Hybrid inversion, elastic impedance inversion, and prestack waveform inversion

Downloaded 01/08/15 to 5.22.98.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Subhashis Mallick, WesternGeco, Houston, TX, USA

Summary

This paper compares the results of hybrid inversion, elastic

impedance inversion, and prestack waveform inversion on a
single data set. The method used for prestack inversion is a
Monte-Carlo-based optimization method called genetic
algorithm (GA). GA performs a full waveform inversion of
normal moveout (NMO) uncorrected prestack seismic data,
giving a detailed elastic earth model. In hybrid inversion,
elastic models from GA inversion and/or well information
are used to construct low-frequency background trends for
the P- and the S-wave impedance values. These background
trends are then used in the poststack inversion of the
amplitude variation with offset (AVO) intercept and pseudoS-wave sections to generate the P- and the S-wave
impedance sections. In elastic impedance inversion, elastic
models from GA and/or well information are used to
generate the low-frequency background trends for the elastic
impedance for a range of incidence angles. These
background trends are then used in the poststack inversion
for the same range of angle stacks to generate the elastic
impedance values for those angles. Once obtained, the
elastic model is extracted from a linear fit to the logarithm
of the elastic impedance.
Comparisons of the elastic models from the above inversion
methods demonstrate that the P-wave impedance values,
extracted from each of the inversions, agree with one
another. The S-wave impedance values, obtained from the
prestack and hybrid inversions, agree with each other quite
well. The S-wave impedance obtained from the elastic
impedance inversion, however, is quite sensitive to noise
and matches poorly with the prestack and hybrid inversion
results.
If there is a need to use inversion as a reconnaissance
exploration tool, it is recommended that a hybrid inversion
be used on large data volumes. Once the results from hybrid
inversion are analyzed, prestack inversion may be run over
selected zones of interest for a detailed analysis. Elastic
impedance inversion is extremely sensitive to noise, and the
only model that can be reliably extracted from elastic
impedance is an acoustic P-wave impedance earth model.
Inversion Example
Figure 1 shows a stacked section from the Andaman Sea,
offshore India. The zone of interest in this data set is the
bottom simulating reflector (BSR), typical of deep-water
data, that marks the boundary between gas hydrate and free
gas. The BSR is also associated with a blanking of reflection
above it, as shown in the figure. In this paper, we will study
the inversion results at a single common midpoint (CMP)
location, marked by an arrow in Figure 1.

Figure 2 shows the P-wave impedance, S-wave impedance,

and Poissons ratio, all obtained from the prestack GA
inversion at the CMP location. A description of the prestack
GA inversion can be found in Mallick (1999). Notice that
the BSR at around 3.2 s is marked by a rise in P- and Swave impedance. Immediately beneath the BSR, there is a
significant drop in P-wave impedance, while S-wave
impedance does not drop as significantly. This causes
Poissons ratio to drop to about 0.15. Such a sharp drop in
Poissons ratio is indicative of the presence of free gas
underneath the BSR.
Figure 3 shows a comparison of the results of hybrid
inversion, with prestack GA inversion results. The hybrid
inversion methodology has been discussed in detail in
Mallick et al. (2000). Note that only the low-frequency Pand S-impedance trends were supplied to the poststack
inversions of AVO intercept and pseudo-S-wave data in the
hybrid inversion scheme. Both P- and S-wave impedance
and Poissons ratio obtained from the hybrid inversion
match GA results quite well.
Connolly (1999) introduced the concept of elastic
impedance, and the corresponding inversion methodology
was discussed by Mallick et al. (2000). For the elastic
impedance inversion applied here, elastic impedance values
for an angular range of 5 degrees to 25 degrees in steps of 5
degrees were computed from the prestack GA inverted
model of Figure 2. Figure 4(a) shows these computed
impedance values. Similar to hybrid inversion, only the lowfrequency elastic impedance trends were used in the
poststack inversion of the respective angle stacks. Figure
4(b) shows the results for two such inversions at 5- and 25degree angles compared with the original elastic impedance.
Notice that the poststack inversions match the original
elastic impedance model quite well for these two angles.
Inversion results for the other angles were also similar.
Figure 5 shows the results of a least-squares fit to the
logarithm of the elastic impedance values obtained from the
poststack inversion of the angle stacks. Notice that elastic
impedance inversion extracted the P-wave impedance model
quite accurately, but the estimate of the S-wave impedance
is poor. This poor estimate of the S-wave impedance results
in a poor estimation of the Poissons ratio.
Discussion and Conclusion
Prestack waveform inversion, with its detailed wave
equation modeling, is capable of obtaining a good elastic
earth model. Such an elastic model can be used to define the
low-frequency trend in a poststack inversion process.

