An Outlook On The Future of Seismic Imaging, Part I - Berkout

Geophysical Prospecting, 2014, 62, 911930
doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12161
Review Paper: An outlook on the future of seismic imaging, Part I:

forward and reverse modelling
A.J. (Guus) Berkhout
Delft University of Technology, CiTG, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands
Received November 2013, revision accepted April 2014
ABSTRACT
The next generation of seismic imaging algorithms will use full wavefield migration,
which regards multiple scattering as indispensable information. These algorithms
will also include autonomous velocity-updating in the migration process, called joint
migration inversion. Full wavefield migration and joint migration inversion address
industrial requirements to improve the images of highly complex reservoirs as well as
the industrial ambition to produce these images more automatically (automation in
seismic processing).
In these vision papers on seismic imaging, full wavefield migration and joint migration inversion are formulated in terms of a closed-loop, estimation algorithm that
can be physically explained by an iterative double-focusing process (full wavefield
Common Focus Point technology). A critical module in this formulation is forward
modelling, allowing feedback from the migrated output to the unmigrated input
(closing the loop). For this purpose, a full wavefield modelling module has been
developed, which uses an operator description of complex geology. Full wavefield
modelling is pre-eminently suited to function in the feedback path of a closed-loop
migration algorithm.
The Future of Seismic Imaging is presented as a coherent trilogy of papers that
propose the migration framework of the future. In Part I, the theory of full wavefield
modelling is explained, showing the fundamental distinction with the finite-difference
approach. Full wavefield modelling allows the computation of complex shot records
without the specification of velocity and density models. Instead, an operator description of the subsurface is used. The capability of full wavefield modelling is illustrated
with examples. Finally, the theory of full wavefield modelling is extended to full wavefield reverse modelling (FWMod1 ), which allows accurate estimation of (blended)
source properties from (blended) shot records.
INTRODUCTION
In standard migration practice, we have little information
about the inconsistency between output and input: migration
is implemented as an open-loop process. In particular, if we
want to use the information in multiple scattering, a simple
open-loop approach is no longer acceptable. By taking the
open-loop seismic image as the input in a forward modelling
algorithm, we are able to close the loop in migration, so that
we generate numerically simulated measurements in the feed E-mail:

C
back path. Next, iterative minimization of the difference between simulated and real measurements allows us to optimize
the seismic image (see the basic diagram in Fig. 1). Multiples
are an integral part of this process. As I will explain later,
multiples are a blended wavefield phenomenon, the blended
sources being natural. Full wavefield migration (FWM), therefore, is also the obvious solution to migrate manmade blended
shot records.
In closed-loop FWM, forward modelling is a critical process. Errors in the modelling result must be avoided because
they are transferred to errors in the residue (i.e., the difference
a.j.berkhout@tudelft.nl
2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
911
912 A.J. (Guus) Berkhout
Figure 1 Migration is formulated as a closed-loop process, so that output and input are connected via a feedback loop with a forward modelling
module that transforms subsurface reflectivities into simulated measurements. The residue steers the next iteration.
Figure 2 Wavefields in the same subsurface, but with two fundamentally different descriptions. Although the operator description is different
from the property description, FWMod modelling and FinDif modelling generate the same wavefields. In closed-loop migration, the FinDifrelated property description must be replaced by the FWMod-related operator description.
between measured and simulated data), and therefore, errors may be introduced in the migration output. Today,
finite-difference modelling yields excellent results, but the
subsurface must be described in terms of detailed elastic properties (Moczo et al. 2007). Such a description is outside the
migration framework and, therefore, should not be used at
this stage of seismic processing. In this seismic trilogy on the
future of migration, the usual property description of the subsurface in terms of a detailed velocity and density model is
replaced by an alternative description that makes use of local propagation and scattering operators. The consequence
is that property-driven modelling (in which the algorithm is
based on a differential equation for seismic wavefields) can

C
be replaced by a new type of operator-driven modelling (in

which the algorithm is based on an integral equation for seismic wavefields). Figure 2 illustrates this with an example: the
subsurface is described in terms of local operators (a) and in
terms of properties (b).
Figure 2(a) shows the full wavefield forward modelling
(FWMod) result (using the operator description as input),
Fig. 2(b) shows the FinDif output (using the property description as input), and Fig. 2(c) shows the difference. As expected,
both modelling methods generate the same response (differences are the subject of current research), but the detailed
velocitydensity description of the subsurface is not suitable
for closed-loop migration. To move to the next generation
2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 62, 911930
An outlook on the future of seismic imaging, Part I 913
of migration algorithms, it is critical that we abandon the

traditional thinking about the role of velocity models. I will
show that accurate depth migration can be achieved without
the specification of accurate velocity information. In fact, the
more complex the geology for instance, deep reservoirs below a strongly inhomogeneous and anisotropic overburden
the more doubtful it is that our traditional concepts can be
used to implement migration velocity estimation outside the
migration loop.
In this seismic imaging trilogy, the author gives a review of his work on the future of migration. In the present
paper (Part I of this migration trilogy), I derive the theory
of FWMod by extending the Huygens principle. The theoretical results are illustrated with examples. Next, the theory of FWMod is extended to full wavefield reverse modelling (FWMod1 ), allowing iterative estimation of unknown
source properties. In the second paper (Part II), I will show
how primary wavefield migration (PWM) can be extended to
FWM, including both surface multiples and internal multiples. Finally, in the third paper (Part III), I will explain how
joint migration inversion (JMI) can create accurate depth
images without specifying the migration velocity model. In
JMI, anisotropic velocities and inelastic absorption coefficients are not specified by the user, but they are seen as
image attributes and are therefore part of the migration
output.
FORWARD MODEL FOR PRIMARY
WAVEFIELD MIGRATION
In PWM, first-order reflections only are addressed (primaries), and events with multiple bounces are considered as
shot-generated noise, so that the forward model is linear in
terms of reflectivity. Using the operator notation in the temporal frequency domain (Berkhout 1982), the discrete linear
wavefield model for PWM can be summarized by the following two monochromatic expressions for PP-reflections (see
Fig. 3):
a. for the downgoing incident wavefields (m = 1, 2, . . . , M):
j+ (zm; z0 ) = W+ (zm, z0 ) S +j (z0 ) ;
P
(1a)
b. for the upgoing reflected wavefields (m = 0, 1, . . . , M

1):
j (zm; z0 ) =
P
M
j+ (zn ; z0 ).
W (zm, zn ) R (zn , zn ) P
(1b)
n=m+1
Vector-matrix equations (1a) and (1b) formulate the simplest version of the discrete scattering integral (first-order
WRW-model). In equations (1a) and (1b), the elements of

