Sie sind auf Seite 1von 24

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318817855

5D interpolation with wavefront attributes

Article in Geophysical Journal International · August 2017


DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggx334

CITATIONS READS

0 200

2 authors:

Yujiang Xie Dirk Gajewski


University of Hamburg University of Hamburg
15 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS 217 PUBLICATIONS 2,305 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

5D interpolation and regularization View project

Unifying aspects of stacking / beamforming View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yujiang Xie on 15 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Geophysical Journal International
Geophys. J. Int. (2017) 211, 919–941 doi: 10.1093/gji/ggx334
Advance Access publication 2017 August 2
GJI Seismology

5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes

Yujiang Xie and Dirk Gajewski


Institute of Geophysics, University of Hamburg, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany. E-mail: yujiang.xie@studium.uni-hamburg.de

Accepted 2017 August 1. Received 2017 June 7; in original form 2017 January 23

SUMMARY
Most 5-D interpolation and regularization techniques reconstruct the missing data in the
frequency domain by using mathematical transforms. An alternative type of interpolation
methods uses wave-front attributes, that is, quantities with a specific physical meaning like
the angle of emergence and wave-front curvatures. In these attributes structural information of
subsurface features like dip and strike of a reflector are included. These wave-front attributes
work on 5-D data space (e.g. common-midpoint coordinates in x and y, offset, azimuth and
time), leading to a 5-D interpolation technique. Since the process is based on stacking next
to the interpolation a pre-stack data enhancement is achieved, improving the signal-to-noise
ratio (S/N) of interpolated and recorded traces. The wave-front attributes are determined in
a data-driven fashion, for example, with the Common Reflection Surface (CRS method). As
one of the wave-front-attribute-based interpolation techniques, the 3-D partial CRS method
was proposed to enhance the quality of 3-D pre-stack data with low S/N. In the past work
on 3-D partial stacks, two potential problems were still unsolved. For high-quality wave-front
attributes, we suggest a global optimization strategy instead of the so far used pragmatic search
approach. In previous works, the interpolation of 3-D data was performed along a specific
azimuth which is acceptable for narrow azimuth acquisition but does not exploit the potential
of wide-, rich- or full-azimuth acquisitions. The conventional 3-D partial CRS method is
improved in this work and we call it as a wave-front-attribute-based 5-D interpolation (5-D
WABI) as the two problems mentioned above are addressed. Data examples demonstrate the
improved performance by the 5-D WABI method when compared with the conventional 3-D
partial CRS approach. A comparison of the rank-reduction-based 5-D seismic interpolation
technique with the proposed 5-D WABI method is given. The comparison reveals that there are
significant advantages for steep dipping events using the 5-D WABI method when compared
to the rank-reduction-based 5-D interpolation technique. Diffraction tails substantially benefit
from this improved performance of the partial CRS stacking approach while the CPU time is
comparable to the CPU time consumed by the rank-reduction-based method.
Key words: Body waves; Theoretical seismology; Wave propagation; Wave scattering and
diffraction.

Radon transform (e.g. Kabir & Verschuur 1995; Trad et al. 2009;
1 I N T RO D U C T I O N
Zhang & Lu 2014), Fourier transform (e.g. Liu & Sacchi 2004;
3-D pre-stack seismic data are recorded in the 5-D data space: Zwartjes & Sacchi 2007; Trad 2009; Curry 2010; Naghizadeh
four spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension [e.g. common- & Innanen 2011), and Curvelet transform (e.g. Naghizadeh &
midpoint (CMP) coordinates in x and y, offset, azimuth and time]. Sacchi 2010). With the sparse transforms, one can gradually at-
As some natural and anthropogenic factors, for example, field obsta- tenuate the artefacts and recover the missing data information in
cles, dead traces, and budgetary constraints, 3-D pre-stack seismic the sparse domain by iteratively thresholding the transformed do-
data may be irregularly and sparsely sampled during data acquisi- main of the incomplete seismic data (Chen et al. 2016b). The sec-
tion, which would affect the image quality of further applications. ond category of seismic interpolation methods is the prediction-
In order to resolve this problem, a simple and straightforward strat- filtering based interpolation methods (e.g. Spitz 1991; Naghizadeh
egy is to introduce interpolated traces into these data gaps. In the & Sacchi 2009; Liu & Fomel 2011), which interpolate high-
literature, there are about five categories of interpolation methods frequency aliased data using prediction-error filters derived from
reported. The first category is based on sparse transforms, such as low-frequency non-aliased data. This method works well with


C The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. 919
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes
by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
920 Y. Xie and D. Gajewski

Figure 1. The initial search apertures used in this work. (a) A given 3-D CRS gather consisting of several 3-D CMP gathers, where the black dots denote
locations of the 3-D CMP gathers. (b) A considered 3-D CMP gather and its corresponding 3-D partial CRS offset aperture (blue) in this 3-D CMP gather.
Note: the blue ellipse here is only a subset of whole 3-D partial CRS aperture in the offset direction. (c) The considered time slice at t0 . (d) A grid-based
full-azimuth regularization performed at t0 , where the black grid points are the trace location regularized along different azimuth directions. Here only the
positive offsets are shown, and the constant angle between the dashed lines is the azimuthal interval. More details see Fig. 3.

Figure 2. Calculating the t0, p and construct the 3-D partial CRS stacking operator for a sample A on trace k located at (m0, x , m0, y , offx, offy). (a) Calculating the
t0, p by a traveltime fitting process. For the sake of simplicity, only one direction (OF) is shown. The black curve is an observed seismic event at this direction.
In order to find t0, p , the traveltime operator (Eq. 2) is used. We start from the first ZO sample (see the top blue dashed curve), then the traveltime surface
(eq. 2) is moved downward until the condition satisfies: (t − t22 )2 ≤ fmin2 , where we assume t0, p = t11 . For better understanding, the traveltime difference
between t0, p and t11 shown in this figure is exaggerated. In practice, the difference between t0, p and t11 is very small. Usually, we can refine t0, p using the
simulated sample A if the wave-front attributes around t0, p are smooth. The coefficient fmin can be automatically calculated by the wave-front attributes of two
neighbouring ZO samples around t0, p . The right green line is a boundary of the offset aperture in the OF direction. (b) An intersection (red) of the 3-D partial
CRS traveltime surface with the vertical OF plane, where its top horizontal short line (blue) is the partial CRS aperture for sample A. Other parts of the 3-D
partial CRS traveltime surface at current CMP and its neighbouring CMPs are not shown here. The whole 3-D partial CRS traveltime surface is expressed as
eq. (3).

regularly sampled data. The third category of methods includes, for (e.g. Ronen 1987; Stolt 2002; Fomel 2003; Kaplan et al. 2010).
example, the Cadzow rank-reduction method (Trickett 2008; Trick- They generally assume that the subsurface velocity is known and
ett et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2016a,b), or called the multichannel singu- are computationally expensive solving the wave equation. The last
lar spectrum analysis (MSSA) method (e.g. Oropeza & Sacchi 2011; kind of interpolation methods is the wave-front-attribute-based in-
Huang et al. 2015). The rank-reduction-based interpolation meth- terpolation (WABI; e.g. Höcht et al. 2009; Baykulov & Gajew-
ods assume that missing traces and random noise increase the rank ski 2009, 2010; Xie & Gajewski 2016b; Xie 2017), which is a
of the constructed Hankel/Toeplitz matrices, and one can intuitively data-driven, velocity-independent interpolation technique extended
reduce the negative effects caused by the missing traces and random from, for example, the Common-Reflection-Surface (CRS) method
noise by applying rank-reduction operators (Chen et al. 2016a,b). (e.g. Jäger et al. 2001; Mann 2002; Höcht 2002; Müller 2003). This
They intuitively satisfy the local plane-wave assumption. The fourth kind of interpolation methods utilizes wave-front attributes derived
seismic interpolation methods is the wave-equation-based methods from moveout of events for several neighbouring CMP gathers.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes 921

Figure 3. Different azimuth-based regularization strategies. (a) An azimuth-fixed regularization (e.g. azimuth = 0). (b) Narrow azimuth regularization. (c)
Regularization of one trace k (offx, offy) on the azimuth direction of iaz∗δλ, where δλ is the azimuth interval in different directions, the sign ∗ indicates a
multiplication, and iaz is an index of different azimuth directions. (d) A wide- or full-azimuth regularization. For each azimuthal direction iaz∗δλ in the 3-D
CMP gather, we have hx = hy /tan(0 + iaz∗δλ) and hy = j∗δhy , where j = 0, 1, 2, ..., max(hy )/δhy , and δhy is the offset increment in the hy direction. The
azimuth interval δλ and offset increment δhy should be set by the user in different data. In the 3-D SEG case, we use δλ = 15∗π /180 and δhy = 30 m, which
need to be tested from the data, for example, several δλ and δhy are tried until the one with the best result is gotten. For the 3-D SEG data, the azimuth range
would be better set between [π /4 π /2], for example, azimuth λ = π /4, π /3, 5π /12, π /2. This is because the 3-D SEG data is not a real full-azimuth data.
We do the same calculation in the 3-D simple data but there the offset interval is set in the x direction, that is, δhx = 30 m.

