from
one to another 共Stewart et al., 1995兲.
Equation 1 implies a modeling perspective in which earth-proper-
ty reflectivities are known and the angle-dependent reflection coeffi-
cient is approximated. For inversion, the reverse is true, and one
should write
R␣A-R
RPP共␪ 1兲 ⳱ ⳮ 8␥ 2 sin2 ␪ R␤A-R
cos2 ␪
ⳮ 共4␥ 2 sin2 ␪ ⳮ 1兲R␳A-R , 共2兲
where the A-R superscript is on individual reflectivities rather than
on the reflection coefficient.
The Aki-Richards approximation has been the starting point for
most AVO inversion work. Although Zoeppritz equations give exact
coefficients for idealized transmission, reflection, and conversion
events, their complicated structure necessitates using nonlinear in-
version techniques to extract R␣ , R␤ , and R␳ 共MacDonald et al.,
1987; Russell, 1988兲. By contrast, inversion with the Aki-Richards

Manuscript received by the Editor 7 December 2007; revised manuscript received 28 February 2008; published online 5 November 2008.
1
Formerly University of Calgary, CREWES 共Consortium for Research in Elastic Wave Exploration Seismology兲, Calgary, Canada; presently CGGVeritas,
Calgary, Canada. E-mail: charles.ursenbach@cggveritas.com.
2
Formerly University of Calgary, CREWES 共Consortium for Research in Elastic Wave Exploration Seismology兲, Calgary, Canada; presently University of
Houston, Department of Geosciences, Houston, Texas, U.S.A. E-mail: stewart@crewes.org.
© 2008 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

C31
 C32 Ursenbach and Stewart

approximation is a one-step process involving the least-squares so- cidence 共NI兲 and Poisson reflectivity 共PR兲, as defined in Table 1:
lution of a set of linear equations.
In reality, of course, one requires some background parameters as RPP共␪ 1兲 ⳱ NIVH cos2 ␪ Ⳮ PRVH sin2 ␪ . 共6兲
input, even for a linear inversion. For instance, an estimate of ␣ is In the constant-density method described by Goodway 共2001; see
needed for use in ray tracing to obtain ␪ 1; an estimate of ␥ also is re- his equation c and discussion following兲, the Aki-Richards approxi-
quired. These are used to calculate the coefficients in the Aki-Rich-
Downloaded 10/09/15 to 129.78.139.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

mation is expressed in terms of ␳ , ␣ , and ␮, and the constant term R␳

ards approximation 共equation 2兲. is dropped, yielding an approximation that, at least for forward mod-
In practice, the three-parameter Aki-Richards approximation is eling, is exact in the angular dependence:
usually replaced with one of the two-parameter approximations that
are the subject of this study. We investigate six expressions. First, the R␣const␳
two-term expression of Shuey 共1985兲 is used when fitting reflectivi- RPP共␪ 1兲 ⳱ ⳮ 4␥ 2 sin2 ␪ R␮const␳ . 共7兲
cos2 ␪
ty curves to generate intercept A and gradient B information:
共Here, R␮ ⳱ 2R␤ Ⳮ R␳ to linear order.兲
RPP共␪ 1兲 ⳱ A Ⳮ B sin2 ␪ . 共3兲 Finally, Mallick 共1993兲 expands the Zoeppritz expression in pow-
ers of the ray parameter p ⬇ 共sin ␪ 兲/␣ and truncates at second order
Second, the approximation of Smith and Gidlow 共1987兲 uses a
in p and first order in elastic-parameter contrasts to obtain an expres-
differential form of Gardner’s relation 共Gardner et al., 1985兲 to re-
sion equivalent to
place R␳ with R␣ and is used to estimate R␣ and R␤ :

RPP共␪ 1兲 ⳱
1
冉
cos ␪
2
1
ⳮ ␥ 2 sin2 ␪ Ⳮ R␣S-G
4
冊 RPP共␪ 1兲 ⳱ RIMallick Ⳮ 冋 1
2
␣ ⌬␣ ⳮ 2 冉 冊 册
⌬␮
␳
Mallick
p2 . 共8兲