C
Figure 3 In primary wavefield migration, there is no gridpoint interaction, so that i) scattering is upward only (no multiples) and ii)
propagating wavefields are not influenced by the scattering process
(no transmission effects). Because of these simplifications, the scattered wavefields are discontinuous in primary wavefield migration,
leading to artefacts in the seismic image.
vector S +j (z0 ) represent the (blended) source array with identification label j at the surface z0 , matrix W+ (zm, z0 ) represents the downward propagation operator between depth
levels z0 and zm, matrix R (zn , zn ) represents the angledependent reflection operator at zn (operator R (zn , zn ) trans j+ (zn ; z0 ) into upgoing wavefield
forms downgoing wavefield P
j+ (zn ; z0 ) by an elastic reflection process), and maR (zn , zn ) P
trix W (zm, zn ) represents the upward propagation operator

between depth levels zn and zm (n>m).
Looking at the wavefields in a single gridpoint, the architecture of the above operator notation can be further explained: scalar Pkj+ (zn ; z0 ) represents the downgoing wavefield
incident to gridpoint k at depth level zn (where zn = zn ) that
was generated by source array j at depth level z0 , and scalar
kj (zn ; z0 ) represents the upgoing wavefield incident to gridP
point k at depth level zn (where zn = zn+ ) that was generated
by source array j at depth level z0 . Note that source vector
S +j (z0 ) includes the influence of the stress-free surface at z0 .
Of course, expressions (1a) and (1b) may be extended by including man-made sources at any depth level (zs ).
Finally, in forward model equations (1a) and (1b), the
propagation matrices W can be represented by a recursive
expression (Berkhout 1982):
W (z0 , zm) =
m

W zn1 , zn and
(1c)

W+ zn , zn1 ,
(1d)
n=1
W+ (zm, z0 ) =
1

n=m

where the columns of W zn1 , zn and W+ zn , zn1 are determined by the local velocities.
Including transmission operators

A fundamental shortcoming of the PWM model is that the
primary wavefields are discontinuous at the reflectors: the total wavefield just above a reflecting depth level is given by
j+ (zn ; z0 ) + R (zn , zn ) P
j+ (zn ; z0 ), which is
the composition P
the superposition of the incoming and reflected wavefield,
whereas the total wavefield below this reflecting depth level
j+ (zn ; z0 ). This
is assumed to be the incident wavefield only, P
violation of wavefield continuity can be repaired by multiplying the transmitted wavefield by the transmission operator

I + T+ (zn , zn ) , where T+ (zn , zn ) = R (zn , zn ). Similarly,
the total wavefield just below a reflecting depth level is given
j (zn ; z0 ), which is the superposi j (zn ; z0 ) + R (zn , zn ) P
by P
tion of the incoming and reflected wavefield, whereas the total
wavefield above this reflecting depth level is assumed to be the
j (zn ; z0 ). Hence, for an upwardincident wavefield only, P
travelling wavefield, the continuity property is guaranteed

by introducing the transmission operator I + T (zn , zn ) ,
where T (zn , zn ) = R (zn , zn ). Note that R (zn , zn ) represents the reflection operator at zn that transforms the up j (zn ; z0 ) into the downgoing wavefield
going wavefield P
j (zn ; z0 ). We will see that R (zn , zn ) =
at zn : R (zn , zn ) P
R (zn , zn ) if we neglect wave conversion, meaning that we

assume a small shear contrast at zn .
If we include these transmission operators in the definition of the recursive propagation operators, then the primary forward modelling equations (1a) and (1b) can be updated to the model of PP-reflections that do obey wavefield
continuity:
a. for the downgoing incident wavefields (m = 1, 2, . . . , M):
j+ (zm; z0 ) = W+ (zm, z0 ) S +j (z0 ) ;
P
(2a)
b. for the upgoing reflected wavefields (m = 0, 1, . . . , M

1):
j (zm; z0 ) =
P
M
j+ (zn ; z0 ),
(2b)
n=m+1
Compare expressions (3a) and (3b) with expressions (1c)

and (1d): hybrid operators W represent a mixture of propagation (W ) and transmission (T ) effects. In the following,
we will see that the inclusion of transmission effects in the
propagation operators (from W to W ) is not the appropriate approach to take. We will aim at a strict separation of
propagation and scattering.
Including surface-related multiples

If we want to include the strong surface-related multiples in
the primary forward model, then equation (2a) must be extended to (see also Fig. 4):
+j (z0 ; z0 ) ,
j+ (zm; z0 ) = W+ (zm, z0 ) Q
P
(4a)
with
j (z0 ; z0 ) ,
+j (z0 ; z0 ) = S +j (z0 ) + R (z0 , z0 ) P
Q
(4b)
where matrix R (z0 , z0 ) is the reflectivity operator at the sur j (z0 ; z0 ) into downface that transforms upgoing wavefield P

going wavefield R (z0 , z0 ) P j (z0 ; z0 ).
Using equations (4a) and (4b) , the following family of
extended forward models for PWM can be formulated:
a. for the total response (primaries + surface multiples):
+j (z0 ; z0 ) ;
j (z0 , z0 ) = X0 (z0 , z0 ) Q
P
(5a)
b. for the primaries only:

0,j (z0 ; z0 ) = X0 (z0 , z0 ) S +j (z0 ) ;
P
(5b)
c. for the surface multiples only:

0,
M
j (z0 ; z0 ) = X0 (z0 , z0 ) R (z0 , z0 ) P j (z0 ; z0 ) .
(5c)
In expressions (5a)(5c), transfer operator X0 has been

approximated by
X0 (z0 , z0 ) =
M
W (z0 , zm) R (zm, zm) W+ (zm, z0 ),
(6a)
m=1
where the expressions for the hybrid propagation operators

are given by
W (z0 , zm) = W (z0 , z1 )
m1
I + T (zn , zn )
n=1
W (zn , zn+1 )
(3a)
and
1

I + T+ (zn , zn )
W+ (zm, z0 ) = W+ zm, zm1
+
n=m1
zn , zn1 .
(3b)

C
which is the WRW-model without transmission effects and

without internal multiples. If we include transmission effects,
equation (6a) must be updated to
X0 (z0 , z0 ) =
M
W (z0 , zm) R (zm, zm) W+ (zm, z0 ).
(6b)
m=1
Comparing equations (5b) and (5c), we can easily verify

that surface multiples can be migrated by an extended version of the PWM algorithm (Berkhout and Verschuur 1994;
Verschuur and Berkhout 2011; Lu et al. 2011). The recipe is
and Q
+ ) at the surface z0 . In primary wavefield migration, it
Figure 4 The feedback model, showing the up- and downgoing wavefields ( P
j
j
+ = S + . Additionally, for linearization purposes,
is assumed that the surface-related multiples have been removed from the input, so that Q
j
j
internal multiples are neglected.
simple: replace downgoing source wavefield S +j (z0 ) by down j (z0 ; z0 ), and replace
going reflected wavefield R (z0 , z0 ) P

primary response P0, j (z0 ; z0 ) by surface multiple response
0,
M
j (z0 ; z0 ) .
Importantly, in surface multiple migration, the source
wavelet does not need to be known: both input and output are
given by the measured data (compare equations (5b) and (5c)).
In Part II, it will be shown that FWM can be used to migrate
primaries, surface multiples as well as internal multiples. This
all multiple option in migration demonstrates the problems
with traditional approaches in making large investments to
removing multiples. In fact, as will be explained in Part III,
the best primarymultiple separation is achieved by the full
wavefield migration algorithm.
FORWARD MODEL FOR FULL WAVEFIELD