The missing traces are predicted by the so-called partial stack. Gajewski 2010) was successfully applied to denoise and reconstruct
Examples are the partial CRS stacking methods (Baykulov & 3-D pre-stack seismic data with low S/N. However, two potential
Gajewski 2009, 2010), which can significantly increase the signal- problems need to be addressed in this method and are considered in
to-noise ratio (S/N) of every trace and fill the data gaps after this paper:
the interpolation. In this fashion a regularized 3-D data volume
(i) To obtain high-quality 3-D wave-front attributes their deter-
with improved S/N is generated. Since the wave-front attributes
mination should be performed with global optimization. The above-
are derived from moveout which contains information on reflector
mentioned publication adopted a pragmatic search strategy in sub-
dip, strike, and curvature, we consider this kind of interpolation
volumes of the data which may lead to a poor or insufficient fit of
techniques as physics-based interpolation methods to distinguish
the adapted traveltime surface to the full data volume. As any other
them from pure mathematics-based interpolation approaches. The
processing step using wavefield attributes also the 3-D partial CRS
WABI methods are performed within the first Fresnel zone and
benefits of high-quality attributes.
therefore they use traces in the interpolation process, which re-
(ii) The second problem considered in this work is the azimuth-
solve the same structural details. Since the wave-front attributes
based regularization for wide-, rich- or full-azimuth acquisition. In
are determined by kinematic features of the wave field, that is,
previous works the regularization was performed along a specific
moveout, aliasing issues are relaxed. Next to the CRS operator any
azimuth which does not exploit the potential of different azimuth
other operator utilizing wave-front attributes like i-CRS (Schwarz
acquisition.
et al. 2014), non-hyperbolic CRS (Fomel & Kazinnik 2013) or
multifocusing (Gelchinsky et al. 1999) can be used. These oper- An effective solution to resolve the first problem in the con-
ators determine wave-front attributes from pre-stack data equally ventional 3-D partial CRS method is to develop a global search
well (Walda et al. 2017). The 3-D partial CRS method (Baykulov & strategy which determines the wave-front attributes simultaneously

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
922 Y. Xie and D. Gajewski

(a) (b)
0 0.55 0
0.895
0.2 0.2
0.548

Semblance

Semblance
0.8945
0.4 0.4
CR

CR
0.546 0.894
0.6 0.6
0.8935
0.8 0.544 0.8
0.893
1 0.542 1 0.8925
0 1 2 0 1 2
F F
(c) (d)
0 0.324 0
0.0764
0.2 0.322 0.2
0.0762

Semblance

Semblance
0.4 0.32 0.4 0.076
CR

CR
0.6 0.318 0.6 0.0758

0.8 0.8 0.0756


0.316
0.0754
1 0.314 1
0 1 2 0 1 2
F F
Figure 4. Parameter sensitivity analysis for the F and CR in the DE algorithm. (a), (b), (c) and (d) are corresponding to the four ZO samples mentioned
in Fig. 5. In these tests, the parameter F is set between [0 2] with 0.2 increasing interval, and CR is set between [0 1] with 0.1 increasing interval. After a
brute-force search, we use F = 1.2 and CR = 0.9.

(a) (b)
0.55 0.9

0.5
Semblance

Semblance

0.85
0.45
0.8
0.4

0.35 0.75
10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50
Number of iteration Number of iteration
(c) (d)
0.35 0.08

0.07
Semblance

Semblance

0.3
0.06
0.25
0.05

0.2 0.04
10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50
Number of iteration Number of iteration
Figure 5. Iteration tests of four zero-offset (ZO) samples picked from the 3D SEG data. (a) The first ZO sample is chosen from CMP 181934, sample 232.
(b) The second ZO sample is taken from CMP 182203, sample 108. (c) The third ZO sample is CMP 182125, sample 205. (d) The fourth ZO sample is CMP
182115, sample 550.

from the entire 5-D data space by assuming that the wave kinemat- algorithm (GA; Holland 1975). Both algorithms provide improved
ics are properly described by the 3-D CRS traveltime formula. We wave-front attributes when compared to the conventional pragmatic
recently introduced two well-known global optimization algorithms approach or the general Powell conjugate direction (PCD) algorithm
to simultaneously determine the 3-D CRS wave-front attributes (see (Powell 1964). We found that the differential evolution (DE; Storn
Xie & Gajewski 2016a,c). These are the particle swarm optimization & Price 1997) is the most stable algorithm to globally determine
(PSO; Kennedy & Eberhart 1995; Shi & Eberhart 1998) and genetic the 3-D CRS wave-front attributes when compared to the PSO, GA,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes 923