SEG Int'l Exposition and Annual Meeting * San Antonio, Texas * September 9-14, 2001

Downloaded 01/08/15 to 5.22.98.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Hybrid, elastic, and prestack inversion

formulation has the parameter K that depends upon the
interface. Poststack inversion does not allow such an
interface-dependent parameter, because this implies that a
given layer must have two different elastic impedance
values, depending upon whether the layer is above or below
an interface. To avoid this problem, an interfaceindependent K is used. This is done by minimizing the sum
of the difference between the reflection coefficient R for all
interfaces using an exact reflection coefficient formula, and
the reflection coefficient RK for the same interfaces using the
elastic impedance formulation and a constant K value.
Figure 7 shows such a minimization procedure leading to an
error, which is minimum for a K value between 0.2 and
0.25. Running the elastic impedance inversion with different
K values in this range shows that the extracted P-wave
impedance is insensitive to the choice of K. The S-wave
impedance, on the other hand, is quite sensitive to the value
of K.

In this paper, two poststack inversion methods are discussed.

Both methods used the same low-frequency background
impedance trend from prestack inversion. In hybrid
inversion, AVO intercept and pseudo-S-wave data are
inverted. In the example shown, hybrid inversion extracted
the original elastic models quite well.
The elastic impedance inversion, where angle stacks for
different incidence angles are inverted, estimated the
original impedance values to a reasonable accuracy. A leastsquares fit to the logarithmic elastic impedance values from
poststack inversion, however, results in a poor estimation of
the S-wave impedance. Further analysis of the elastic
impedance inversion shows that to obtain a good estimation
of the S-wave impedance, elastic impedance values must be
exact. Figure 6 shows the same least-squares fit as Figure 5,
where the input elastic impedance values were the original
values computed from the prestack elastic model. Notice
that in Figure 6, elastic impedance inversion obtained the
original model with good accuracy. In practice, it is not
possible to obtain such exact elastic impedance. Even if the
angular elastic impedance values from poststack inversion
look reasonable in Figure 4b, they will result in a poor
estimation of S-wave impedance. The only reliable model
that elastic impedance inversion can provide is an acoustic
P-wave impedance earth model.

In addition to the requirement of a constant K, another

problem with the elastic impedance inversion method is the
assumption of a convolutional model at non-normal angles
of incidence. Poststack inversion of angle stacks implies a
convolutional model at different angles. This is not a correct
assumption. To demonstrate this, Figure 8 shows different
synthetic seismograms for the elastic model of Figure 2.
These synthetics were computed using exact wave-equation
modeling and the convolutional assumption of the
reflectivity series with a wavelet. The reflectivity series in
these convolutional seismograms were computed using (a)
the exact reflection coefficient formula, (b) Shueys (Shuey,
1985) three-term approximation, and (c) Shueys two-term
approximation. Note that none of the convolutional
synthetics match the wave-equation synthetics. Elastic
impedance formulation is equivalent to Shueys three-term
approximation, and the synthetic computed with this
approximation is far from the one obtained with waveequation modeling. The assumption of a convolutional
model will indeed result in an incorrect model in elastic
impedance inversion.

To investigate further why elastic impedance inversion gives

a poor estimate of S-wave impedance, it is necessary to go
into the details of the elastic impedance formulation. Given
an interface with P-wave velocities =1, =2, S-wave velocities
>1, >2, and densities H1, H2, the elastic impedance E1 and E2
for the two media above and below the interface are written
as (Connolly, 1999)

E1

= 11 tan G > 18 K sin G H1(1 4 K sin

G)

(1)

and

E2 =21tan G >28K sin G H2(14K sin G ) .