MIGRATION
Using the operator formulation of seismic wave theory, the
forward model for PWM can be easily extended to the forward model for FWM, leading to the following vector-matrix
expressions for the total PP-response (see Fig. 5):
a. for the downgoing wavefields (m = 1, 2, . . . , M):
Figure 5 In full wavefield migration, reflective gridpoints scatter both

upward and downward, causing full gridpoint interaction. This means
that the propagating wavefields are modified by the two-way scattering process at each gridpoint. In full wavefield migration, all wavefields are continuous.
j+ (zm; z0 ) = W+ (zm, z0 ) S +j (z0 )

P
+
m1
j (zn ; z0 );
W+ (zm, zn ) R (zn , zn ) P
(7a)
n=0
b. for the upgoing wavefields (m = 0, 1, . . . , M 1):

j (zM ; z0 )
j (zm; z0 ) = W (zm, zM ) P
P
+
M
j+ (zn ; z0 ),
n=m+1

C
(7b)
where the hybrid propagation operators W include the transmission effects; see recursive expressions (3a) and (3b). By
comparing full wavefield model equations (7a) and (7b) with
primary model equations (2a) and (2b), we see the addition
of a second term in each equation.
The second term in expression (7a) has large consequences: it introduces at each depth level an extra reflection
process (quantified by reflection operator R ), which generates the surface (n = 0) and the internal multiples (n > 0). The
first term in expression (7b) includes the response of the lower
half-space z > zM . If in (7b) we choose m = 0, then we obtain
the upgoing wavefield in the reflection measurements at z0 . If
in (7a) we choose m = M, then we obtain the downgoing
wavefield in the transmission measurements at zM .
In the following, we will not make use of full wavefield
equations (7a) and (7b). Instead, we will take the transmission
operators [I + T ] outside the hybrid propagation operators W , and we assign to T+ and T the role of forward
scattering operators (compare these with backward scattering operators R and R ). By doing this, we reintroduce in
our full wavefield model the scatter-free propagation operators W (expressions (1c) and (1d)), and we use both T+ ,
T and R , R as scattering operators. This leads to the preferred scattering formulation that will be the basis of all full
wavefield algorithms in Part II and Part III (Berkhout 2012):
a. for the downgoing wavefields (m = 1, 2, . . . , M):

+
j+ zm
; z0 = W+ zm
, z0 S j (z0 )
P
+
m1
+ + +
W+ zm
, zn S j zn ; z0 ;
(8a)
+
zm
; z0
= W
+
+
zm
, zM
M
j
P
(9a)
and

+
j zn ; z0
S +j zn+ ; z0 = R zn+ , zn+ P

+
j zn ; z0 ,
+ T+ zn+ , zn P
(9b)
where S +j = S j and T = R , T+ = R if we can neglect wave conversion at zn . Equations (9a) and (9b) represent
the combined reflection (first term) and transmission process
(second term) at depth level zn (see Fig. 6).
We will see that the proposed scattering formulation of
the FWMod equations (8a) and (8b) (in which propagation
operators W are free of scattering, and scattering operators
(T, R) are free of propagation) is critical to migrate accurately the seismic response from complex geology. Later in
this paper, it will be shown that equations (8a) and (8b) can
be easily extended to the multi-mode situation, so that both
P- and S-waves are simultaneously taken into account to complement the PP-image with the SP-, PS-, and SS-images (from
one to four subsurface images). Again, in this multi-mode situation, propagation will be scatter-free, and scattering will be
propagation-free.

k+ zm, zm1 Pkj+ zm1 ; z0
W
(zM ; z0 )

+

k+ zm, zm1 Skj
zm1 ; z0 .
W
(10a)
+
W zm
, zn S j zn ; z0 ,
(8b)
n=m+1
where vectors S j represent the two-way secondary sources

in the inhomogeneous gridpoints at depth level zn (generating the physical or A-scattering), and matrices W define
the scatter-free wavefield propagation operators between two
depth levels (see expressions (1c) and (1d)). Equations (8a) and
(8b) formulate the full wavefield version of the WRW-model,
describing the two-way scattering process of one-way wavefields. In (8a) and (8b), the secondary source vectors S j are

C
Based on full wavefield forward model equation (8a), we can

write
j+ (zm; z0 ) =
P
b. for the upgoing wavefields (m = 0, 1, . . . , M 1):

+
j zn ; z0
S j zn ; z0 = R zn , zn P

+
j zn ; z0
+ T zn , zn+ P
Extension of the Huygens principle
n=0
j
P
given by a weighted superposition of the up- and downgoing

incident wavefields (see also Appendix A):
In equation (10a), the first term describes wave propagation according to the classical Huygens principle. In gridpoint
k at depth level zm1 , wavefield sample Pkj+ acts as a one-way
secondary point source. Its wavefield is propagated by oper k+ to depth level zm. Similarly, in the second term of
ator W
+
equation (10a), wavefield sample Skj
also acts as a one-way
+
as an extended
secondary point source. I will refer to Skj
Huygens source. Both Huygens sources radiate downward.
For a homogeneous gridpoint, the extended Huygens source
is zero. Using full wavefield forward model equation (8b), we
can write
Figure 6 The elastic PP-scattering process at gridpoint k, showing the scattered wavefields S
j in full wavefield migration. Note that in primary
wavefield migration, the reflection operator R is set to zero (no multiples) and the transmission operators T are deleted (transmission effects
are ignored).
j (zm; z0 ) =
P

k zm, zm+1 Pkj zm+1 ; z0
W
and

+ + +
k zn , zn Pkj zn ; z0
S +j zn+ ; z0 =
R

k zm, zm+1 Skj
zm+1 ; z0 .
W
(10b)

+ Tk+ zn+ , zn Pkj+ zn ; z0 ,
(10d)
(downward radiating, see equation (9b))

Pkj
functions
Again, in the first term, wavefield sample
as a secondary point source according to the classical Huy
represents an extended
gens principle; the second term Skj
Huygens source. Both Huygens sources radiate upward.
The extended Huygens source is zero for a homogeneous
gridpoint.
In Part II, we will see that the extended Huygens sources
can be found in the CFP-gathers, each of which is obtained by
full wavefield focusing at detection. By a minimization process on the CFP-gathers, the Huygens sources are transformed
into the scattering operators, which represent full wavefield
focusing at emission.
Wavefield propagation as a natural blending process

The secondary source vectors S j can be interpreted as dual
blended source arrays at each depth level (the blending code
being natural):

+
k zn , zn Pkj zn ; z0
R
S j zn ; z0 =
k

+ Tk zn , zn+ Pkj zn+ ; z0
(upward radiating, see equation (9a))