140 function. In practice, a large amount of wave-front attributes are


Computational costs [%] tested by the search algorithms, and then the set of wave-front
120
attributes that provides the highest semblance is kept as the best
100 fitting one. In order to calculate the maximum semblance for each
ZO sample, two types of methods are often applied in the CRS
80
domain. The first one is a brute-force search or called exhaustive
60 linear search that is used to find a target value within a list. It
sequentially tests each element of the list for the objective function
40
until all elements are searched. The brute-force search could be
20 stable and effective in a low-dimensional search, such as the 2-
D velocity analysis that only requires a velocity list to find the
0
DE Pragmatic approach best stacking velocity for each ZO sample. However, in a high-
dimensional search, for example, in the 3-D ZO CRS case, eight
Figure 6. Computational costs of the pragmatic approach and the DE algo-
wave-front attributes are required if the data are gotten from a
rithm, where DE is referenced as 100 per cent.
wide- or full azimuth acquisition. A simultaneous brute-force search
for the eight wave-front attributes is extremely expensive, where
we may have to test 1008 sets of wave-front attributes for each
and the conventional pragmatic approach. In this work, we use the ZO sample if 100 search intervals of each of the eight wave-front
DE algorithm as the global search method to replace the conven- attributes are considered. It will take about 2 months for one ZO
tional pragmatic approach. We call the improved 3-D partial CRS sample if a CPU with 2.5 GHz and 1 GB RAM is used. Usually,
interpolation method as a 5-D WABI technique, where the 3-D CRS there are about 105 to 108 ZO samples need to be processed in a
wave-front attributes are obtained by global optimization using the general 3-D seismic data set in the 3-D ZO CRS case, and such large
DE algorithm and the azimuth-based regularization is applied. number of ZO samples are practically impossible to implement in
After this introduction we briefly describe the 3-D CRS theory most computing platforms.
and the search strategy for wave-front attributes then we intro- To reduce the high computational costs in the 3-D ZO CRS case
duce our concept for regularization and interpolation of data with (see Müller 2003), the historical CRS parameter search method,
wide, rich or full azimuth. Data examples and comparisons with that is, the well-known, three-step-based pragmatic approach (Mann
the conventional 3-D partial CRS approach using the 3-D SEG salt et al. 1999) was introduced into the 3-D ZO CRS. It suggests to de-
model complement the paper. Finally we present a comparison of termine the eight wave-front attributes by three steps. In each step,
the proposed 5-D WABI method with a 5-D interpolation approach, only two or three of the eight wave-front attributes are determined si-
for example, based on the damped rank-reduction method (Chen multaneously by the brute-force search, which significantly reduces
et al. 2016b), using a simple 3-D synthetic data set of a diffraction the computational costs when compared to the simultaneous one-
event and the complex 3-D SEG data set. step brute-force search, that is, (1003 + 1002 + 1003 )  1008 . The
1008 on the right-hand side means the number of all possible tested
wave-front attributes used in the simultaneous one-step brute-force
2 T H E O RY A N D M E T H O D S
search. On the left-hand side, the first and the last 1003 represent the
number of NIP and N wave-front attributes to be searched for the
2.1 3-D CRS theory and wave-front attribute search
three elements of matrices M and N, respectively. The 1002 indi-
The 3-D CRS traveltime formula can be derived from the cates the number of dips and azimuths for the two elements of vector
well-known two-point paraxial travetime approximations (e.g. wz . Alternative solution to reduce the high computational costs in
Červený 2001; Červený & Moser 2007; Moser & Červený 2007; a simultaneous search is to introduce a suitable global optimiza-
Bortfeld 1989; Hubral et al. 1992; Schleicher et al. 1993b). In 3-D tion algorithm, which is iteratively trying to find or move toward to
seismic systems, the CRS traveltime parameters are generally ex- the best solution of the objective function (e.g. Weise 2009), such
plained with physical meanings, for example, kinematic wavefield as the above DE algorithm that improves the candidate solution to
attributes or wave-front attributes. The classical 3-D zero-offset get close to the best solution of the semblance function by a mass
(ZO) CRS traveltime formula is based on the hyperbolic approx- of iterations. It could be cheaper than the conventional pragmatic
imation (e.g. Schleicher et al. 1993b; Jäger 1999; Müller 2003; approach when we apply 100 intervals for each of the eight wave-
Bergler 2004) or geometrical considerations (Höcht 2002). It reads front attributes, that is, 2000  (1003 + 1002 + 1003 ), where the
2000 here means that 40 agents and 50 iterations are applied in the
2
thyp = (t0 + wz · md )2 + mdT Nmd + hT Mh, (1)
DE algorithm. More importantly, the maximum semblance gotten
where the vector wz includes the near-surface velocity (v0 ), the dip from the DE algorithm is higher than the one obtained from the
(α) and azimuth (λ) of the reference ray. The midpoint parameter conventional pragmatic approach (see a detailed discussion below).
satisfies: md = m − m0 , where the vector m0 is the considered
3-D CMP position, and the m indicates any neighbouring CMP
location of the considered 3-D CMP. Half offset of a trace in the
2.2 5-D WABI method
considered 3-D CRS gather is given by h. The 2 × 2 symmetrical
matrices M and N are related to the curvatures of the normal- In this work, the 5-D WABI method is given as follows:
incidence-point (NIP) wave front and the normal (N) wave front, Firstly, we compute the midpoint locations m = (mx , my ) for each
respectively (Hubral 1983; Jäger 1999; Müller 2003; Bergler 2004). 3-D CMPn gather of the 3-D data. In each 3-D CMP gather, we have
The superscript T denotes the transpose of a matrix. m = ( i=1 mi )/n, where mi is the midpoint location of a shot s and
In general, the 3-D ZO CRS wave-front attributes are searched a receiver g, i indicates the shot-receiver pair, and n is the number
by using the semblance (Neidell & Taner 1971) as an objective of pairs in this 3-D CMP gather. For each receiver trace in this 3-D

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
924 Y. Xie and D. Gajewski

Figure 7. Semblance sections of inline 190 and crossline 300 of the 3-D semblance volume. (a) Inline 190 with pragmatic approach. (b) Inline 190 with
DE-based global optimization. (c) Semblance difference between (b) and (a), where about 88.7 per cent ZO samples have a positive semblance. (d) Crossline
300 with pragmatic approach. (e) Crossline 300 with DE-based global optimization. (f) Semblance difference between (e) and (d), where about 88.1 per cent
ZO samples have a positive semblance. The semblance difference is computed by using the semblance of DE minus the semblance of pragmatic approach.

CMP gather, we have mi = (g + s)/2 and hi = (g − s)/2, where (i) reading traces into the given 3-D CRS gather if all traces in
s = (sx , sy ), g = (gx , gy ), mi = (mi, x , mi, y ), and hi = (hi, x , hi, y ). the 3-D data satisfy: (mx − m0, x )2 /amx 2 + (my − m0, y )2 /amy 2 ≤ 1,
Secondly, the location of the given 3-D CRS gather is deter- where the denominator amx and amy are the midpoint aperture (see
mined by using a 3-D CMP gather located at m0 = (m0, x , m0, y ). Fig. 1a), and mx and my indicate any 3-D CMP position located
We often apply two steps to read traces into a given 3-D CRS within the red ellipse centred at the given 3-D CMP location, that
gather: is, the m0 = (m0, x , m0, y ). The number of 3-D CMP gathers used

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes 925

Figure 8. Time slice 1.2 s of the 3-D semblance volume. (a) Semblance difference between (d) and (c), where about 89.7 per cent ZO samples have a positive
semblance. (b) Interpolation operators with low and high semblance. (c) Time slice of 1.2 s with pragmatic approach. (d) Time slice of 1.2 s with DE-based
global optimization. The semblance difference is computed by using the semblance of DE minus the semblance of pragmatic approach.

inator hx, i , hy, i are the offset aperture centred at t0 (see Fig. 1b).
The offset aperture at each ZO traveltime can be computed from
the pre-determined offset apertures: hx, 0 , hy, 0 , hx, n , and hy, n (see
Appendix). The elliptical aperture used in this work is not the only
way to select traces into a given 3-D CRS gather, but it is a good so-
lution preferable to a rectangular surface. This conclusion is based
on our tests performed for the open 3-D SEG C3WA data.

In the next step we determine the traces which contribute to


a given 3-D partial CRS gather. The given 3-D CRS gather is
already loaded into the computer memory. If traces within the
given 3-D CRS gather satisfy the relation (hi, x − offx)2 /px, i 2 +
(hi, y − offy)2 /py, i 2 ≤ 1, they are selected into the given 3-D par-
tial CRS gather centred at (offx, offy), where px, i and py, i are the
semi-major and semi-minor axes of the horizontal ellipse (blue) (see
Fig. 1b). Both the px, i and py, i are estimated by the pre-determined
apertures: a, b, c, and d (see Appendix A).
After this step we compute the ZO traveltime t0, p for the 3-D
partial CRS operator. For a sample A of trace k with h = (offx, offy),
Figure 9. Semblance of the four ZO samples mentioned in Fig. 5. The
global optimization here is based on the DE algorithm. the t0, p can be fitted with
2
t22 (o f f x, o f f y) = t11
2
+ hT Mh. (2)

We assume the ZO traveltime t0, p = t11 if the calculated t22 satisfy:


in the given 3-D CRS gather depends on the midpoint aperture that (t − t22 )2 ≤ fmin2 , where t11 is the trial ZO traveltime, and t22 is the
can be estimated by the Fresnel zone (Hubral et al. 1993a) by means calculated hyperbolic traveltime (see Fig. 2a). A refinement of the
of the 3-D CRS wave-front attributes. t0, p by using Equation 2 at the sample A would be necessary if we
(ii) Selecting traces into the offset dimension if all traces obtained get the ZO wave-front attributes obtained from t0, p . The eight wave-
in step (i) satisfy: hi, x 2 /hx, i 2 + hi, y 2 /hy, i 2 ≤ 1, where the denom- front attributes at t0, p are read from the attribute files (a byproduct

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
926 Y. Xie and D. Gajewski

Trace number Trace number

Trace number Trace number

Figure 10. A 3-D CMP gather (CMP 181903) picked from the 3-D SEG data. (a) Raw 3-D CMP gather with low S/N. (b) Raw 3-D CMP gather with gaps.
(c) Interpolation with conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking. (d) Interpolation with 5-D WABI method. For the sake of simplicity, only the azimuth λ = π /2
is shown in this 3-D CMP gather after the 5-D interpolation and regularization.

of the DE algorithm) for each t0, p . Now we have all attributes to each 3-D CMP gather of the 3-D data, the trace locations are regu-
apply the 3-D partial CRS operator using larized by an azimuth-based regularization in the offset dimension
(see Figs 1 d and 3), where different azimuthal directions are con-
p = (t0, p + wz · md ) + md Nmd + h Mh.
2 2 T T
thyp, (3)
sidered. In practice, the 3-D partial CRS aperture and the azimuthal
Eq. (3) is a 5-D interpolation operator of the acquisition system intervals need to be tested from the 3-D data. We often perform a
as well as the wave-front attributes in the time domain. With this series of tests to find the optimized 3-D partial CRS apertures and
operator, the sample A is interpolated at t on trace k located at (m0, x , azimuthal intervals. Amplitude variation in the midpoint dimension
m0, y , offx, offy). The same process is performed for each sample can be estimated from the modulus of the geometrical spreading
of trace k, and for all other traces in the given 3-D CMP gather, as factor (e.g. Hubral at al. 1993b; Schleicher et al. 1993a). Shuey’s
well as for all other 3-D CMP gathers in the whole 3-D data. For approximation (Shuey 1985) can also be applied for an analysis of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes 927

