How far is the seismic image correct?

EVGENY LANDA and SHEMER KEYDAR, The Geophysical Institute of Israel, Holon, Israel
MOSHE RESHEF, Landmark Graphics Corporation, Tel-Aviv, Israel

Estimation of a velocity model is a

critical step in the sequence leading
to depth interpretation of seismic a)
data. The quality of the depth image
depends heavily on the input veloc-
ity model which itself depends,
among other things, on the input
data, the inversion algorithm, and a
chosen class of models (number of
reflection interfaces, parameteriza-
tion for interfaces, geometry, and
velocities, etc.). The latter is usually
selected from a priori geological
information and/or interpretation of
stacked time sections.
Numerous publications have
been devoted to problems of data
quality and methods for velocity
estimation. Error analysis for esti-
mated velocity-depth parameters is
usually performed under the
assumption that the model class is
correctly selected. In this note we
b)
discuss a question of how an incor-
rect assumption about the number of
reflecting interfaces influences inver-
sion results. For one special case we
propose a criterion for estimated
model correctness based on the joint
use of reflected and refracted wave-
fields.

Synthetic example. To illustrate the

importance of an adequate choice of
the number of reflecting/refracting
interfaces for velocity model estima-
tion, we generated synthetics for a
three-layer model with horizontal
first and third interfaces and a
curved second interface (Figure 1a).
The velocities in all three layers are
constant. For this model we calculat-
ed prestack shot gathers and the
zero-offset section. We decided to
study how an incorrect interpreta-
tion of the zero-offset (stacked) sec-
tion influences velocity inversion
and depth imaging results. For this
purpose, we omitted a shallow
reflection event during the time-
picking process and continued our
inversion/migration processing for a
two-layer model. The muted zero-
offset section is shown in Figure 1b.
At this point, a detailed interval
velocity analysis using iterative
prestack depth migration was car-
ried out. Figure 2a shows the veloc-
ity model. Figure 2b is the final
depth section. When it is compared
Figure 1. (a) Three-layer model. (b) Zero-offset section with muted shallow
reflection event.
with the correct image (Figure 2c),
the mispositioning of the bottom
interface is clear. The continuity of
the event on both sections is of the
same quality. A few CSL (common
surface location) panels for the bot-
tom interface calculated using
prestack depth migration are shown
in Figure 3a. The overall flatness of
the panels is good. The simple
example above shows that by ana-
lyzing the CSL panels we obtain the
“flatness” required for both the cor-
rect and incorrect models.
The omission of the first layer
introduces lateral velocity variations
into the estimated model and leads
to a wrong interface geometry. These
results do not depend on the inver-
sion method, and the estimated
model satisfies the inversion criteria.
Figure 3b illustrates an excellent fit
between the traveltime curve for the
third reflection interface (colored
line) calculated for the resulting
incorrect model and data. The
coherency inversion procedure is
used to construct the velocity model.
As emphasized in the paper “Quo
vadit inversio?” by Sven Treitel (TLE,
September 1989): “There is a very
important corollary; we learn that a
good fit is a necessary but by no
means sufficient condition for suc-
cess. By itself, a good fit does not
guarantee that an inversion is cor-
rect. This occurs, in my opinion,
more often than we would like to
think.”
The example described repre-
sents in fact a situation which may
arise in many practical cases, espe-