C
(10c)
k ) represent the uncoded upward ra k , T

where vectors ( R
diating source elements of the blended array at zn , vectors
k+ ) represent the uncoded downward-radiating source
k , T
(R
elements of the blended array at zn+ , and scalars (Pkj+ , Pkj )
function as natural blending codes at gridpoint k.
The blending codes (Pkj+ , Pkj ) are, respectively, the downgoing and upgoing incident wavefield at gridpoint k; un k ) are the kth column of
k , R
coded source elements ( R
reflectivity matrices R and R , respectively (representing

angle-dependent backscattering at gridpoint k); and uncoded
k+ ) are the kth column of differenk , T
source elements ( T
tial transmissivity matrices T and T+ , respectively (representing angle-dependent forward scattering at gridpoint k).
The blended arrays have the unique property that S +j S j ,
k+ R
k , T
k R
k , and R
k R
k for small offsets
T
and/or low shear contrasts. To illustrate this for reflectivity,
Fig. 7 clearly shows that offset and shear contrast determine
k .
k and R
the difference between R
If we combine this interpretation of the secondary source
arrays with equation (8b), we can conclude that seismic shot
records consist of blended wavefields, in which the blending
process is natural: blended source array S j consists of coded
source elements at each subsurface gridpoint, and shot record
j (z0 ; z0 ) is the superposition of the responses of all these
P
(a)
(b)
+1000
lateral position (m)
-1000
Cp=2500
Cs=0.000
=2300
Cp =2500
Cs =1500
=2300
Rk
Rk
amplitude
amplitude
Rk
Rk
Rk
Rk
Rk
Rk
(d)
-1000
Rk
ray parameter (s/m)
Rk
Rk
amplitude
amplitude
Rk
Rk
Cp=2500
Cs=1500
=2300
Rk
Rk
+1000
Cp=2000
Cs= 800
=1800
depth (m)
depth (m)
Cp=2500
Cs=1500
=2300
Rk
-1000
+1000
Cp =2000
Cs =1200
=1800
Rk
Rk
ray parameter (s/m)
ray parameter (s/m)
(c)
Rk
Rk
Rk
+1000
Cp =2000
Cs =1500
=1800
depth (m)
depth (m)
Cp =2000
Cs =0.000
=1800
-1000
Rk
Rk
Rk
ray parameter (s/m)
Figure 7 The difference between reflectivity matrices R and R at one reflector gridpoint. For small offsets and small shear contrasts,
R R , but for large shear contrasts and/or large offsets, the difference becomes significant. As expected, around the critical angle, the
difference is always large.
coded source elements, measured at the surface (z0 ). We will

refer to the response of one coded source element of array
S j as the gridpoint response (GPR), and we will refer to
the superposition process of all GPRs as the natural blending
process for reflection measurements.

C
Similarly, if we combine the interpretation of the secondary source arrays with equation (8a), we can conclude
that seismic shot records at zM consist of blended wavefields, in which the blending is natural: blended source array S +j consists of coded source elements at each subsurface
j+ (zM ; z0 ) is the superposition of

gridpoint, and shot record P
the responses of all these source elements, measured at zM .
Again, we will refer to the response of one coded source element of array S +j as the GPR and to the superposition process
of all GPRs as the natural blending process for transmission
measurements.
The natural blending property of seismic data is illustrated in Fig. 8 for one reflecting boundary. Interestingly, the
more irregular the reflector, the more the individual GPRs
are visible as a separate phenomenon. In reflector-based ray
theory, this property is an awkward complication, but for
the proposed gridpoint-related wave theory, this causes no
extra complication. Note that perfect spatial sampling of
the subsurface depends on the aliasing criterion. For efficiency reasons, this may lead to an algorithm in the temporal frequency domain with a frequency-dependent spatial
grid.
FULL WAVEFIELD MODELLING IN FULL

WAVEFIELD MIGRATION
If we make the forward model recursive in depth, expressions (8a) and (8b) can be rewritten in terms of adding
a source term, followed by wavefield extrapolation (see
Fig. 9):
a. for the downgoing wavefields (m = 1, 2, . . . .., M):
+

+

j+ zm1
+j zm1
; z0 = P
; z0 + S +j zm1
; z0
1. Q

+
j
2. P
zm
; z0
+ + +

j zm1 ; z0
= W+ zm
, zm1 Q
(11a)
j = X0 S +j + X0 R P
j at z0 .
P

+

j zm+1
j zm+1
; z0 = P
; z0 + S j zm+1
; z0
1. Q
(12a)
+
+

j zm+1 ; z0 ,
j zm
; z0 = W zm
, zm+1 Q
2. P
(12b)
where S j and S +j are given by equations (9a) and

(9b), respectively. At the acquisition surface, we can write
j (z0+ ; z0 ).
j+ (z0 , z0 ) = S +j (z0 ) and S +j (z0+ ; z0 ) = R (z0+ , z0+ ) P
P
Note that at the last boundary, the response from half j (zM ; z0 ), is given or assumed to be zero, and
space z > zM , P
+
j (zM ; z0 ) is the downgoing wavefield that illuminates halfP
space z zM . Based on equations (11a) and (12a), for the
total wavefield, which is the sum of up and down, at zm (m =
1, 2, . . . , M), we can write:
+
+

+j zm
j zm
j zm
j+ zm
Q
, z0 + P
, z0 = Q
, z0 + P
, z0 , (13)
(14a)
Application of the first roundtrip in FWMod involves

multiplication by a first estimate of X0 , giving the primaries
only:

(11b)
b. for the upgoing wavefields (m = M 1, M 2, . . . .., 0):

C
which confirms the continuity of the PP-wavefields for the

situation of negligible wave conversion at zm. Note that in the
all-elastic case (wavefields represent both P and S), expression
(13) is valid for all situations.
Figure 10 shows a computational diagram of FWMod, which consists of a recursive downward extrapolation process (right-hand side, increasing m), according to
equations (11a) and (11b), and a recursive upward extrapolation process (left-hand side, decreasing m), according to full wavefield equations (12a) and (12b). Note
that each roundtrip adds one order of two-way scattering
to the modelling result, starting with order 1 (primaries
only).
Physically, one roundtrip of the FWMod process can
be described by an increase of the scattering order in re j of one, so that after a roundtrip, the (blended)
sponse P
source vectors are transformed into an estimate of the firstorder response (primaries), the first-order response is transformed into an estimate of the second-order response, and
so on.
This can be easily illustrated by using the feedback model
at z0 (Fig. 4):
j
P
(1)
(1) +
= X0
S j at z0
(14b)
and application of the second roundtrip:

j
P
(2)
X0
(2)
(1)
(2)
j
at z0 ,
S +j + X0 R P
(14c)
adding the first-order multiples, and so on. The end result

yields a full wavefield response that is fully consistent with
the source vector and the subsurface properties.
Examples of full wavefield modelling in the feedback path of

full wavefield migration
An example of the forward modelling module FWMod is
shown in Fig. 11. In practice, FWMod is active in the feedback
path of FWM, so that the reflectivities are provided by FWM.
After each roundtrip, one extra order of scattering is generated. By showing the difference, the extra data is visualized to
be used in the next iteration of FWM. We will see that this
Figure 8 Illustration of the forward modelling concept in full wavefield migration and joint migration inversion, showing that the response of
a single reflector represents an interference pattern of gridpoint responses, where each gridpoint response is generated by one coded secondary
P + ). Note that the directivity of this source element is given by the angle-dependent reflection property in gridpoint k.
source element ( R
k kj
is an essential property of FWM: during the iteration process,

internal multiples help the migration algorithm to converge
to the correct minimum. Using full wavefield technology, we
expect that multiple-rich areas will provide better images than
multiple-poor areas: the more multiple scattering in the data,
the more information is available about the reflecting boundaries and, therefore, the better the FWM results. This is particularly true for deep reservoirs with complex overburdens.
In those situations, the reservoir may be situated in a pri-