Trace number Trace number

Trace number Trace number

Figure 11. A 3-D CMP gather (CMP 182113) picked from the 3-D SEG data. (a) Raw 3-D CMP gather with low S/N. (b) Raw 3-D CMP gather with gaps.
(c) Interpolation with conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking. (d) Interpolation with 5-D WABI method. For the sake of simplicity, only the azimuth λ = π /2
is shown in this 3-D CMP gather after the 5-D interpolation and regularization.

the amplitude versus offset (AVO) in the offset dimension in each 3 R E S U LT S A N D D I S C U S S I O N S


3-D CMP gather. The amplitude of the sample A is a summation of
all amplitudes along the 3-D partial CRS traveltime surface within 3.1 3-D SEG C3WA data and CRS midpoint
the 3-D partial CRS aperture, that is, an improvement of the S/N and offset apertures
ratio is obtained. Considering the AVO may be omitted since we
The 3-D SEG C3WA data is an open pre-stack seismic data built
stack/interpolate locally along the offset direction. However, AVO
by the SEG research committee. Some important parameters of the
analysis is necessary in the case of data with large gaps since in
data need to be pointed out. Each trace of the data has 625 samples
such case a large 3-D CRS aperture is applied to each trace of the
with a sampling interval of 8 ms. The maximum CDP fold is 17,
considered 3-D CMP gather.
and an effective offset is ranged from 40 to 2695 m. The midpoint

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
928 Y. Xie and D. Gajewski

Figure 12. Inline 190 of the first 3-D CO volume. (a) Raw CO section. (b) Raw CO section with gaps. (c) Interpolation with conventional 3-D partial CRS
stacking. (d) Interpolation with the 5-D WABI method.

distance between inlines is 40 m, twice the density of the crosslines, 3.2 Usage of the pragmatic approach and the DE
leading to double ZO traces in the inline section. An example of pre- algorithm
processing the SEG/EAGE data is given by (Xu et al. 2004). To see
Before we present a comparison of the conventional 3-D partial
the performance of the conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking and
CRS stacking and the 5-D WABI method, the 3-D CRS wave-
the 5-D WABI method in this work, some traces in the 3-D SEG data
front attributes require to be determined from the gapped SEG data
were randomly killed and some random Gaussian noise with an S/N
by means of the pragmatic approach and the DE algorithm. Re-
= 10 was added to the seismograms, that is, the RMS magnitude
lated to the pragmatic approach, one can reference Müller’s work
of the signal amplitude is 10 times the RMS magnitude of the
(Müller 2003). Here we briefly introduce how to use the DE algo-
random noise. Fig. 1(a) shows the midpoint aperture (red ellipse),
rithm in the 3-D CRS case. Four parameters need to be determined
being initially set to 200 m in both x- and y-direction, that is, amx
in the DE algorithm. The first two are the differential weight F and
= amy = 200 m. After the initial search, the midpoint aperture is
the crossover probability CR, a priori suggested values are given
estimated by the Fresnel zone (Hubral at al. 1993a), which in turn
by Pedersen (2010). However, we found that the F and CR may be
can be computed from the determined wave-front attributes. The
slightly different in different data sets. Fig. 4 shows a test of the F
offset aperture is set manually, for example, the observed seismic
and CR from the 3-D SEG data, which illustrates that the maximum
events in the offset dimension are totally included within the offset
semblance is stable as long as the F is large than 1. CR is not sensi-
aperture at the beginning, then some offset apertures are tried until
tive to the semblance function in Fig. 4 when F is larger than 1. In
the one with the possible best results is found. The criterion of the
this work, we use F = 1.2 and CR = 0.9. The last two parameters
best results is driven by the determined wave-front attributes as well
are the population size NP and the number of iterations IT, which
as the semblance. A detailed setting of the CRS offset apertures are
also need to be tested from the data. In our tests to the 3-D SEG
given in Appendix.
data, we found that a safe suggestion of the NP should be larger

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes 929

Figure 13. Crossline 300 of the first 3-D CO volume. (a) Raw CO section. (b) Raw CO section with gaps. (c) Interpolation with conventional 3-D partial CRS
stacking. (d) Interpolation with the 5-D WABI method.

than 40, and the IT would be better larger than 50 (see a test out 3.4 Conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking and the 5-D
of ten shown in Fig. 5). In order to determine the F and CR in the WABI method
above, a very large IT and NP are used at the beginning (making
sure the results only sensitive to the F and CR), then the IT and NP 3.4.1 CMP gathers after interpolation
are tested with the determined F and CR.
The 5-D WABI technique presented in this work includes two as-
pects: (i) we interpolate a sample A with traveltime t on trace k
located at (m0, x , m0, y , offx, offy); (ii) the trace location relies on the
3.3 Semblance difference between the pragmatic approach azimuth-based regularization in each 3-D CMP gather (see Fig. 3).
and the DE algorithm To show the conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking and the 5-D
In our tests, we found that the DE algorithm is computationally WABI method performed on individual 3-D CMP gather, two 3-D
more efficient than the traditional pragmatic approach to determine CMPs were randomly taken from the 3-D SEG C3WA data. The first
the 3-D CRS wave-front attributes (see Fig. 6). To estimate the one is CMP 181903 (see Fig. 10, displayed in a 2-D section, that is,
semblance difference obtained from the pragmatic approach and all traces are sorted with increasing offsets). In this gather, seismic
the DE algorithm, three sections of the 3-D semblance volume events on the raw data are visible but unclear. Fig. 10(b) shows the
are shown. These are inline 190, crossline 300, and a time slice same data, where some traces were deleted to simulate data gaps.
at 1.2 s (Figs 7 and 8). The semblance difference of the three After determination of the 3-D CRS wave-front attributes obtained
sections indicates that, for close to 90 per cent of the ZO samples from the reduced 3-D data, the conventional 3-D partial CRS stack-
the semblance provided by the DE algorithm is higher than the one ing and the 5-D WABI method are applied separately. Fig. 10(c)
for the pragmatic approach. A detailed semblance comparison for displays the 3-D CMP gather processed by the conventional 3-D
four ZO samples of the 3-D semblance volume is given in Fig. 9. partial CRS stacking, where the reflection events are clearly visible
The semblance provided by the DE algorithm turns out to be higher. and continuous with less noise, compared to the input 3-D CMP

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
930 Y. Xie and D. Gajewski

Figure 14. Time slice 1.2 s of the first 3-D CO volume. (a) Raw data. (b) Raw data with gaps. (c) Interpolation with conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking.
(d) Interpolation with the 5-D WABI method.

gather (Fig. 10b). Fig. 10(d) shows the same 3-D CMP gather but bar with a minimum (blue) and a maximum (red) amplitude ranged
processed by the 5-D WABI method, which also displays improved from −0.6 to 0.6.
results compared to the input 3-D CMP gather. In this 3-D CMP Fig. 12 shows inline 190 of the first 3-D CO volume, where the
gather with CMP 181903, we do not see a big difference between image quality of the raw data is poor, and many deep reflection
the conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking and the 5-D WABI. The events and diffraction patterns are almost invisible (see Fig. 12a).
second example shows data for CMP 182113 of the 3-D SEG data, Fig. 12(b) displays the section with removed traces. We can see a
which is noisier and the seismic events are difficult to identify. Af- better continuity of horizons at different time levels and the S/N
ter processing with the conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking and is increased significantly after the conventional 3-D partial CRS
the 5-D WABI method the gaps are filled and the reflection events stacking and the 5-D WABI method were applied. Some differences
are clearly visible (see Figs 11c and d). However, the result of 5- between the conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking and the 5-D
D WABI displays an improved result. The semblance is used to WABI method are marked by red arrows (see Figs 12c and d). Fig. 13
confirm this visual observation. shows crossline 300 of the first 3-D CO volume, where most of the
seismic events of the raw data are difficult to identify except the top
horizontal layers (Fig. 13a). However, we observe many reflection
3.4.2 Common-offset (CO) sections after interpolation events and diffraction patterns after the conventional 3-D partial
In order to see the 5-D interpolation results on more 3-D CMP CRS stacking is applied. It can provide continuous seismic events
gathers simultaneously, two 3-D CO volumes are shown, of which at all time levels with a better S/N (see Fig. 13c). Even improved
each 3-D CMP gather contains one trace only, and all traces in each results are obtained when the 5-D WABI method is applied (see
3-D CO volume have the same half offset. The first 3-D CO volume Fig. 13d). It displays more continuous events than the conventional
is chosen from a constant half offset of h = (0 m, 100 m). The 3-D partial CRS. We note that the resolution of the crossline section
second 3-D CO volume is taken from a far constant half offset with is worse than that of the inline section. This is due to a sparse data
h = (0 m, 1000 m). In each of the two 3-D CO volumes, three acquisition along the crossline direction. Fig. 14 shows the time
sections comprising the salt body are considered. These are inline slice at 1.2 s of the first 3-D CO volume, where the structure of the
190, crossline 300, and a time slice at 1.2 s. In the Common-offset salt body is hardly visible both on the raw time slice and the time
(CO) sections after interpolation, all figures have the same colour slice where traces were deleted. However, a significantly improved