This was proposed as a two-parameter inversion in the sense that,

ⳮ 8␥ 2 sin2 ␪ R␤S-G . 共4兲 given knowledge of P-wave velocities, one could estimate ⌬␮ /␳ and
The two-term approximation of Fatti et al. 共1994兲 assumes the the zero-offset reflectivity. Hence, there is no superscript on ␣ quan-
contribution of R␳ to be negligible compared with estimated parame- tities because they are assumed to be known.
ters RI and RJ: These six methods estimate different quantities, yet we hypothe-
size that results should be consistent with each other in some manner
RIFatti because they are based on the same information. The purpose of this
RPP共␪ 1兲 ⳱ ⳮ 8␥ 2 sin2 ␪ RFatti
J . 共5兲 research is to develop a theory that exposes commonalities of all
cos2 ␪ such two-parameter methods. As a consequence, results of all two-
The method of Verm and Hilterman 共1995兲 predicts the normal in- parameter inversion methods can be obtained by applying one inver-
sion method and then applying transformations to obtain the result of
Table 1. Symbol definitions any other method. This facilitates the use of a broader range of inter-
pretation methods. The principal limitation is that all data be at least
a few degrees less than the critical angle.
␣i P-wave velocity of ith layer The first step is to obtain analytic expressions for the inversion er-
␤i S-wave velocity of ith layer ror of common two-parameter methods. This means showing more
␳i density of ith layer precisely the quantities estimated by these methods. Achieving this
goal, we then can show that the results of all two-parameter methods
Ii P-wave impedance of ith layer 共⳱ ␳ i␣ i兲
contain equivalent information, in the sense that results of one can be
Ji S-wave impedance of ith layer 共⳱ ␳ i␤ i兲 converted into results of another.
␮i Shear modulus of ith layer 共⳱ ␳ i␤ 2i 兲 The perspective of this work suggests that a new type of AVO ap-
Subscript 1 Layer above interface proximation should be possible, which combines strengths of the
methods of Smith and Gidlow 共1987兲 and of Fatti et al. 共1994兲. Such
Ssubscript 2 Layer below interface
a method should be of particular value in models featuring a large
⌬x, x ⳱ ␣ , ␤ , ␳ ,I,J, ␮ x2 ⳮ x1 value of R␳ .Analysis demonstrates that the full-offset approximation
x, x ⳱ ␣ , ␤ , ␳ ,I,J, ␮ x1 Ⳮ x2 proposed by Ursenbach and Stewart 共2001兲 meets these require-
2 ments.
Rx, x ⳱ ␣ , ␤ , ␳ ,I,J, ␮ 1 ⌬x The final implication of our work is that there is a simple way to
2 x incorporate local calibration data into AVO results. Calculations
␥ 共␤ 1 Ⳮ ␤ 2兲/共␣ 1 Ⳮ ␣ 2兲
then are carried out that substantiate theoretical claims of this work.
␴

NI
1
2
RI
共 兲
ⳮ ␥ 2 /共1 ⳮ ␥ 2兲
THEORY
PR ⳱ ⌬␴ /共1 ⳮ ␴ 兲 2
8␥ 共R␣ ⳮ R␤ 兲
2
What is actually calculated in two-parameter AVO?
␪1 Angle of P-wave incidence and reflection
To answer this question, assume that exact reflectivities are given
␪2 Angle of P-wave transmission
by inverting the Aki-Richards approximation 共equation 2兲 so that R␣
共␪ 1 Ⳮ ␪ 2兲/2 ⬅ RA-R
␣ , R ␤ ⬅ R ␤ , and R ␳ ⬅ R ␳ . Although this assumption neglects
A-R A-R

关 共 ␣␣ sin ␪ 兲兴 /2
␪
⳱ ␪ 1 Ⳮ sinⳮ1
2 nonlinear contributions, it allows us to answer the question to linear
1
1 order. We consider a simple inversion with only two data points, at
 Two-term AVO inversion C33

␪ ⳱ 0 and ␪ ⳱ ␪ max, because this can be carried out analytically
共Ursenbach, 2004b兲. For the Smith-Gidlow 共1987兲 method, this
means equating the three-termAki-Richards expression 共equation 2兲
to the Smith-Gidlow approximation 共equation 4兲 for the two given
values of ␪ , which then yields two equations:
These two methods have been derived in very different ways. How-
ever, both are obtained by fitting data to a linear combination of
sin2 ␪ and 1/cos2 ␪ terms so that, for purely mathematical reasons,
results of the two methods must agree to within multiplicative con-
stants.