C
mary shadow zone, so that multiples provide the only useful

illumination.
Hierarchical full wavefield modelling in full wavefield

migration
The mass interference of events in seismic data is a fundamental problem in high-resolution seismic imaging and is known
as internal crosstalk. The assumption of sparsity will not
Figure 9 Forward extrapolation of the upgoing wavefields (a) and the downgoing wavefields (b) in depth layer (zm1 , zm), where S
j is the
physical scattering at the layer boundaries, and the columns of W are the local propagation operators inside the layer.
Figure 10 Computational diagram for the full wavefield modelling algorithm FWMod, which transforms scattering operators into full wavefields.
Each roundtrip adds one order of scattering, starting with order 1 (primaries only).
provide a desirable solution, because sparsity does not represent the property of a real Earth. Dynamic thresholding in
FWMod is an interesting approach to dealing with crosstalk
in FWM and JMI without making any assumption on a
sparse end result. By using an automatic thresholding process
on the reflectivities, we can obtain a first iteration that shows
the primary GPRs with only the largest reflectivities. In the
next iterations, the threshold is lowered step-by-step, so

C
that new primary responses are included and a higher order

of multiple scattering is generated by the gridpoints from
the previous iterations, and so on. In the final iteration,
the smallest reflectivities are taken into account. I call this
hierarchical forward modelling. Figure 12 illustrates the
hierarchical version of FWMod with an example.
The hierarchical FWMod example shows that, in each
roundtrip, new primaries are included and a new order of
Figure 11 Example of full wavefield modelling (FWMod). In each roundtrip, a new order of multiple scattering is generated. This extra data is
used in the next full wavefield migration (and joint migration inversion) iteration, helping to steer the solution to the correct minimum.
multiples is generated. Hence, the strongest reflectors automatically generate the highest-order multiples. Note the interesting property of the hierarchical modelling strategy: the
strongest GPRs, together with their surface and internal multiples, automatically have priority in the migration process. In

C
FWM and JMI, their responses are subtracted before estimating the weaker ones, and so on. This strategy acts as a type
of L1 constraint in L2-minimization (Daubechies, Defrise and
de Mol 2004). However, hierarchical FWMod brings parameter selection outside the constrained L2-minimization box,
Figure 12 Example of hierarchical full wavefield modelling. In each roundtrip, new primaries are included, and a new order of multiple scattering
is generated (compare with Fig. 11). Note that response 1 is not shown (which is only the shallowest reflection).
Figure 13 The coda of a reflective overburden is seriously masking the reservoir response. A hierarchical imaging strategy in full wavefield
migration (and joint migration inversion) solves this problem.
giving the user full control, and any smart selection process
can then be implemented. For instance, in addition to reflector
strength, priority may also be given to shallow versus deep.
This is of particular importance if we are dealing with a highly
reflective overburden, which causes a strong coda on top of

C
the deeper response. Figure 13 illustrates this notorious problem. The example shows that the response of the reservoir
is completely masked by the coda of the overburden. By giving higher priority to the strong reflectors of the overburden,
the crosstalk between the overburden coda and the reservoir
response is removed prior to migrating the deeper part. For

deep reservoirs, this is the appropriate approach to take.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REVERSE

MODELLING ALGORITHM
In FWMod, the source vectors ( S +j for each j), propagation operators (W , W+ ), and scattering operators (R, T) are given,
j for each j) must be computed
and seismic measurements ( P
(measurement simulation process). The process is iterative and
consists of several roundtrips, starting at the source positions
and ending at the detector locations. In full wavefield reverse
modelling (FWMod1 ), it is the other way around: measurements are provided, and the source vectors must be computed
(source estimation process). This process is similarly iterative,
consisting of several roundtrips, but in this case, it starts at
the receiver locations and ends at the source positions. In
each roundtrip, the updated source wavefield is used to steer
the estimation process. Finally, the end result yields the source
vector S +j that explains all primaries and multiples in the mea j for each j in the data volume.
surement vector P
Reverse modelling equations
We start by considering the nonrecursive forward model for
the upgoing wavefield at the surface z0 (see equation (8b)):

+ +
j zm; z0
j z0+ ; z0 = W z0+ , zm
I zm, zm P
P
+
m

W z0+ , zn S j zn ; z0 ,
(15a)
n=1
+
j zm
where I is the unity matrix and P
; z0 is the response
of the lower half-space (z > zm). From a physics point of
view, this equation describes forward propagation as a massive upward-moving defocusing process at the detector side,
starting at depth level zm and ending at the surface z0 (m = 1,
2, . . . , M). If we multiply equation (15a) by scatter-free focal
+ + +
, z0 = W zm, z0 , then we can write:
operator F+ zm
+
+ + + +
j z0 ; z0
j zm
; z0 = I zm
, zm F zm, z0 P
P
m
+
F+ zm
, zn S j zn ; z0 ,
(15b)
n=1

j z0+ ; z0 is known. Expression (15b) shows that rewhere P
verse modelling is a massive downward-moving focusing process at the detector side, starting at the surface z0 and ending
at depth level zm (m = 1, 2, . . . , M). Note that the summation

C
removes the transmission effects and the multiple scattering

from the response.
Similarly, the nonrecursive forward model of the downgoing wavefield at maximum depth level zM (see equation
(8a)) is given by

+ +
+
j zm; z0
j+ zM ; z0 = W+ zM , zm
I zm, zm P
P
+
M1

W+ zM , zn+ S +j zn+ ; z0 .
(16a)
n=m
Again, from a physics point of view, this equation describes forward propagation as a massive downward-moving
defocusing process, now at the source side, starting at depth
level zm and ending at zM (m = M 1, M 2, . . . , 0).
If we multiply equation (16a) by scatter-free focal operator
+ +
, zM = W zm, zM , then we can write (m = M 1,
F zm
M 2, . . . , 0):