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes 931

Figure 15. Inline 190 of the second 3-D CO volume. (a) Raw CO section. (b) Raw CO section with gaps. (c) Interpolation with conventional 3-D partial CRS
stacking. (d) Interpolation with the 5-D WABI method.

result is obtained by both, the conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking may be interpolated at a wrong (W) position, instead of the right
and the 5-D WABI method (see Figs 14c and d). Again, the latter (R) position (see Fig. 8b). Usually, one may use a local optimiza-
performs better leading to smoother images than the conventional tion algorithm to refine the DE-based wave-front attributes in these
3-D partial CRS for most of the ZO sample locations. low-semblance areas. However, this option failed in our tests, where
Results obtained from the second 3-D CO volume are signif- two local optimization algorithms, namely modified simulated an-
icantly improved with the 5-D WABI method when compared to nealing (MSA) and Nelder–Mead method were tested. We assume
the 5-D WABI method applied to the first 3-D CO volume. See that a local optimization may not guarantee to find or move forward
the corresponding inline 190 and crossline 300 of the second 3-D to the global best if the initial guess is too far away from the global
CO volume (Figs 15 and 16). Fig. 17 shows the time slice at 1.2 s, best. We conclude, that for most ZO samples, nearly 90 per cent in
where the 5-D WABI method provides a smoother image with less this case, the results obtained from the 5-D WABI are obtained in
noise, compared to the conventional 3-D partial CRS. In the central better quality using less computational time.
part of the time slice, the structure of the salt body imaged by the Using a wave-front-attribute-based interpolation operator and
5-D WABI method is better visible than the one obtained for the considering several events for the same ZO sample (conflicting
conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking. For about 90 per cent of the dips) may be cumbersome in the interpolation process if we have
ZO samples, the results obtained for the 5-D WABI method are complex data and large data gaps. This conclusion, however, is ap-
better than for the conventional 3-D partial CRS (as an example plicable to trace interpolation in general since the projected Fresnel
where this is not the case, see the right top corner of Figs 17c and zone set physical limits with respect to size of handleable data gaps.
d). For these cases these areas, the semblance calculated from the For some ZO samples, the number of seismic events at the con-
DE-based wave-front attributes is lower than the semblance for the sidered ZO sample can be counted and searched by the algorithm.
conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking (see Figs 8c and d). With In such case, a well-interpolated result can be obtained. However,
low-semblance traveltime interpolation operator, the data sample at some ZO samples with sparse data comprising large data gaps,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
932 Y. Xie and D. Gajewski

Figure 16. Crossline 300 of the second 3-D CO volume. (a) Raw CO section. (b) Raw CO section with gaps. (c) Interpolation with conventional 3-D partial
CRS stacking. (d) Interpolation with the 5-D WABI method.

the 3-D hyperbolic or non-hyperbolic CRS traveltime operator may rank-reduction method (Chen et al. 2016b), which is worked quite
fail in the process of determining wave-front attributes which be- well for reflection data. The rank-reduction codes used in our work
long to different events. In this work, we consider only the dom- are modified from the open-source Matlab code package (Chen
inant event at each ZO sample. Obviously, events not considered et al. 2016a). The compared results are given in two 3-D data sets
are not interpolated and therefore missing after the interpolation discussed below.
process. The conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking has already
demonstrated good performance for reflection data (see Baykulov
& Gajewski 2009, 2010). This work has shown that the 5-D WABI 3.5.1 Model with three layers and a spherical diffractor
method provides reliable results for reflections and diffractions. We first use a simple 3-D model to generate pre-stack synthetic
Limited by the offset range of the 3-D SEG C3WA data, we use the seismic data which are close to the benchmark 3-D data used in
hyperbolic 3-D CRS operator in this work. many published interpolation works (e.g. Trad 2009; Oropeza &
Sacchi 2011; Chen et al. 2016a,b). In addition we consider a spher-
ical diffractor in the model since most recently published 5-D in-
3.5 The 5-D WABI and the rank-reduction-based 5-D
terpolation results mainly focus on data dominated by reflections
interpolation
(e.g. Trad 2009; Chopra & Marfurt 2013; Kreimer et al. 2013;
The proposed 5-D WABI method, as an extension of the conven- Gao et al. 2015; Ely et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2016b). Diffraction
tional 3-D partial CRS approach, has shown its potential to recon- is more and more gaining interest in both academic and industry
struct reflection and diffraction data. However, related to the 5-D applications since it images small-scale heterogeneities and struc-
interpolation, there are several other types of 5-D seismic interpo- tures, for example, fractures, pinch-outs, thin lenses etc. (e.g. Dell
lation approaches proposed recently. In order to check the potential & Gajewski 2011a,b; Rad et al. 2015). Preserving diffractions (i.e.
usage of the proposed 5-D WABI, we also compare it with the rank- fractures) in 5-D interpolation is a discussed topic and leaves space
reduction-based 5-D interpolation method, for example, the damped for discussions and investigations (Trad 2014).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes 933

Figure 17. Time slice 1.2 s of the second 3-D CO volume. (a) Raw data. (b) Raw data with gaps. (c) Interpolation with conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking.
(d) Interpolation with the 5-D WABI method.

120 Ricker-wavelet with a prevailing frequency of 20 Hz is applied. The


3-D synthetic pre-stack seismic data has a CMP spacing of 12.5 m
in the x direction, and 25 m in the y direction. The maximum CMP
100
fold is 20, and the sampling interval is 4 ms. We add 20 per cent
random noise to the data, that is, the maximum RMS amplitude of
the signal is 5 times than that of the random noise. In the reduced
data set, 50 per cent traces is randomly removed. In the 3-D CRS
Computational costs [%]

80
wave-front attribute search, the midpoint aperture is 75 m in the x
direction and 50 m in the y direction. The 3-D CRS offset apertures
and 3-D partial CRS offset apertures are estimated as discussed in
60 Appendix.
In the following, we will compare the two interpolation meth-
ods with respect to computational efficiency and image quality for
40 reflections and diffractions. Fig. 18 shows the computational costs
between the two 5-D interpolation methods tested from the simple
3-D data, which indicates that the damped rank-reduction method
20 has about the same magnitude of computational costs compared
with the 5-D WABI method when we use the same computational
setting, for example, the number of CPUs. The comparison may be
slightly different with different implementations or different param-
0
eter setting, but it indicates that both methods could be comparable
Figure 18. Computational costs of the 5-D WABI method and the 5-D
in the computational costs. The parameter setting is crucial in the
damped rank-reduction method (5-D DRRM), where the 5-D WABI is ref- damped rank-reduction method which needs some testing for the
erenced as 100 per cent. We mention that the computational costs of the data under consideration. We use rank K = 3, which is a parameter
5-D WABI tested here include a global determination of the wave-front accounting for the reconstructed events. The damping factor N is
attributes. set to 2. The greater the N, the weaker is the damping, that is, we
may get higher S/N data with smaller N. The number of iterations
The simple 3-D model is separated by three layers with the veloc- for each frequency slice is set to 10. The minimum and maximum
ity of 1500, 1800 and 2000 m s−1 , respectively. A spherical diffractor frequency to reconstruct are between 0 and 200 Hz. These parame-
with a velocity of 4000 m s−1 and with a lateral extension of 100 m ters are obtained after some testing from the data. For this test, the
is buried in the bottom layer. In the forward modelling, a zero-phase

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
934 Y. Xie and D. Gajewski

Figure 19. Inline 10 of the 3-D CO volume (hx = 25 m, hy = 0 m). (a) Original data section. (b) Reduced section after adding 20 per cent random noise and
killing 50 per cent traces randomly. (c) Denoising and data reconstruction with the damped rank-reduction method. (d) Denoising and data reconstruction with
the 5-D WABI method.