冉冊
From equations 2 and 3, we obtain the results
Downloaded 10/09/15 to 129.78.139.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

5 S-G
R␣ Ⳮ R␳ ⳱ R , A ⳱ RI , 共17兲
4 ␣

R␣
cos2 ␪ max
ⳮ 8␥ 2 sin2 ␪ maxR␤ Ⳮ 共1 ⳮ 4␥ 2 sin2 ␪ max兲R␳ B⳱
RI
cos ␪ max
2 ⳮ 8 ␥ 2R J Ⳮ 4 ␥ 2 ⳮ冉 1
cos ␪ max
2 R␳ . 冊
⳱ 冋 1
cos2 ␪ max
Ⳮ
1 ⳮ 4␥ 2 sin2 ␪ max S-G
4
R␣ 册 Insight into the behavior of equation 18 can be gained by manipulat-
共18兲

ing it as follows:
ⳮ 8␥ 2 sin2 ␪ maxR␤S-G .
R␣
Solving these for RS-G B⳱ ⳮ 4␥ 2共2R␤ Ⳮ R␳ 兲, 共19兲
S-G
␣ and R ␤ yields
cos2 ␪ max
R␣S-G ⳱ 冉冊
4
5
共R␣ Ⳮ R␳ 兲 ⳱ R␣ ⳮ
共R␣ ⳮ 4R␳ 兲
5
, 共9兲
⳱共1 Ⳮ tan2 ␪ max兲R␣ ⳮ 4␥ 2共2R␤ Ⳮ R␳ 兲. 共20兲

冉 冊
Shuey 共1985兲 shows that the Aki-Richards approximation 共equation
1 1
R␤S-G ⳱ R␤ ⳮ 4Ⳮ 2 共R␣ ⳮ 4R␳ 兲. 共10兲 2兲 can also be written in the form
40 ␥ cos2 ␪ max
A-R
RPP 共␪ 1兲 ⳱ AShuey Ⳮ BShuey sin2 ␪
If the differential Gardner relation R␣ ⳱ 4R␳ is satisfied, then Smith-
Gidlow results are exact 共to linear order兲. Ⳮ CShuey共tan2 ␪ ⳮ sin2 ␪ 兲, 共21兲
A similar exercise can be done for equations 3–7. From equations
2 and 5, we obtain the result where AShuey, BShuey, and CShuey can be expressed in terms of R␣ , R␤ ,
R␳ , and ␥ . Using the identity tan2 ␪ ⳮ sin2 ␪ ⳱ tan2 ␪ sin2 ␪ , we
RIFatti ⳱ RI , 共11兲 can write equation 21 as

冉 冊
A-R
RPP 共␪ 1兲 ⳱ 共R␣ Ⳮ R␳ 兲 Ⳮ 关R␣ ⳮ 4␥ 2共2R␤ Ⳮ R␳ 兲兴sin2 ␪
1 1
RFatti ⳱ RJ ⳮ 4 ⳮ 2 R . 共12兲 Ⳮ R␣ tan2 ␪ sin2 ␪ , 共22兲
J
8 ␥ cos2 ␪ max ␳
This shows the two-term Fatti approximation is exact if R␳ ⳱ 0 or if where the expression for B 共to linear order兲 is taken from equa-
Shuey

␥ cos ␪ max ⳱ 1/2. However, this cannot be satisfied physically for tion 1b of Ramos and Castagna 共2001兲. Then equation 20 can also be
␪ max ⬎ 45°. written as
From equations 2 and 6, we find
B ⳱ BShuey Ⳮ R␣ tan2 ␪ max . 共23兲
NI VH
⳱ NI, 共13兲 This shows how B in the two-term approximation becomes increas-

冉 冊
ingly contaminated by the higher-order coefficient, CShuey ⳱ R␣ , as
1 ␪ max increases.
PRVH ⳱ PR Ⳮ 共1 ⳮ 4␥ 2兲RI Ⳮ ⳮ 4␥ 2 R␣ ,
cos ␪ max
2 Finally, applying the same techniques to equations 2 and 8, we ob-
tain the results
共14兲
where NI and PR are defined in Table 1. These results are exact if ␥ RIMallick ⳱ RI 共24兲
⳱ 1/2 or RI ⳱ 0, and if ␥ cos ␪ max ⳱ 1/2 or R␣ ⳱ 0.
From equations 2 and 7, we find

R␣const␳ ⳱ R␣ Ⳮ R␳ , 共15兲
1 ⌬␮
␣2 ␳
冉 冊 Mallick
⳱ 2 ␥ 2R ␮ ⳮ
R␣
4
tan2 ␪ max . 共25兲

Note that ⌬␮ /共␳ ␣ 2兲 ⳱ 共␤ /␣ 兲2共⌬␮ /␮兲 ⳱ 2␥ 2R␮, so the first term on

R␳
R␮const␳ ⳱ R␮ Ⳮ , 共16兲
4␥ 2 cos2 ␪
where R␮ ⳱ 2R␤ Ⳮ R␳ to linear order. These results are exact for R␳
⳱ 0, i.e., if the density is constant across the interface. What is more
interesting is that, with a little manipulation, we can show these re-
sults are identical to those of the two-term Fatti approximation in
equations 11 and 12 共aside from a factor of two in the R␮ result兲.
the right-hand side is the exact result and the second term gives the
error. As in the two-term Shuey method, the reflection coefficient
curve is fit to a linear combination of a constant and sin2 ␪ ⬇ ␣ 2 p2, so
it is reasonable that the error term is similar in form to equation 23.
Equations 9–25 show precisely what is being calculated by the
Smith-Gidlow, Shuey, constant-density, Verm-Hilterman, Fatti, and
Mallick approximations, at least for our simple two-point inversion.
Calculations below shed further light on their range of validity.
 C34 Ursenbach and Stewart