+ + +

j zM ; z0
j+ zm
; z0 = I zm
, zm F zm, zM P
P
M1
+ + +
F zm
, zn S j zn ; z0 ,
(16b)
n=m

j+ zM ; z0 is known. Expression (16b) shows again
where P
that reverse modelling is a massive focusing process, now at
the source side and moving upward, starting at maximum
depth level zM and ending at depth level zm; compare this with
(15b). Note that when we turn around at zM , the starting

j+ zM ; z0 , and when we turn around
wavefield is given by P

j z0+ ; z0 . The next
at z0 , the starting wavefield is again P
roundtrip makes use of improved estimates of the secondary
sources S j at each depth level zm (similar to FWMod) and

j+ z0 ; z0 .
source vector S +j (z0 ) = P
If we compare equation (15a) with (15b) and (16a) with
(16b), we see that the full wavefield forward modelling process
in each roundtrip of FWMod is replaced by the full wavefield
reverse modelling process in FWMod1 : application of W
followed by addition is replaced by application of F = W
followed by subtraction. Figure 14 shows the computational
diagram of FWMod1 (the combination of focusing and removal processes at the detector and source side as described in
equations (15b) and (16b), respectively). Similar to FWMod,
the algorithm is recursive (compare Fig. 14 with Fig. 10, see
also Appendix B).
Physically, one roundtrip of the FWMod1 process can be
j by one,
described by a decrease of the scattering order in P
so that after a roundtrip, the first-order response (primaries)
is transformed into an estimate of the (blended) source,
the second-order response is transformed into the first-order
Figure 14 Computational diagram for the full wavefield reverse modelling algorithm FWMod1 , which applies focusing by reverse extrapolation
and removes physical scattering by subtraction at both the detector and the source side. Each roundtrip transforms one order of scattering into

an update of S +
j z0 , starting with order 1 (primaries) in the first roundtrip. Compare with Fig. 10.
response, and so on. Similar to that shown for the forward

modelling algorithm (FWMod), this can also be easily illustrated for FWMod1 by again using the feedback model at z0
(see equation 14a):

S +j = X1
0 P j R P j at z0
(17a)
Application of the first roundtrip in FWMod1 involves

multiplication by the first estimate of X1
0 , yielding
(1)
(1)

j A(1) R P
j at z0
= X1
(17b)
S +j
P
0
and in the second roundtrip
(2)

(2)
j A(2) R P
j at z0 ,
S +j
= X1
P
0
(17c)
where A represents a diagonal matrix of scaling factors

that minimizes the subtraction result (line search), making
FWMod1 robust. The end result consists of a causal source
wavefield including directivity and tail that is fully consistent with the subsurface properties (X0 ) and the measurements
j ). Note the similarity between expressions (17a)(17c) and
(P
(14a)(14c).
The reverse modelling algorithm can be generalized
for any (blended) source vector at depth level zm, repre-

C
sented by the combination of primary and secondary sources

S j (zm) + S j (zm; z0 ) at that depth level. Such an extension of
the algorithm is most interesting for the detection and characterization of (micro) seismic sources, S j (zm), using both
primaries and multiples.
COMBINED FORWARD AND REVERSE
MODELLING
Finally, let us look at the situation in which the wavefield

j z0+ ; z0 and S +j z0 , are known and the
vectors at z0 , P

j+ zM ; z0 , must
j z+M ; z0 and P
wavefield vectors at zM , P
be computed. Note that this is the task of full wavefield redatuming (from z0 to zM ) in a known subsurface. For the
solution, we need to combine equations (15b) and (16a), so
that reverse modelling at the detector side is combined with
forward modelling at the source side. Figure 15 shows the hybrid computational diagram. At each depth level the internal
+j and secondary sources S j are iteratively
j , Q
wavefields P
computed.
Of course, source estimation (Fig. 14) and shot record
redatuming (Fig. 15) can be integrated by combining both
computational diagrams. In Part II and Part III of this trilogy
Figure 15 Computational diagram for the full wavefield redatuming process from z0 to z M , which is a combination of reverse modelling at the
detector side and forward modelling at the source side.
of papers, we will see that the combination of full wavefield

redatuming and full wavefield source estimation is an integral
part of FWM and JMI.

+
P+ zm
; z0 = W+ zm
, z0 S (z0 )
+
m1
+ + +
W+ zm
, zn S zn ; z0
n=0
INCLUDING WAVE CONVERSION IN

F W M O D A N D F W M O D 1
Generally, the Earth response is measured by P-sensors (marine) or Vz -sensors (land). These measurements are the result
of a linear superposition of PP-, PS-, SP-, and SS-wavefields in
the subsurface. By using the operator presentation of seismic
wave theory, we can easily extend the forward and reverse
modelling algorithm to include wave conversion. By assigning
not only Rpp but also Rsp , Rps , and Rss to each gridpoint, we
can extend the secondary sources Sp (representing two-way
P-scattering) to Ss (representing two-way S-scattering). Additionally, by specifying not only a P-wave propagation velocity
distribution (yielding Wpp ) but also an S-wave propagation
velocity distribution (yielding Wss ), the converted gridpoint
scattering can also be migrated. Using the matrix expression
for all shot records, we can write for the multi-mode model
equations in FWMod:
a. for the downgoing wavefields, starting at the surface (m =
1, 2, . . . , M):

C
at the source side;
(18a)
b. for the upgoing wavefields, starting at the deepest level (m

= M 1, M 2, . . . , 0):
+
+

P zm
; z0 = W zm
, zM P (zM ; z0 )
+
M
+
W zm
, zn S zn ; z0
n=m+1
at the detector side.
(18b)
And we can write for the multi-mode model equations in

FWMod1 :
c. for the downgoing wavefields, starting at the deepest level
(m = M 1, M 2, . . . , 0):

P+ zm
; z0 = F zm
, zM P+ (zM ; z0 )
M1
+ + +
F zm
, zn S zn ; z0
n=m
at the source side;
(18c)
d. for the upgoing wavefields, starting at the surface (m = 1,

2, . . . , M):
+
+
; z0 = F+ zm
, z0 P (z0 ; z0 )
P zm
m
+
F+ zm
, zn S zn ; z0
n=1
at the detector side,

where
P =
Pp
P
s
, W =
Wpp 0
0 W
ss
(18d)

(19a)
and F = W

Sp
Rpp Rps
P+p
S =
=
S
Rsp Rss
P+
s
s

Tpp Tps
Pp
+
,
Tsp Tss
P
s
(19b)
S+ =

S+p
Rpp Rps
Pp
=
+
Ss
Rsp Rss
P
s

+
+
+
T pp T ps
Pp
+
.
+
+
Tsp Tss
P+
s
(19c)
When we use the above expressions in the recursive

FWMod and FWMod1 algorithm, every possible conversion (PS and SP) at every depth level is automatically included (there is no user involvement). Note that wave conversion is only of practical importance for the gridpoints with
larger reflectivities (due to large P- and/or S-contrasts) and
for the wavefields with larger incident angles (due to large
sourcereceiver offsets). For these situations, T = R is no
longer a valid approximation, and therefore || S + S ||
is a measure of the degree of wavefield conversion. Note
also that FWMod is not designed as a stand-alone algorithm, but it functions as an integral part of the closed-loop,
iterative, full wavefield process. This means that the four
types of reflectivities (R pp , Rsp , R ps , Rss ) and transmissivities
(T pp , Tsp , T ps , Tss ) are provided by the estimation process
of FWM and JMI. In JMI, the propagation operators Wpp and
Wss are also estimated, yielding the P-wave and S-wave propagation velocities by applying a separate inversion process to
these propagation operators.