Hankel matrix and the three block Hankel matrices being set close is the crossline 100 of the 3-D CO volume, where both interpo-
to square matrices. For a detailed discussion on parameters we refer lation methods are comparable when the crossline is taken at the
to Chen et al. (2016b). centre of the salt body, that is, closer to the spherical diffractor.
In order to show the 5-D interpolation results in 2-D planes, Fig. 21 displays the time slice at 1.66 s cutting through the second
we first extract a 3-D CO volume, for example, setting the con- reflector. Here the damped rank-reduction method shows a better
stant half offset h = (25 m, 0 m), from the 5-D interpolated vol- performance than the 5-D WABI to reconstruct the reflection. How-
ume, then the 3-D CO volume is cut into two sections (inline 10 ever, in the bottom part at time slice 2.4 s which cuts through
and crossline 100) and two time slices (1.66 and 2.4 s). The two the diffraction pattern, the 5-D WABI is considerably better in
time slices are used to show the reflection (1.66 s) and the bot- preserving the diffraction even when compared with the damped
tom diffraction (2.4 s). The colour bar of all figures shown be- rank-reduction method (see Fig. 22). For a more detailed investiga-
low means the amplitude after the interpolation. Fig. 19 shows tion of the damped rank-reduction method on diffraction-only data,
inline 10 of the 3-D CO volume. We note that the damped rank- the bottom part of the whole 3-D data is used. The comparison
reduction method displays reflections slightly stronger, while the is shown in Fig. 23. In this comparison we see that the damped
5-D WABI method is superior for diffractions. In the top part rank-reduction method can recover parts of the diffraction but still
with reflection-only data, the damped rank-reduction method re- fail to preserve the diffraction tails. If the frequency component
constructs the reflection to the boundary even if the reflection ter- of the random noise is close to that of the weak diffraction tails,
minates prior to the boundary (see the left-hand white arrows). we may have a challenge to predict or reconstruct the diffraction
In the bottom part of the data, the diffraction pattern is recov- tails in the frequency domain without a data enhancement facil-
ered quite well with the 5-D WABI method. The damped rank- ity which is included in the 5-D WABI procedure. Perhaps we
reduction method preserves only parts of the diffraction. Fig. 20 need to design adaptive sizes for the Hankel matrix and for the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes 935

(a) (b)
0 0
0.8 0.8

1 0.6 1 0.6
Time [s]

Time [s]
0.4 0.4
2 2

0.2 0.2

3 3
0 0

4 -0.2 4 -0.2
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Inline number Inline number

(c) (d)
0 0
0.8 0.8

1 0.6 1 0.6
Time [s]

Time [s]
0.4 0.4
2 2

0.2 0.2

3 3
0 0

4 -0.2 4 -0.2
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Inline number Inline number
Figure 20. Crossline 100 of the 3-D CO volume (hx = 25 m, hy = 0 m). (a) Original data. (b) Reduced section after adding 20 per cent random noise and
killing 50 per cent traces randomly. (c) Denoising and data reconstruction with the damped rank-reduction method. (d) Denoising and data reconstruction with
the 5-D WABI method.

three block Hankel matrices to account for the diffraction in the in preserving the diffraction patterns including the weak multiple
future. diffractions, compared to the damped rank-reduction method. Sim-
ilar conclusions are obtained for crossline 300 shown in Fig. 25. In
the time slice at 1.2 s shown in Fig. 26, the damped rank-reduction
3.5.2 Applications to the 3-D SEG C3WA data method performs well to reconstruct the strong reflections, but fails
to preserve the diffraction events caused by edgy structures, while
In this section, we apply the two 5-D interpolation methods to the the 5-D WABI keeps both, the reflection and the diffraction, which
open 3-D SEG data, with S/N = 5, and 50 per cent traces randomly are recovered very well when compared with the original data.
removed in the data. We use K = 15, N = 6, and 10 iterations in
the damped rank-reduction method. The minimum and maximum
reconstructed frequencies are set between 0 to 250 Hz. These pa-
4 C O N C LU S I O N S
rameters are also tested from the 3-D SEG data in which we get
almost the same result if the maximum reconstructed frequency We have extended the conventional 3-D partial CRS stacking ap-
is larger than 50 Hz. The 3-D CRS apertures and the 3-D partial proach for 5-D trace interpolation. The global optimization strat-
CRS apertures used here are set the same as in Section 3.4. Fig. 24 egy to determine wave-front attributes and the azimuthal interpo-
shows inline 190 of a 3-D volume that is extracted from the 5-D lation process better account for the potential of wide-, rich- and
interpolated result with a constant half offset of (0 m, 20 m). We full-azimuth data. The 5-D WABI method comprises next to the
note that the damped rank-reduction method is strong to reconstruct usual 5-D data space (e.g. CMP coordinates in x and y, offset, az-
the reflection events, but weak to preserve the diffraction events by imuth and time) the wave-front attributes which contain surface
the salt body in the middle of the model. The 5-D WABI is strong expressions of subsurface features. In the 5-D WABI method the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
936 Y. Xie and D. Gajewski

(a) (b)

0.8 0.8

Inline number 50 0.6 50 0.6

Inline number
0.4 0.4
100 100
0.2 0.2

150 0
150 0

-0.2 -0.2
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Crossline number Crossline number

(c) (d)

0.8 0.8

50 0.6 50 0.6
Inline number

Inline number

0.4 0.4
100 100
0.2 0.2

150 0
150 0

-0.2 -0.2
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Crossline number Crossline number
Figure 21. Time slice of 1.66 s of the 3-D CO volume (hx = 25 m, hy = 0 m). (a) Original data section. (b) Reduced section after adding 20 per cent
random noise and killing 50 per cent traces randomly. (c) Denoising and data reconstruction with the damped rank-reduction method. (d) Denoising and data
reconstruction with the 5-D WABI method.

wave-front attributes are determined by a 3-D CRS approach using tion of wave-front attributes which may be used for several other
global optimization. An algorithm based on differential evolution is processing purposes like velocity model building, time and depth
used for this purpose. The global optimization provides improved migration, diffraction separation and tomography, just to name a
wave-front attributes when compared to the conventional method few. The 5-D WABI provides a powerful alternative to other 5-D
using the pragmatic optimization strategy. The improvements are interpolation methods with improved handling of diffractions and
particularly visible at far offset traces. The comparison of the 5- relaxed aliasing issues. Next to the interpolation capability itself the
D WABI with a 5-D interpolation technique, for example, based process also provides a data enhancement facility.
on the damped rank-reduction-method, revealed a better perfor-
mance in the interpolation process for steeply dipping events like,
for example, diffraction tails. Because of this feature, diffractions
are much better preserved by the 5-D WABI than by the rank-
reduction-based interpolation. Since diffraction imaging is develop- AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
ing into a powerful add on to plain reflection processing, this feature
We thank the Applied Seismics Group in Hamburg for continuous
is substantial for all kind of processing steps utilizing diffractions.
discussion. We thank the sponsors of the Wave Inversion Technol-
Since the wave-front attributes are determined from kinematic prop-
ogy (WIT) Consortium for technical support and SEG for provid-
erties of the wavefield, namely moveout, aliasing issues are relaxed.
ing the data. Y. Xie would like to thank Ransheng Chen (China
The computational effort of the 5-D WABI approach is comparable
JK Institute of Engineering Investigation and Design) to discuss
to the CPU time consumed by the damped rank-reduction method
the DE algorithm in actual implementation and also thanks the
where the comparison includes the CPU time for the determina-
China Scholarship Council (CSC) for partially funding this work.
We are grateful to the editors and reviewers for their comments and
suggestions.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes 937

(a) (b)
0.1 0.1

50 0.05 50 0.05

Inline number

Inline number
100 0 100 0

-0.05 -0.05
150 150

-0.1 -0.1
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Crossline number Crossline number

(c) (d)
0.1 0.1

50 0.05 50 0.05
Inline number

Inline number
100 0 100 0

-0.05 -0.05
150 150

-0.1 -0.1
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Crossline number Crossline number

Figure 22. Time slice of 2.4 s of the 3-D CO volume (hx = 25 m, hy = 0 m). (a) Original data section. (b) Reduced section after adding 20 per cent random noise
and killing 50 per cent traces randomly. (c) Denoising and data reconstruction with the damped rank-reduction method. (d) Denoising and data reconstruction
with 5-D WABI method.