Conversion formulas
With equations 9–25, we can also show that
BⳭ 冉 冊
2 ⌬␮
␣2 ␳
Mallick
⳱ R␣ . 共32兲

5 Thus, if the values of ␥ and ␪ max used for the AVO inversion are
RI ⳱ A ⳱ NI ⳱ RIFatti ⳱ R␣S-G ⳱ R␣const␳ ⳱ RIMallick , known or can be estimated, these simple results predict that one can
4
Downloaded 10/09/15 to 129.78.139.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

freely interconvert Shuey, Smith-Gidlow, constant density, Verm-

共26兲 Hilterman, and Fatti inversion results. To interconvert to and from
Mallick results, R␣ must also be known.

RFatti
J ⳮ R␤S-G ⳱
1
10
冉
1Ⳮ
1
4␥ 2 cos2 ␪ max
RI , 冊 共27兲 Full-offset or large R␳ approximation
In addition to providing conversion formulas, consideration of an-
B RI alytical error expressions suggests other possibilities as well. For in-
RFatti Ⳮ 2 ⳱ , 共28兲 stance, from equation 10 we see that the error term in RS-G ␤ is dimin-
J
8␥ 8␥ cos2 ␪ max
2
ished by internal cancellation within the reflectivity factor 共R␣
ⳮ 4R␳ 兲 as long as the Gardner relation is satisfied at least approxi-
B 1 ⳮ ␥ 2 cos2 ␪ max mately. However, there is no such cancellation in its angle factor, 共4
R␤S-G Ⳮ 2 ⳱ RI , 共29兲 Ⳮ 共1/␥ 2 cos2 ␪ max兲兲, which is the sum of two positive quantities.
8␥ 10␥ 2 cos2 ␪ max
Conversely, from equation 12 we see the error term in RJFatti is poten-
tially diminished by taking the difference of two positive quantities
R␮const␳ ⳮ 2RFatti
J ⳱ 0, 共30兲 in the angle factor 共4 ⳮ 共1/␥ 2 cos2 ␪ max兲兲, but there is no cancella-
tion in the reflectivity factor R␳ . It is natural to ask whether it is possi-
ble to create a two-parameter method that has cancellation in both
PRVH ⳮ B ⳱ RI , 共31兲
angle and reflectivity factors in the error term of the shear-reflectivi-
0.24
ty estimate.
Aki-Richards Larsen 共1999兲 points out that a consequence of the Gardner rela-
Smith-Gidlow tion is that R␳ can be approximated by RI /5. He applies this result to
0.23
Fatti expressions for R PS, RSP, and RSS as part of a joint-inversion scheme.
Full offset/large R Ursenbach and Stewart 共2001兲 apply the same approximation to R PP
ρ
0.22
in a way that combines aspects of the Smith-Gidlow and Fatti ap-
proximations. In connection with this, they show the Fatti approxi-
0.21
mation is close to the Aki-Richards approximation at shorter offsets,
whereas the same is true for the Smith-Gidlow approximation at
0.20
longer offsets approaching a critical angle. The new approximation,
Magnitude

however, tends to represent the Aki-Richards approximation over a

0.19 wider range of offsets than the Smith-Gidlow or Fatti approxima-
tions, thereby earning the name full-offset approximation. These be-
0.18 haviors are illustrated in Figure 1, which displays data from a Web
applet comparing modeling abilities of various AVO approxima-
0.17 tions.
Analogous to equations 4 and 5, the full-offset approximation is
0.16 expressed as

0.15
RPP共␪ 1兲 ⳱ 1 Ⳮ 冉 4␥ 2 cos2 ␪ ⳮ 1
5
sin2 ␪
RIL-␳
cos2 ␪
冊
0.14
␳
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 ⳮ 8␥ 2 sin2 ␪ RL-
J . 共33兲
Angle of incidence (º)
Applying a two-point analytical inversion leads to the result

