4.6 Article

Rock-physics constrained seismic anisotropy parameter estimation

期刊

GEOPHYSICS
卷 86, 期 4, 页码 MR247-MR253

出版社

SOC EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICISTS
DOI: 10.1190/GEO2019-0153.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Compared with isotropic media, transversely isotropic media in P-wave seismic data processing and interpretation involve at least two extra parameters. Previous studies have shown the challenges in estimating anisotropy parameters even with low noise level seismic data. Considering the physical relationships between anisotropy parameters can improve the accuracy of estimates during the inversion process.
Compared with isotropic media, at least two extra parameters are involved in common P-wave seismic data processing and interpretation for transversely isotropic media. Previous synthetic model testing has shown that it is challenging to estimate anisotropy parameters even using extremely low noise level seismic data from a simple geologic setting. Although theoretically independent, anisotropy parameters are not free variables for organic-rich mudrocks whose elastic properties are often approximated by transverse isotropy. One potential approach to improve the accuracy in the estimated anisotropy parameters is to consider the physical relationships between them during the inversion process. To test this proposition, we first modify a commonly used nonhyperbolic reflection moveout equation as a function of the interval anisotropy velocities so that rock-physics constraints could be effectively applied to each layer. The rock physics constraints are established from data analysis of selected laboratory anisotropy measurement data. The laboratory data are then used to parameterize hundreds of 15-layer transverse isotropy models using a Monte Carlo simulation. The synthetic model testing indicates that the accuracy of the estimated anisotropy parameters can be improved if the relationships between the anisotropy parameters are considered during the inversion process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据