(a) (b)
2 2
0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01
Time [s]

Time [s]

2.5 2.5
0 0

-0.01 -0.01

-0.02 -0.02

100 125 100 125


Crossline number Crossline number

(c) (d)
2 2
0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01
Time [s]

Time [s]

2.5 2.5
0 0

-0.01 -0.01

-0.02 -0.02

150 175 150 175


Crossline number Crossline number

Figure 23. 5-D interpolation results with the diffraction-only data, that is, the bottom part of the 3-D CO volume (hx = 25 m, hy = 0 m). The top two columns
are selected from the central part of the diffraction-only data, where (a) is gotten from the damped rank-reduction method and (b) is obtained from the 5-D
WABI method. The bottom two columns selected from the right-hand side of the diffraction-only data, where (c) is gotten from the damped rank-reduction
method and (d) is obtained by the 5-D WABI method.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
938 Y. Xie and D. Gajewski

Figure 24. Inline 190 of the 3-D SEG CO volume (hx = 0 m, hy = 20 m). (a) Original data section with 20 per cent random noise. (b) Reduced section with
50 per cent randomly deleted traces. (c) Denoising and data reconstruction with the damped rank-reduction method. (d) Denoising and data reconstruction with
5-D WABI method. The four subfigures have the same colour bar with a minimum (blue) and a maximum (red) amplitude ranged from −0.6 to 0.6.

(a) (b)
0 0

1 1

2 2
Time [s]

Time [s]

3 3

4 4

5 5
50 100 150 50 100 150
Inline number Inline number

(c) (d)
0 0

1 1

2 2
Time [s]

Time [s]

3 3

4 4

5 5
50 100 150 50 100 150
Inline number Inline number

Figure 25. Crossline 300 of the 3-D SEG CO volume (hx = 0 m, hy = 20 m). (a) Original data section with 20 per cent random noise. (b) Reduced section
with 50 per cent randomly deleted traces. (c) Denoising and data reconstruction with the damped rank-reduction method. (d) Denoising and data reconstruction
with 5-D WABI method. The four subfigures have the same colour bar with a minimum (blue) and a maximum (red) amplitude ranged from −0.6 to 0.6.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes 939

(a) (b)

50 50

100 100

150 150
Inline number

Inline number
200 200

250 250

300 300

350 350

50 100 150 50 100 150


Crossline number Crossline number

(c) (d)

50 50

100 100

150 150
Inline number

Inline number

200 200

250 250

300 300

350 350

50 100 150 50 100 150


Crossline number Crossline number
Figure 26. Time slice of 1.2 s of the 3-D SEG CO volume (hx = 0 m, hy = 20 m). (a) Original data section with 20 per cent random noise. (b) Reduced section
with 50 per cent randomly deleted traces. (c) Denoising and data reconstruction with the damped rank-reduction method. (d) Denoising and data reconstruction
with 5-D WABI method. The four subfigures have the same colour bar with a minimum (blue) and a maximum (red) amplitude ranged from −0.6 to 0.6.

REFERENCES Chen, Y., Zhang, D., Jin, Z., Chen, X., Zu, S., Huang, W. & Gan,
S., 2016b. Simultaneous denoising and reconstruction of 5-D seis-
Baykulov, M. & Gajewski, D., 2009. Prestack seismic data enhancement with
mic data via damped rank-reduction method, Geophys. J. Int., 206,
partial common-reflection-surface (CRS) stack, Geophysics, 74, V49–
1695–1717.
V58.
Chopra, S. & Marfurt, K.J., 2013. Preconditioning seismic data with 5D in-
Baykulov, M. & Gajewski, D., 2010. Partial 3D CRS Stack, in 72nd EAGE
terpolation for computing geometric attributes, Leading Edge, 32, 1456–
Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2010.
1460.
Bergler, S., 2004. On The Determination and Use of Kinematic Wavefield
Curry, W., 2010. Interpolation with Fourier-radial adaptive thresholding,
Attributes for 3D Seismic Imaging, Logos.
Geophysics, 75, WB95–WB102.
Bortfeld, R., 1989. Geometrical ray theory: rays and traveltimes in seismic
Dell, S & Gajewski, D., 2011a. 3D CRS-attributes based diffraction imaging,
systems (second-order approximation of the traveltimes), Geophysics, 54,
in 73rd EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC
342–349.
2011, doi:10.3997/2214-4609.20148991.
Červený, V., 2001. Seismic Ray Theory, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Dell, S. & Gajewski, D., 2011b. Common-reflection-surface-based workflow
Červený, V. & Moser, T.J., 2007. Ray propagator matrices in three-
for diffraction imaging, Geophysics, 76, S187–S195.
dimensional anisotropic inhomogeneous layered media, Geophys. J. Int.,
Ely, G., Aeron, S., Hao, N. & Kilmer, M.E., 2015. 5D seismic data com-
168, 593–604.
pletion and denoising using a novel class of tensor decompositions,
Chen, Y., Huang, W., Zhang, D. & Chen, W., 2016a. An open-source Matlab
Geophysics, 80, V83–V95.
code package for improved rank-reduction 3D seismic data denoising and
Fomel, S., 2003. Seismic reflection data interpolation with differential offset
reconstruction, Comput. Geosci., 95, 59–66.
and shot continuation, Geophysics, 68, 733–744.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
940 Y. Xie and D. Gajewski