冉 冊冉 冊
Figure 1. Data from a Reflectivity Explorer Web applet, showing the
behavior of various AVO approximations from a modeling perspec- 1 1 RI
␳
J ⳱ RJ ⳮ
RL- 1ⳮ R␳ ⳮ 共34兲
tive. The Fatti approximation is close to the Aki-Richards approxi- ,
mation at near offsets and the Smith-Gidlow approximation at far 2 4␥ cos2 ␪ max
2
5
offsets, whereas the full-offset approximation mimics the Aki-Rich-
ards approximation over a wider range. From an inversion perspec- analogous to equations 10 and 12. This is the sought-after result that
tive, it can also be termed a large-R␳ approximation because it im- combines strengths of the Smith-Gidlow and Fatti approximations
proves inversion estimates of RJ when the density contrast is large. to minimize the error term in the RJ estimate. It is important because
The elastic parameters used to produce this display are 共␳ , ␣ , ␤ 兲 accurate estimation of RJ is desirable, e.g., in LMR 共lambda-mu-rho兲
⳱ 共2000 kg/m3,3000 m/s,1500 m/s兲 for the upper layer and
共2200 kg/m3, 4000 m/s, 2000 m/s兲 for the lower layer. This Web analysis 共Goodway et al., 1997兲. In an inversion context, it is clear
applet is available at www.crewes.org and can be used to assess the from equation 34 that this approximation should be most useful
behavior of these approximations for other choices of elastic param- when R␳ is large, i.e., when replacing R␳ with 共R␳ ⳮ 共RI /5兲兲 will
eter. make the largest difference. Thus, it is referred to as a large-R␳ ap-
 Two-term AVO inversion C35

proximation in this paper and, hence, the L-␳ superscript in equa-
tions 33 and 34.
Updating inversion results with local calibration
Downloaded 10/09/15 to 129.78.139.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
been used in several studies 共Smith and Sutherland, 1996; Castagna
and Swan, 1997; Castagna et al., 1998; Smith and Gidlow, 2000; Ra-
mos and Castagna, 2001兲. It consists of elastic parameters for 25 sets
of coexisting brine sand, gas sand, and shale. Parameters are derived
from well-log data and core measurements. Each set provides five

possible interfaces 共shale over gas, shale over brine, gas over brine,
A further improvement to the L-␳ method and to the Smith-Gid-
brine over shale, and gas over shale兲; thus, the data set describes 125
low method can be made if the Gardner rule is calibrated locally or
possible interfaces.
specialized to a particular lithology 共Wang, 2000; Ursenbach, 2002兲.
For instance, suppose well-log data are fitted to a relation of the form Figure 2 displays Zoeppritz coefficient curves for 22 shale-over-
␳ ⳱ A␣ 1/g 共where g ⳱ 4 for the traditional Gardner relation兲. Using brine interfaces and 22 shale-over-gas interfaces. 共Data sets 3, 4, and
this general Gardner relation leads to the following generalizations 6 contain unphysical gas-sand parameters and are excluded; W.
of equations 9, 10, and 34: Goodway, personal communication, 2004.兲 It is clear that this data
set contains all AVO classes. Using curves such as those in Figure 2,
AVO inversions were done on synthetic data sets for all 110 possible
g R␣ ⳮ gR␳
R␣S-G,g ⳱ RI ⳱ R␣ ⳮ , 共35兲 interfaces. Each of the 110 synthetic data sets consists of reflection
gⳭ1 gⳭ1 coefficients for 31 angles of incidence, ␪ 1 ⳱ 0°, 1°, 2°, . . ., 30°. In
some cases, random noise was added to the data.

冉 冊
Of course, transformation relationships in equations 26–32 and
1 1
R␤S-G,g ⳱ R␤ Ⳮ 1Ⳮ 共gR␳ 38–40 are true only for an exact inversion with only two offsets.
2共g Ⳮ 1兲 4␥ cos2 ␪ max
2
Normally, one uses many offsets from noisy data and applies least-
ⳮ R␣ 兲, 共36兲 squares techniques. Do such relationships still hold up? Figure 3
compares results from Fatti inversions for 110 interfaces to results
from Smith-Gidlow inversions that have been transformed to Fatti

RL-
J
␳ ,g
⳱ RJ ⳮ
1
2
冉1ⳮ
1
4␥ 2 cos2 ␪ max
冊冉 R␳ ⳮ
RI
gⳭ1
.冊 results using equations 26 and 27. Although conversion formulas
were derived for only two points, each of these inversions is based on
31 synthetic data points with approximately a 5:1 signal-to-noise ra-
共37兲 tio. Transformation relationships are verified. The largest deviations
occur for interfaces with the largest values of 兩R␣ 兩 共note the horizon-
Combining these results with equations 9, 10, and 34 yields formulas tal scale兲. As 兩R␣ 兩 increases, the reflectivity curve becomes less para-
that allow one to convert Smith-Gidlow or L-␳ results into the re- bolic for angles less than ␪ i,max. The relevant portion of the reflection
sults that would have been obtained using a value other than g ⳱ 4 in coefficient curve is less able to be modeled by two parameters. This
Gardner’s relation: is particularly true for positive R␣ , for which ␪ i,max 共which is chosen
to be 30° in all cases兲 approaches the critical angle. Additional tests
5 g
R␣S-G,g ⳱ RS-G , 共38兲
4gⳭ1 ␣
1.0