C
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, I have proposed a new way of forward modelling, called FWMod, which functions in the feedback path
of the closed-loop, iterative algorithms FWM and JMI. FWMod transforms the output of FWM and JMI into seismic
shot records that include surface and internal multiples (full
wavefield modelling). Optionally, converted waves may be
included in the modelling result.
The traditional FinDif-related presentation of the subsurface in terms of detailed velocity and density is outside
the framework of migration and, therefore, cannot be used in
closed-loop imaging. Instead, FWMod describes the subsurface in terms of propagation and scattering operators. These
operators are not specified by the user, but they are estimated
by FWM and JMI.
In FWMod, each inhomogeneous gridpoint (labelled k)
functions as a two-way secondary source (extended Huygens
source), the source properties being determined by the scat k, T
k] and the one-way incident wavetering operators [ R
+
fields [Pkj , Pkj ]. The combination of the classical and extended Huygens sources generates wavefields that properly
represent the nonlinear scattering properties of any complex
geology.
The phase relationship between gridpoint k and its neighbouring gridpoints is determined by the recursive propaga k ]. A direct relationship exists be k+ , W
tion operators [W
tween these recursive operators and the local velocity properties around gridpoint k. By keeping the scattering operators
outside the propagation operators (the big decoupling), we
k are scattering-free operators with
k+ and W
ensure that W
a unit spatial amplitude spectrum if we neglect inelastic absorption. This choice has far-reaching consequences for migration and inversion algorithms: scattering operators are
determined only by the amplitude properties, and propagation operators are determined only by the phase properties
of the seismic data. The result of this orthogonal property is
that the nonlinearity in migration and inversion is decreased
significantly.
By using the concept of secondary sources ( S j ), each
shot record can be considered to be the response of a blended
array of coded sources ( S j ), at each depth level the uncoded
sources being given by the scattering operators in each gridk], and the blending codes being given by the
k, T
point [ R
incident wavefields (Pkj , Pkj+ ) at these gridpoints.
As explained in this paper, FWMod offers great modelling flexibility and opens up new opportunities in closedloop seismic imaging. For instance, to minimize interference
effects in full wavefield migration, the FWMod algorithm may

be started with gridpoints that generate the largest contribution (the output of a selection process). In subsequent iterations, gridpoints are brought in with smaller contributions. In
this selection process, shallow may have higher priority than
deep. Finally, all gridpoints (from strong to weak, and from
shallow to deep) are included. This capability is referred to as
hierarchical modelling, which is considered a critical strategic
component of the next generation migration algorithms.
It is expected that FWMod will play an important role
in future time-lapse applications. By using the full wavefield
image of the previous survey and by taking the acquisition
geometry of the current survey as the input for FWMod,
a residue matrix (P ) is computed that functions as input data for JMI. The result is a full wavefield differential
image.
By using the operator formulation of wave theory, it
is straightforward for us to extend the FWMod algorithm
for PP-reflections to wave conversion at each gridpoint
+
(Rsp and Tsp ) and to shear wave propagation (W
ss and Wss )
in each layer, allowing the generation of converted waves
(SP and PS) and the generation of SS-scattering by including
(Rss and Tss ) .
Finally, we have seen how the theory of FWMod can
be extended to full wavefield reverse modelling (FWMod1 ),
facilitating the estimation of complex source properties
from (blended) shot records. This reverse modelling algorithm opens up new opportunities for the design of multidepth, blended source arrays as well as the detection and
characterization of micro-seismic sources. The combination
of FWMod and FWMod1 allows the formulation of a
full wavefield redatuming process. FWMod and FWMod1
are therefore the basic algorithmic modules in FWM
and JMI.
EPILOGUE
In the proposed reformulation of seismic wave theory, the subsurface is not represented by the usual elastic parameters, but
is described in terms of decoupled propagation and scattering operators. The propagation operators are scattering-free
and determine the traveltime properties of the seismic measurements. The scattering operators are propagation-free and
determine the amplitude properties of the seismic measurements. Data-driven propagation operators contain anisotropy
and inelastic absorption; data-driven scattering operators contain angle-dependency and conversion losses.
The dual operator description (propagation, scattering)
allows an extension of the well-known Huygens principle by

C
introducing extra secondary sources that represent the elastic

scattering properties in each inhomogeneous gridpoint. This
means that wave propagation involves moving through the
subsurface and collecting the total contribution of all these
Huygens sources. It leads to a new forward modelling algorithm for seismic reflection data that computes all types of
multiple scattering (surface-related and internal) and takes
into account complex medium properties such as anisotropy
and critical angle effects. Additionally, because of the decoupling in propagation and scattering, the forward modelling
algorithm (from source properties to measurements) can be
easily modified to a reverse modelling algorithm (from measurements to sources properties).
Today, innovations take place by making a connection
between different disciplines. We see this bridging principle
also in the seismic imaging trilogy: modelling, migration and
inversion are interconnected to strengthen each other. This occurs in closed-loop architecture and leads to new capabilities.
For instance, the operator-based forward modelling algorithm
functions in the feedback loop of the iterative FWM process
(see Fig. 1), and therefore, the modelling operators are not
provided by the user but by the migration output. Hence, the
modelling algorithm is indirectly driven by the seismic measurements. This approach is self-learning and allows us to do
things we have never done before, such as depth imaging without specifying the velocities. It also allows us to critically reconsider our current modelling tools. Today, finite difference
is the modelling tool in our industry, but it requires a description of the subsurface in terms of elastic parameters. These parameters, however, are outside the framework of migration.
For instance, in the practice of reverse time migration, we see
a paradox in that velocity distributions are required that must
accurately address the traveltimes but that should not generate a user-induced set of false transmission effects and false
(multiple) reflections in the modelled wavefields. This problem is difficult to solve because finite-difference algorithms
use hybrid operators that address phase and amplitude simultaneously at each gridpoint. This strong interdependency
introduces huge nonlinearities, as is well known from classical inversion theory. Such complex coupling problems can be
avoided by abandoning finite-difference modelling in migration. I call this the big decoupling in full wavefield migration
and inversion.
In conclusion, the next big step in seismic modelling, migration and inversion will not be a mathematical one but a
fundamental one in terms of physics. It is not a matter of
boundary integral methods versus differential equation methods, but is a matter of how we describe the subsurface in each
of our closed-loop processing phases. This description is not
given in terms of elastic parameters but in terms of wavefield