Fomel, S. & Kazinnik, R., 2013. Non-hyperbolic common reflection surface, Pedersen, M.E.H., 2010. Good Parameters for Differential Evolution, Hvass
Geophys. Prospect., 61, 21–27. Laboratories Technical Report HL1002.
Gao, J., Stanton, A. & Sacchi, M.D., 2015. Parallel matrix factorization Powell, M., 1964. An efficient method for finding the minimum of a function
algorithm and its application to 5D seismic reconstruction and denoising, of several variables without calculating derivatives, Comput. J., 7, 155–
Geophysics, 80, V173–V187. 162.
Gelchinsky, B., Berkovitch, A. & Keydar, S., 1999, Multifocusing homeo- Rad, P.B., Vanelle, C. & Gajewski, D., 2015. 3D CRS-based prestack diffrac-
morphic imaging: Part 1. Basic concepts and formulas, J. Appl. Geophys., tion separation and imaging, in 77th EAGE Conference and Exhibition.
42, 229–242. Ronen, J., 1987. Wave-equation trace interpolation, Geophysics, 52, 973–
Höcht, G., 2002. Traveltime Approximations for 2D and 3D Media and 984.
Kinematic Wavefield Attributes, University of Karlsruhe. Schleicher, J., Tygel, M. & Hubral, P., 1993a. 3D true-amplitude finite offset
Höcht, G., Ricarte, P., Bergler, S. & Landa, E., 2009. Operator oriented CRS migration, Geophysics, 58, 1112–1126.
interpolation, Geophys. Prospect., 57, 957–979. Schleicher, J., Tygel, M. & Hubral, P., 1993b. Parabolic and hyperbolic
Holland, J., 1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, University paraxial two-point traveltimes in 3D media, Geophys. Prospect., 41, 495–
of Michigan Press. 513.
Huang, W., Wang, R., Zhang, M., Chen, Y. & Yu, J., 2015. Random noise Schwarz, B., Vanelle, C., Gajewski, D. & Kashtan, B., 2014. Curvatures and
attenuation for 3D seismic data by modified multichannel singular spec- inhomogeneities: an improved common-reflection approach, Geophysics,
trum analysis, in 77th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, 79, S231–S240.
EAGE Extended Abstracts, doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201412830. Shi, Y. & Eberhart, R.C., 1998. A modified particle swarm optimizer, in
Hubral, P., 1983. Computing true amplitude reflections in a laterally inho- Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Compu-
mogeneous earth, Geophysics, 48, 1051–1062. tation, pp. 69–73.
Hubral, P., Schleicher, J. & Tygel, M., 1992. Three-dimensional paraxial ray Shuey, R.T., 1985. A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations, Geophysics,
properties. Part I. Basic relations, J. seism. Explor., 1, 265–279 [Part II. 50, 609–614.
Applications, J. seism. Explor., 1, 347–362]. Spitz, S., 1991. Seismic trace interpolation in the f-x domain, Geophysics,
Hubral, P., Schleicher, J., Tygel, M. & Hanitzsch, C., 1993a. Determination 56, 785–794.
of Fresnel zones from traveltime measurements, Geophysics, 58, 703– Stolt, R.H., 2002. Seismic data mapping and reconstruction, Geophysics,
712. 67, 973–984.
Hubral, P., Schleicher, J. & Tygel, M., 1993b. Three-dimensional primary Storn, R. & Price, K., 1997. Differential evolution - a simple and efficient
zerooffset reflections, Geophysics, 58, 692–702. heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces, J. Glob. Optim.,
Jäger, R., 1999. The common reflection surface stack-introduction and ap- 11, 341–359.
plication, Diploma thesis, Karlsruhe University, Germany. Trad, D., 2009. Five-dimensional interpolation: recovering from acquisition
Jäger, R., Mann, J., Höcht, G. & Hubral, P., 2001. Common-reflection- constraints, Geophysics, 74, V123–V132.
surface stack: Image and attributes, Geophysics, 66, 97–109. Trad, D., 2014. Five-dimensional interpolation: new directions and chal-
Kabir, M.M.N. & Verschuur, D.J., 1995. Restoration of missing offsets by lenges, in CSEG Recorder, pp. 40–46.
parabolic Radon transform, Geophys. Prospect., 43, 347–368. Trad, D., Ulrych, T. & Sacchi, M., 2002. Accurate interpolation with
Kaplan, S.T., Naghizadeh, M. & Sacchi, M.D., 2010. Data reconstruc- high-resolution time-variant Radon transforms, Geophysics, 67, 644–
tion with shot-prole least-squares migration, Geophysics, 75, WB121– 656.
WB136. Trickett, S., 2008. F-xy cadzow noise suppression, CSPG CSEG CWLS
Kennedy, J. & Eberhart, R., 1995. Particle swarm optimization, in Proceed- Convention, 67, 303–306.
ings of IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 1942– Trickett, S., Burroughs, L., Milton, A., Walton, L. & Dack, R., 2010. Rank-
1948. reduction-based trace interpolation, SEG Technical Program Expanded
Kreimer, N., Stanton, A. & Sacchi, M.D., 2013. Tensor completion based Abstracts, 29, 3829–3833.
on nuclear norm minimization for 5D seismic data reconstruction, Geo- Walda, J., Schwarz, B. & Gajewski, D., 2017. A competitive com-
physics, 78, V273–V284. parison of multiparameter stacking operators, Geophysics, 82(4),
Liu, B. & Sacchi, M.D., 2004. Minimum weighted norm interpolation of V275–V283.
seismic records, Geophysics, 69, 1560–1568. Weise, T., 2009. Global Optimization Algorithms - Theory and Application,
Liu, Y. & Fomel, S., 2011. Seismic data interpolation beyond aliasing using http://www.it-weise.de, self-published.
regularized nonstationary autoregression, Geophysics, 76, V69–V77. Xie, Y., 2017. 3D prestack data enhancement with a simplified CO CRS
Mann, J., 2002. Extensions and applications of the Common-Reflection- operator, in 79th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE,
Surface Stack Method, PhD thesis, University of Karlsruhe. Extended Abstracts.
Mann, J., Jager, R., Muller, T., Hocht, G. & Hubral, P., 1999. Common- Xie, Y. & Gajewski, D., 2016a. Automatic estimation of the 3D CRS
reflection-surface stack - a real data example, J. Appl. Geoph., 42, 301– attributes by a metaheuristic-based optimization, in 78th Annual In-
318. ternational Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts,
Moser, T.J. & Červený, V., 2007. Paraxial ray methods for anisotropic inho- doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201601436.
mogeneous media, Geophys. Prospect., 55, 21–37. Xie, Y. & Gajewski, D., 2016b. Interpolation and regularization with the 3D
Müller, N.A., 2003. The 3D Common-reflection-surface stack—theory and CRS operator, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, pp. 4092–
application, Diploma thesis, University of Karlsruhe. 4096.
Naghizadeh, M. & Innanen, K.A., 2011. Seismic data interpolation using a Xie, Y. & Gajewski, D., 2016c. Simultaneous estimation of the 3D CRS at-
fast generalized Fourier transform, Geophysics, 76, V1–V10. tributes by an evolutionary-based Nelder-Mead algorithm, SEG Technical
Naghizadeh, M. & Sacchi, M.D., 2009. f-x adaptive seismic-trace interpo- Program Expanded Abstracts, pp. 4326–4330.
lation, Geophysics, 74, V9–V16. Xu, S., Lambare, G. & Calandra, H., 2004. Fast migration/inversion with
Naghizadeh, M. & Sacchi, M.D., 2010. Beyond alias hierarchical scale multivalued ray fields: Part 2—Applications to the 3D SEG/EAGE salt
curvelet interpolation of regularly and irregularly sampled seismic data, model, Geophysics, 69, 1320–1328.
Geophysics, 75, WB189–WB202. Zhang, Y.Q. & Lu, W.K., 2014. 2D and 3D prestack seismic data regu-
Neidell, N.S. & Taner, M.T., 1971. Semblance and other coherency measures larization using an accelerated sparse time-invariant Radon transform,
for multichannel data, Geophysics, 36, 482–497. Geophysics, 79, V165–V177.
Oropeza, V. E. & Sacchi, M.D., 2011. Simultaneous seismic data de-noising Zwartjes, P.M. & Sacchi, M.D., 2007. Fourier reconstruction of
and reconstruction via multichannel singular spectrum analysis, Geo- nonuniformly sampled, aliased seismic data, Geophysics, 72,
physics, 76, V25–V32. V21–V32.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017
5-D interpolation with wave-front attributes 941

APPENDIX hy, n = 1350 m. In the simple 3-D data, we set hx, 0 = 800 m, hy, 0 =
50 m, hx, n = 1000 m, hy, n = 50 m. The 3-D SEG data has a small
A1 3-D CRS offset apertures half offset in the x direction, up to 140 m, and the simple 3-D data
has a small half offset in the y direction, up to 50 m.
Fig. 1(b) shows an offset aperture of the 3-D CRS stacking used
in this work. The parameters hx, 0 and hy, 0 are the semi-major and
semi-minor axes of the top ellipse, where a selection of the location
(cutting through a sample) and the size of the top ellipse depends A2 3-D partial CRS offset apertures
on the used data. In practice, the observed seismic events from the The 3-D partial CRS stacking apertures for the offset are determined
top to the bottom in the offset dimension are constrained within as:
the top and the bottom ellipses initially, then different candidate
apertures are probed until the one with the possible best perfor- px,i = b + i ∗ (d − b)/n, (A3)
mance is found. The location and size of the bottom ellipse is de-
fined in the same way. In this case, the semi-major and semi-minor p y,i = a + i ∗ (c − a)/n, (A4)
axes of any ellipse cutting through a sample on the ZO trace are where a, b, c and d are estimated by applying different possible
computed by
apertures and keeping the one with the best image quality. In the
h x,i = h x,0 + i ∗ (h x,n − h x,0 )/n, (A1) 3-D SEG data, we set a = c = 400 m, b = d = 100 m. So for all
samples, we have px, i = 100 m, py, i = 400 m. Similarly, we set
h y,i = h y,0 + i ∗ (h y,n − h y,0 )/n, (A2) a = c = 50 m, b = d = 500 m in the simple 3-D data case. One
may note that the offset apertures are used to cut the tested data
where hx, n and hy, n are the semi-major and semi-minor axes of the from the original data. The observed seismic events are included in
bottom ellipse, and n is the maximum number of ZO samples. In the apertures as long as the apertures are large than the maximum
the 3-D SEG data, we set hx, 0 = 140 m, hy, 0 = 800 m, hx, n = 140 m, length of the seismic events in the horizontal direction.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/211/2/919/4060700/5-D-interpolation-with-wave-front-attributes


by Bibliothekssystem Universitaet Hamburg user
on 15 September 2017 stats
View publication