冉 冊
0.8
1 1 4 ⳮ g S-G
R␤S-G,g ⳱ R␤S-G ⳮ 1Ⳮ R ,
4␥ 2 cos2 ␪ max 1 Ⳮ g ␣
0.6
8
0.4
共39兲
0.2

冉 冊
|RPP|

0.0
␳ ,g ␳ 1 1 4 ⳮ g L-␳
RL- ⳱ RL-
J Ⳮ 1ⳮ R . −0.2
J
10 4␥ 2 cos2 ␪ max 1 Ⳮ g I
−0.4
共40兲
−0.6 Class 1
Class 2
These expressions would allow legacy AVO inversion results to be −0.8 Class 3
updated with later calibration of Gardner’s relation. Class 4
−1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Angle of incidence (º)

RESULTS Figure 2. A set of 44 reflection coefficient curves. These contain ex-

Test of interconvertibility
The interconvertibility described above can be demonstrated us-
ing a well-known data set from Castagna and Smith 共1994兲 that has
amples from class 1, 2, 3, and 4 systems, indicated by the four line
styles. 共The detailed assignment to various classes is arbitrary but is
reasonable overall.兲 Another 66 other curves can also be generated
for other interface lithologies for a total of 110 curves used for the in-
versions in this study.
 C36 Ursenbach and Stewart

0.4 共not shown兲 demonstrate that adding noise to the

0.3 background values of R␣ 共used in calculating
0.2
␪ max兲 and to ␥ , and random and systematic error
to the angles, 兵␪ 1其, does not degrade the accuracy
0.1
of the transformation as long as the same noisy
I
R

0.0 values are used in both the original inversion and

Downloaded 10/09/15 to 129.78.139.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

−0.1 in the transformation.

Fatti
RI
Similar results are obtained when testing con-
−0.2
(5/4) RαS−G versions between other theories. This does not
−0.3 mean the inversion results themselves are accu-
−0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Rα rate, only that different methods can represent
each other accurately. Therefore, the principal
0.6 condition for transforming results between differ-
ent two-parameter methods is that ␪ i,max be less
0.4
than the critical angle by at least a few degrees.
0.2 Because of this, our method would not be applica-
0.0 ble to recent inversion methods designed to treat
J

data near the critical angle 共Causse et al., 2007a,

R

−0.2
2007b兲 or beyond the critical angle 共Downton and
−0.4
R Fatti Ursenbach, 2007兲. However, most AVO inver-
J
−0.6 2
RβS−G+ RαS−G(1+1/(4γ cos θmax))/8
2 sions are still done below this region.
−0.8
−0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Rα Test of large-R␳ method and calibration
Figure 3. Comparison of impedance reflectivities predicted by the method of Fatti et al. As a test of the accuracy of equations 34 and
共1994兲 with those obtained by the transformation of Smith-Gidlow inversion results 37, we perform inversions of the synthetic data
共equations 26 and 27兲. Predictions do not claim to be close to the exact values. They show
that differing two-parameter methods yield interconnected results. The largest deviations used in Figure 3. In Figure 4, we display various
occur with large values of 兩R␣ 兩, particularly as ␪ i,max approaches a critical angle. inversion estimates of RJ — namely, RJFatti 共equa-
tion 12兲, RJL-␳ 共equation 34兲, and RJL-␳ ,g 共equation
0.4 37兲. Equation 37 is used twice, first with g
Fatti et al. (eq. 10) ⳱ 0.9R␣ /R␳ and then with g ⳱ 1.1R␣ /R␳ , where
Large Rρ (eq. 22) R␣ /R␳ is the true value that would yield exact re-
0.3 Large Rρ (−10% cal.) sults. This approximately models the spread of g
Large Rρ (+10% cal.) values that might be resonably obtained by local
0.2 calibration of Gardner’s relation. All four esti-
mates of RJ are plotted against R␳ ; the largest dis-
0.1
crepancies 共indicated by ellipses兲 are for extreme
values of the horizontal coordinate.
Next, in Figure 5, we plot the error in RJ versus
0.0 R␳ . Now it is clear that, for large discrepancies be-
tween the two methods, the L-␳ method shows
RJest

−0.1 improvement over the method of Fatti et al.