0000 THE LEADING EDGE JULY 1998 JULY 1998 THE LEADING EDGE 919

a)
b)
c)
Figure 2. (a) Estimated velocity model is incorrect owing to omission of
shallow reflection event during the time interpretation. (b) Prestack depth-
migrated image obtained using an incorrect velocity model. (c) Prestack
depth-migrated image obtained using a correct velocity model. Continuity
of events on both sections (b) and (c) is of similar quality, while the mis-
location of the bottom interface on (b) is clear.
cially in land exploration where shal-
low layers can be easily omitted
owing to an incorrect interpretation.
Depth processing, which has become
so popular in the industry during
the last decade, requires a very good
knowledge not only of interval
velocities in the deep subsurface but
it also (and maybe first of all!)
requires adequate information
regarding shallow velocities.
Model correctness criterion. We
would now like to introduce an
objective criterion on the “correct-
920 THE LEADING EDGE JULY 1998
ness” of the estimated model in one
special case which very often occurs.
Here we understand “correctness”
in the sense of the correct choice of
model class (e.g., number of layers).
Let us consider a model with three
shallow horizontal refraction inter-
faces at depths of 10 m, 30 m, and
100 m, respectively, and one hori-
zontal reflection interface at 500 m
(Figure 4a). The velocities in all the
layers are constant and are shown in
the figure. In this example, we ignore
reflection events from the shallow
interfaces which are usually difficult
(if at all possible) to observe on real
seismic data.
Simulated common shot gathers
comprise 60 traces in the offset range
0-600 m.
Reflection and refraction (head)
traveltimes were calculated using
ray tracing, and the minimum phase
wavelet was convolved with the cal-
culated traveltimes. Figure 5 shows
one common shot gather with ran-
dom noise added. Refraction and
reflection events are marked.
To estimate the depth of first
interface and the velocity in the sec-
ond layer, we used the first refractor
(H1 in Figure 4). Results of refraction
inversion for the first refractor are
correct (Z = 10 m and VH = 900 m/s)
and shown in Figure 4b. For further
model estimation, we combined two
refraction events from interfaces two
and three (H2 and H3 in Figure 5),
assuming that these two events are
refracted from one single interface.
In this way we simulated an erro-
neous time interpretation of first
arrivals on common shot gathers.
Using refraction velocity inversion,
we obtained depth and refraction
velocity for a second refractor. As
expected, neither depth (33 m) nor
velocity (VH = 2700 m/s) corre-
sponds to the correct model (Figure
4b). It is also obvious that if we use
this incorrect model for further
depth processing/inversion, we will
obtain an erroneous final depth
interpretation.
Bearing in mind that, in the
described example, in addition to
refraction events from the shallow
interfaces, we have reflections from
the deepest horizon (R in Figure 5).
This enables us to estimate the veloc-
ity in the deepest layer using this
reflection event, which means that
we can make two independent esti-
mations of the same parameter,
namely velocity, using two different
data sets, i.e., refraction and reflec-
tion events! It is important to empha-
size that these two events are inde-
pendent because they are generated
by two different interfaces: the
refraction is connected to the top of
the layer and the reflection to the
bottom. It is obvious that in the case
where the model class (in this case
the number of layers) is chosen cor-
rectly, we should obtain the same
velocity estimation in the deepest
layer using the refraction from the
top or the reflection from the bottom
of the layer. In the case of layer omis-
sion, however, the velocity estimates
should be different. Using the first
JULY 1998 THE LEADING EDGE 919
 TRUE MODEL ESTIMATED MODEL
a)
b)
Figure 3. (a) Common surface location panels for the
bottom interface calculated using prestack depth migra-
tion. The overall flatness of the panels is good for both
correctly and incorrectly estimated velocity models. (b)
An excellent fit between the traveltime curve for the
third reflection interface (colored line) calculated for
the resulting incorrect model and data. The velocity
model was obtained by coherency inversion.
Figure 5. Common shot gather calculated for the
model shown in Figure 4a. Refraction and reflection
events are marked on the figure.
0000 THE LEADING EDGE JULY 1998
a)
b)
Figure 4. (a) Model with three shallow refraction and
one reflection interfaces. (b) Results of refraction
velocity inversion where we combined two refraction
events from interfaces two and three, assuming that
these events are refracted from one single interface.
Neither depth nor velocity correspond to the correct