2

References:

(2)

Connolly, P., 1999, Elastic Impedance: The Leading Edge,

18, 438-452.

The parameter K in equations (1) and (2) above is the square

of the average S-to-P velocity ratio across the interface, and
G is the angle of incidence. Once the elastic impedance E1
and E2 are defined, the P-wave reflection coefficient for the
incidence angle G is given approximately as

R(G ) |

E 2  E1
.
E 2  E1

Mallick, S., 1999, Some practical aspects of prestack

waveform inversion using a genetic algorithm: an example
from east Texas Woodbine gas sand: Geophysics, 64, 326336.

(3)

Mallick, S., Huang, X., Lauve, J., and Ahmad, R., 2000,
Hybrid seismic inversion: a reconnaissance tool for
deepwater exploration: The Leading Edge, 19, 1230-1237.

Because the reflection coefficient as defined in (3) has the

same form as the reflection coefficient at normal incidence,
standard poststack inversion can be applied to the angle
stacks. However, notice that the elastic impedance

Shuey, R.T., 1985, A simplification of the Zoeppritz

equations: Geophysics, 50, 609-614.

2
SEG Int'l Exposition and Annual Meeting * San Antonio, Texas * September 9-14, 2001

Impedance
Poissons ratio
0 2000 4000 6000 0.0 0.2
0.4
2.5
BSR 2.9
BSR
3.3
Figure 1: Stacked section from the Andaman Sea, offshore
India. A bottom-simulating reflector (BSR) and a blanking
above the BSR characterize the data. The arrow on the top
of the Figure indicates the location for which different
inversion methods described in this paper are run.
0

Impedance

2000

4000

6000

2.5

0.0

Poissons ratio
0.2

0.4

Figure 2: P- and S-wave impedance and Poissons ratio

model from prestack GA inversion for the location
marked by an arrow in Figure 1.

Impedance
0

2000

4000

2.5

(a)

2000

4000

6000

(b)

2.9

3.3

2000

4000

Figure 4: (a) Elastic impedance, computed from a GA model

between 5 and 25 degrees. (b) Elastic impedance from poststack
inversion at 5 and 25 degrees compared with true elastic
impedance from GA inversion. GA impedance values are in
black and inverted impedance values are in red.

Impedance

Poissons ratio
6000

0.0

2.5

50

3.3

Figure 3: P- and S-wave impedance and Poissons ratio

from hybrid inversion, compared with GA results. GA Pimpedance and Poissons ratio are in black and hybrid Pimpedance and Poissons ratio are in red. GA and hybrid Simpedance are in blue and green, respectively.

Impedance

25o

Time (s)

5o

2.9

0.2

0.4

2000

4000

Poissons ratio
6000

2.5

0.0

0.2

0.4

2.9

2.9

Time (s)

Time (s)

25o

Time (s)

Downloaded 01/08/15 to 5.22.98.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Hybrid, elastic, and prestack inversion

3.3

3.3

Figure 6: P- and S-wave impedance and Poissons ratio

from elastic impedance compared with GA inversion. Input
elastic impedance values are true impedance values
computed directly from the GA model. Colors are similar
to Figures 3 and 5.

Figure 5: P- and S-wave impedance and Poissons ratio

from elastic impedance inversion compared with GA
inversion results. Colors used are similar to Figure 3.

3
SEG Int'l Exposition and Annual Meeting * San Antonio, Texas * September 9-14, 2001

Exponent (K)

0.3

0.003

30o

Error ( )

0.0025

0.2

0.002

0.0015

20o
10o

0.1

0.001

0.0005

0.00 0
0

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6

Figure 7: Computation of the optimum value of the exponent K for elastic impedance inversion.

Angle (Degrees)
2.5

15

25

35

15

25

35

15

25

35

15

25

35

2.6
2.7
2.8

Time (s)

Downloaded 01/08/15 to 5.22.98.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Hybrid, elastic, and prestack inversion

2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5

Wave Equation

Convolutional (Exact)

Convolutional (Shuey 3 term) Convolutional (Shuey 2 term)

Figure 8: Synthetic seismic traces, created with the elastic model of Figure 2, using different modeling methods as shown.

4
SEG Int'l Exposition and Annual Meeting * San Antonio, Texas * September 9-14, 2001