共1994兲. Calibration of this method shows even
greater improvement. This is to be expected be-
−0.2
cause the L-␳ method aims for more accurate
treatment of the density term, which is significant
−0.3 only for large 兩R␳ 兩 values.
A few cases, indicated by dotted-line ellipses,
−0.4 have substantial errors that do not seem improved
by the L-R␳ method. To understand these cases,
we replot in Figure 6 the data of Figure 5, but this
−0.5 time against RJ instead of R␳ . From Figure 6, we
see most errors follow a quadratic trend in RJ, as
−0.6 noted by Ursenbach 共2004a, 2004b, 2005兲. In this
−0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Rρ
display, two other groups 共indicated by thick-line
ellipses兲 show that the L-R␳ approximation cor-
Figure 4. Comparison of shear-impedance reflectivities produced by the inversion meth- rects toward the quadratic trend rather than to-
od of Fatti et al. 共1994兲 共equation 12兲 with those produced by the L-R␳ method, with and ward zero, so it is also of interest to consider in-
without calibration 共equations 34 and 37兲. The calibrated L-R␳ results are based on cali-
brating Gardner’s relation to Ⳳ10% of the true value. The largest discrepancies among versions based on nonlinear approximations
the four methods are seen for large values of 兩R␳ 兩 共note horizontal scale兲. 共e.g., Wang, 1999; Ursenbach, 2004b兲.
 Two-term AVO inversion C37

0.25 In the spirit of interconvertibility, it is of course

Fatti et al. (eq. 10)
Large Rρ (eq. 22) unnecessary to carry out a large-R␳ inversion.
0.20 Large Rρ (−10% cal.)
These results can be obtained from legacy inver-
sions using formulas derived straightforwardly
Large Rρ (+10% cal.)
from methods in this paper. For instance, it can be
0.15 readily verified that
Downloaded 10/09/15 to 129.78.139.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

0.10
RL- ␳
J ⳱ R␤ Ⳮ
S-G
冉冊1 S-G
R .
4 ␣
共41兲

0.05
J
−R

Thus, Smith-Gidlow inversion results 共Smith and

est

Gidlow, 1987兲 can be used to give a better esti-

J
R

0.00 mate of RJ than is obtained from a Fatti inversion

共Fatti et al., 1994兲.
−0.05

−0.10 CONCLUSIONS
The principal conclusion of this work is that all
−0.15 linear two-parameter AVO inversion methods
have equivalent information content. This does
not mean they give the same results; rather, their
−0.20
−0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 results can be interconverted using appropriate
Rρ formulas. This conclusion breaks down at large
Figure 5. Comparison of shear-impedance reflectivity errors. Data for this plot are ob- offsets because the critical angle is approached.
tained by subtracting the exact value of RJ from each value plotted in Figure 4. The results For many practical cases, though, such condi-
produced by methods of Fatti et al. 共1994兲 and the large-R␳ method are similar in most
cases. For cases of large 兩R␳ 兩, though, an improvement is seen with the new method, par- tions are not met. Interconversion promises to
ticularly with calibration. provide an efficient approach to multiple perspec-
tives for interpreting new data sets and legacy
0.25 AVO inversions.
Fatti et al. (eq. 10)
Large Rρ (eq. 22) This work further shows that strategies of the
0.20 Large Rρ (−10% cal.)
classic Fatti and Smith-Gidlow approximations
can be combined to yield a new method. This new
Large Rρ (+10% cal.)
method normally yields a more accurate estimate
0.15 of shear-wave impedance reflectivity, particular-
ly when there is a relatively large density change
across an interface.
0.10
Finally, a simple method is given for modify-
ing legacy inversion results to account for local
0.05
calibration of the Gardner relation.
RJest− RJ