model. Velocity in the deepest layer was estimated
twice using two different data sets; i.e., refraction on
the top and reflection from the bottom of the layer.
Velocity estimates are different (Vr = 2946 m/s and
VH = 2700 m/s) owing to incorrect overburden model.
two layers estimated from refraction events as an over-
burden (interfaces H1 and H2*, and velocities 500 m/s and
900 m/s in Figure 4b) and reflection event R, we estimat-
ed the interval velocity in the third layer by reflection
velocity inversion. The results are shown in Figure 4b.
Velocity estimate Vr = 2946 m/s is different from that esti-
mated using refraction from H2* (VH = 2700 m/s). The dif-
ference is about 10%, and it can serve as a criterion of
model correctness and adequacy.
Again, it is important to note that interior inversion cri-
teria such as maximum semblance for coherency inver-
sion, minimum difference between observed and calcu-
lated traveltimes for traveltime tomography, or CSL
alignment for focusing analysis, cannot be used for this
JULY 1998 THE LEADING EDGE 921
 a)
b)
Figure 6. (a) Five-layered model with four shallow
reflectors and one deep reflector. Velocity inversion in
the third layer leads to the absence of a refraction event
from interface H2. (b) Results of refraction velocity
inversion in this case lead to an incorrect decision on
the number of interfaces in the estimated model.
Reflection inversion for velocity estimation in the
deepest layer uses an incorrect overburden model. The
velocity value obtained (Vr = 3299 m/s) differs by about
8% from the estimate obtained using refraction waves.
This difference indicates that the model is incorrect.
purpose because the estimated wrong model satisfies
these criteria. Let us now demonstrate the proposed cri-
terion for model correctness in the case of a “hidden” layer
in the shallow subsurface. Figure 6a shows a five-layered
model with horizontal homogeneous layers: four shallow
refractors (H1, H2, H3, H4) and one deep reflector R. Veloc-
ities in the layers are 500 m/s, 700 m/s, 300 m/s, 2500
m/s, and 3500 m/s, respectively. Figure 7 illustrates a
common shot gather calculated by ray tracing which con-
tains refraction events H1, H3, and H4, and reflection event
R. As in the previous example we ignored reflection events
from the shallow interfaces. Velocity inversion in the third
layer leads to the absence of a refraction event from inter-
face H2 and an incorrect decision on the number of inter-
922 THE LEADING EDGE JULY 1998
Figure 7. Common shot gather calculated for model
shown in Figure 6a. Refraction and reflection events
are marked on the figure.
faces in the estimated model. Refraction velocity inversion
applied to the data results in a four-layered model with
velocities of 500 m/s, 700 m/s, 2500 m/s, and 3500 m/s,
respectively (Figure 6b). It is interesting to note that these
velocity estimates coincide with true velocities in the first,
second, and fourth layers, respectively. The depths of
interfaces H3* and H4* are estimated incorrectly due to an
erroneous assumption of the number of layers.
Next, we applied reflection coherency inversion for
velocity estimation in the deepest layer using the three
shallow layers shown in Figure 6b as an overburden and
reflection event R shown in Figure 7. The obtained veloc-
ity value was Vr = 3299 m/s which differs by about 8%
from the estimate obtained using refraction waves VH. This
difference indicates that the four-layered model chosen a
priori for velocity inversion is incorrect.
Discussion and conclusions. Most popular velocity esti-
mation techniques are based on a layered model of the
subsurface. Usually a number of reflection/refraction
interfaces is chosen a priori based on time interpretation
of seismic data. We demonstrated that a wrong assump-
tion of the number of layers in the model may lead to an
incorrect final depth image. A global inversion procedure,
which uses such a priori information, can easily converge
to a coherent set of depth interfaces with flat panels, all in
the wrong locations. Methods which allow the number of
layers to change during the velocity inversion process
have certain advantages. Such methods rely on the abili-
ty to interpret more interfaces in cases where the depth
image is significantly better than the time image. If we
assume that “hidden” layers exist in most of the complex
data sets, additional criteria for the correctness of the
result are required.
We propose one criterion for model correctness verifi-
cation which is based on the joint use of reflection and
refraction events for velocity model estimation. In our
opinion, the question we should answer is “How far is the
seismic image correct?” rather than “How far is the seis-
mic image continuous or nice?” LE
Corresponding author: Evgeny Landa, email evgeny@iprg.energy.gov.il
JULY 1998 THE LEADING EDGE 919