operators, requiring a forward modelling algorithm that accepts this description. This automatically leads to a recursive
integral-based modelling algorithm in which the modelling operators are continuously updated by the residue-driven imaging process (tight integration between modelling and imaging).
By doing this, we move away from todays open-loop mindset that everything should be (almost) fully correct from the
beginning onward. In Part II and Part III, we will see that
this tight integration allows us to start with simple operators.
The initial propagation operators may be full-bandwidth, local phase-shift operators that follow from some user-specified
initial velocity distribution. For the initial scattering operators,
it is even simpler because zero turns out to be a good start.
Unlike classical inversion, the output of closed-loop migration
appears to be very insensitive to the initial values. The residuedriven updating process automatically applies any correction
and refinement that is required to explain the data. In near
future, we will see that this tight integration can be extended
to elastic inversion. By using the output from the imaging process that is, the wavefields in each gridpoint the inversion
algorithm becomes significantly more linear than that used in
current inversion processes. The latter can be better understood by acknowledging that, to date, inversion has had to
carry out the difficult task of estimating both the wavefields
and the elastic parameters at each subsurface gridpoint at the
same time. Migration is the ideal pre-processor for inversion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Eric Verschuur for the inspiring discussions on integrating the theory of FWMod in the
feedback loop of the Delphi migration package. Thanks are
also due to Alok Soni for his help in the generation of the numerical modelling examples. Last but not least, I would like
to thank the Delphi sponsors for the stimulating discussions
on industry requirements during the Delphi meetings and for
their continuing financial support.
Daubechies I., Defrise M. and de Mol C. 2004. An iterative thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems with a sparsity constraint. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 57,
14131457.
Lu S., Whitmore N.D., Valenciano A. and Chemingui N. 2011. Imaging of primaries and multiples with 3D SEAM synthetic. 81st SEG
meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 32173221.
Moczo, P., Robertsson, J.O.A. and Eisner L. 2007. The finitedifference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation. Advances in Geophysics 48, 421516.
Verschuur D.J. and Berkhout A.J. 2011. Seismic migration of blended
shot records with surface-related multiple scattering. Geophysics
76, A7A13.
APPENDIX A
TWO-WAY EXPRESSION OF EXTENDED
HUYGENS SOURCES
The expression of the extended Huygens sources in terms of
one-way wavefields is given by

+
j zn ; z0
S j zn ; z0 = R zn , zn P

+
j zn ; z0 ,
(A1a)
+ T zn , zn+ P
or, if we omit the depth level indication,
j+ + T P
j .
S j = R P
It can be easily verified that this expression can be rewritten in terms of

+
+
1
j + P
j P
j + 1 R T P
j ,
R + T P
2
2

+
j+ + P
j+ P
j + R P
j ,
P
(A2a)
=R
S j =
j+ + P
j ) is the two-way wavefield, and ( P
j+ P
j )
where ( P
is related to the vertical derivative of the two-way wavefield
(vertical depending on the coordinate system). Similarly, for
the downward-radiating version, we can write

1
j + P
j P
j+ + 1 R T+ P
j+ ,
R + T+ P
2
2

j + P
j P
j+ + R P
j+ .
(A2b)
= R+ P
S +j =
REFERENCES
Berkhout A.J. 1982. Seismic Migration, Imaging of Acoustic Energy
by Wavefield Extrapolation, A: Theoretical Aspects, 2nd edn. Elsevier.
Berkhout A.J. 2012. Combining full wavefield migration and full
waveform inversion, a glance into the future of seismic imaging.
Geophysics 77, S43S50.
Berkhout A.J. and Verschuur D.J. 1994. Multiple technology, part
2: migration of multiple reflections. 64th SEG meeting, Expanded
Abstracts, 14971500.

C
(A1b)
Note that if we neglect wave conversion (for instance, at

small offsets) both expressions simplify significantly:
j+ P
j )
S j = R ( P
(A3a)
and
j P
j+ ),
S +j = R ( P
so that S +j = S j .
(A3b)
APPENDIX B
Using equation (16b) its recursive version can be written as

(m = M 1, M 2, 0) :
RECURSIVE FULL WAVEFIELD

E X T R A P O L A T I O N I N F W M O D -1
Using equation (15b) its recursive version can be written as
(m = 1, 2, M) :

+ +

j zm1 ; z0
j zm
(B1a)
; z0 = F + zm
, zm1 P
Q
with
+

j zm1
j zm1
; z0 = Q
; z0 S j zm1
; z0 .
P

C
(B1b)
+
+ +

+j zm
j zm+1 ; z0 .
Q
; z0 = F zm
, zm+1 P
(B2a)
with

+

+

+j zm+1
j+ zm+1
; z0 = Q
; z0 S + zm+1
; z0 .
P
(B2b)
Note F = [W ] . In full wavefield migration and joint migration inversion, FWMod and FWmod-1 are the basic computational modules (see Figs 10 and 14).

An Outlook On The Future of Seismic Imaging, Part I - Berkout

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

An Outlook On The Future of Seismic Imaging, Part I - Berkout

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Geophysical Prospecting, 2014, 62, 911930

Review Paper: An outlook on the future of seismic imaging, Part I:

Received November 2013, revision accepted April 2014

2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers

912 A.J. (Guus) Berkhout

be replaced by a new type of operator-driven modelling (in

An outlook on the future of seismic imaging, Part I 913

of migration algorithms, it is critical that we abandon the

b. for the upgoing reflected wavefields (m = 0, 1, . . . , M

trix W (zm, zn ) represents the upward propagation operator

914 A.J. (Guus) Berkhout

Including transmission operators

R (zn , zn ) if we neglect wave conversion, meaning that we

b. for the upgoing reflected wavefields (m = 0, 1, . . . , M

Compare expressions (3a) and (3b) with expressions (1c)

Including surface-related multiples

b. for the primaries only:

c. for the surface multiples only:

In expressions (5a)(5c), transfer operator X0 has been

W (z0 , zm) R (zm, zm) W+ (zm, z0 ),

where the expressions for the hybrid propagation operators

which is the WRW-model without transmission effects and

W (z0 , zm) R (zm, zm) W+ (zm, z0 ).

Comparing equations (5b) and (5c), we can easily verify

An outlook on the future of seismic imaging, Part I 915

FORWARD MODEL FOR FULL WAVEFIELD

Figure 5 In full wavefield migration, reflective gridpoints scatter both

j+ (zm; z0 ) = W+ (zm, z0 ) S +j (z0 )

b. for the upgoing wavefields (m = 0, 1, . . . , M 1):

916 A.J. (Guus) Berkhout

where vectors S j represent the two-way secondary sources

Based on full wavefield forward model equation (8a), we can

b. for the upgoing wavefields (m = 0, 1, . . . , M 1):

Extension of the Huygens principle

given by a weighted superposition of the up- and downgoing

An outlook on the future of seismic imaging, Part I 917

(downward radiating, see equation (9b))

Wavefield propagation as a natural blending process

k ) represent the uncoded upward ra k , T

reflectivity matrices R and R , respectively (representing

918 A.J. (Guus) Berkhout

lateral position (m)

lateral position (m)

lateral position (m)

ray parameter (s/m)

lateral position (m)

ray parameter (s/m)

ray parameter (s/m)

ray parameter (s/m)

coded source elements, measured at the surface (z0 ). We will

An outlook on the future of seismic imaging, Part I 919

j+ (zM ; z0 ) is the superposition of

FULL WAVEFIELD MODELLING IN FULL

where S j and S +j are given by equations (9a) and

Application of the first roundtrip in FWMod involves

b. for the upgoing wavefields (m = M 1, M 2, . . . .., 0):

which confirms the continuity of the PP-wavefields for the

and application of the second roundtrip:

adding the first-order multiples, and so on. The end result

Examples of full wavefield modelling in the feedback path of

920 A.J. (Guus) Berkhout

is an essential property of FWM: during the iteration process,

mary shadow zone, so that multiples provide the only useful