0.00
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

−0.05 The authors express appreciation for valuable

discussions with Bill Goodway and Jonathan
Downton.
−0.10

−0.15 REFERENCES

Aki, K., and P. G. Richards, 1980, Quantitative seismol-

−0.20 ogy: Theory and methods: W. H. Freeman & Co.
−0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Castagna, J. P., and S. W. Smith, 1994, Comparison of
R AVO indicators: A modeling study: Geophysics, 59,
J
1849–1855.
Figure 6. Data points in this figure are the same as those in Figure 5 but have been plotted Castagna, J. P., and H. W. Swan, 1997, Principles of
against RJ instead of R␳ . This illustrates that certain intractable points, denoted by a AVO crossplotting: The Leading Edge, 16, 337–342.
dashed-line ellipse in Figures 5 and 6, have errors that cannot be corrected by any linear Castagna, J. P., H. W. Swan, and D. J. Foster, 1998,
scheme. Certain points, denoted by thick-line ellipses, show that the L-␳ method corrects Framework for AVO gradient and intercept interpre-
toward a quadratic trend in the shear-impedance reflectivity rather than toward zero. tation: Geophysics, 63, 948–956.
 C38 Ursenbach and Stewart
Causse, E., M. Riede, A. J. van Wijngaarden, A. Buland, J. F. Dutzer, and R.
Fillon, 2007a, Amplitude analysis with an optimal model-based linear
AVO approximation: Part I — Theory: Geophysics, 72, no. 3, C59–C69.
——–, 2007b, Amplitude analysis with an optimal model-based linear AVO
approximation: Part II — Field data example: Geophysics, 72, no. 3, C71–
C79.
Downton, J. E., and C. Ursenbach, 2007, Linearized amplitude variation with
offset 共AVO兲 inversion with supercritical angles: Geophysics, 71, no. 5,
Downloaded 10/09/15 to 129.78.139.28. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
E49–E55.
Fatti, J. L., P. J. Vail, G. C. Smith, P. J. Strauss, and P. R. Levitt, 1994, Detec-
tion of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: A 3-D seismic case
history using the geostack technique: Geophysics, 59, 1362–1376.
Gardner, G. H. F., L. W. Gardner, and A. R. Gregory, 1985, Formation veloc-
ity and density — The diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps: Geophys-
ics, 50, 2085–2095.
Goodway, B., 2001, AVO and Lamé constants for rock parameterization and
fluid detection: Recorder, 26, 39–60.
Goodway, B., T. Chen, and J. E. Downton, 1997, Improved AVO fluid detec-
tion and lithology discrimination using Lamé petrophysical parameters;
“␭␳ ,” “␮␳ ,” & “␭ /␮ fluid stack,” from P and S inversions: 67th Annual In-
ternational Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 183–186.
Gray, F., T. Chen, and W. Goodway, 1999, Bridging the gap: Using AVO to
detect changes in fundamental elastic constants: 69th Annual International
Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 852–855.
Larsen, J. A., 1999, AVO inversion by simultaneous P-P and P-S inversion:
Master’s thesis, University of Calgary.
MacDonald, C., P. M. Davis, and D. D. Jackson, 1987, Inversion of reflection
traveltimes and amplitudes: Geophysics, 52, 606–617.
Mallick, S., 1993, A simple approximation to the P-wave reflection coeffi-
cient and its implication in the inversion of amplitude variation with offset
data: Geophysics, 58, 544–552.
Ramos, A. C. B., and J. P. Castagna, 2001, Useful approximations for con-
verted-wave AVO: Geophysics, 66, 1721–1734.
Russell, B. H., 1988, Introduction to seismic inversion methods: SEG.
Shuey, R. T., 1985, A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations: Geophysics,
50, 609–614.
Smith, G. C., and P. M. Gidlow, 1987, Weighted stacking for rock property
estimation and detection of gas: Geophysical Prospecting, 35, 993–1014.
——–, 2000, A comparison of the fluid factor with lambda and mu in AVO
analysis: 70th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
122–125.
Smith, G. C., and R. A. Sutherland, 1996, The fluid factor as an AVO indica-
tor: Geophysics, 61, 1425–1428.
Stewart, R. R., Q. Zhang, and F. Guthoff, 1995, Relationships among elastic-
wave values 共R pp,R ps,Rss,V p,Vs, ␳ , ␴ , ␬ 兲: CREWES Research Report 7.
Ursenbach, C., 2002, Generalized Gardner relations: 72nd Annual Interna-
tional Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1885–1888.
——–, 2004a, A nonlinear, three-parameter AVO method that can be solved
noniteratively: 74th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Ab-
stracts, 207–210.
——–, 2004b, Two new approximations for AVO inversion: National Con-
vention, Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Ab-
stracts, SO31.
——–, 2005, Nonlinear estimation of RJ from AVO intercept and gradient:
National Convention, Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Expanded Abstracts, 405–408.
Ursenbach, C., and R. R. Stewart, 2001, Extending AVO inversion tech-
niques: CREWES Research Report 13.
Verm, R., and F. Hilterman, 1995, Lithology color-coded seismic sections:
The calibration of AVO crossplotting to rock properties: The Leading
Edge, 14, 847–853.
Wang, Y., 1999, Approximations to the Zoeppritz equations and their use in
AVO analysis: Geophysics, 64, 1920–1927.
Wang, Z., 2000, Velocity-density relationships in sedimentary rocks: SEG.