IDENTIFICATION OF COMPLEX STRUCTURES

USING DIFFRACTION MODELLING AND

IMAGING
Zahirah Afiqah Binti Mohd Nadzri
Bachelor of Technology (Hons) Petroleum Geoscience
Universiti Teknologi Petronas
Tronoh, Perak Darul Ridzuan
Email: zahirahnadzri96@gmail.com

Abstract—Diffraction of wave in seismic data contains
useful information about the unconformity and physical
properties of seismic boundaries. However, as for data
processor, most of the time diffraction is considered as noise.
Hence, diffraction is neglected and removed. To prove the
relevancy of diffraction in data processing, using Low Rank
Approximation modelling and Plane Wave Destruction
(PWD) method, complex structures will be identified and
qualitative and quantitative comparison on the effect of
different frequency on diffraction hyperbola towards
synthetic data was done. The result shows that with
diffraction, better image was produced with enhancement of
the structures especially the edges of the salt body and
bedding. Also, frequency analysis shows that, diffraction
decreased with increasing frequency and higher frequency
tends to produce more noise although the resolution is better.
Keywords- Diffraction, Low Rank Approximation, Plane Wave
Destruction
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Diffraction is defined as a phenomenon that occurred
when the wave hit an obstacle or slit [1]. It occurs in all medium
like light, water and other electromagnetic waves. Old
definition of physics described diffraction by using the
Huygens’s principle, which treat each point in the wave front
as a collection of individual spherical wavelet. In this case, if
the wave encountered an obstacle or unconformity, some kind
of spatial discontinuity will be formed in the field with respect
to the secondary wavelet. The result of this discontinuity is
called diffraction. Example of an obstacle or unconformity is a
slit or a block.
Diffraction of wave in seismic data contains useful
information about the unconformity and physical properties of
seismic boundaries. However, as for data processor, most of the
time diffraction was considered as something confusing during
the stacking of CMP gathers. In many cases where there are
R.M.S velocities differences, diffraction can be suppressed
very well. Nonetheless, there are times where diffraction cannot
be completely suppressed through the stacking procedure and
only then the researchers started to think about diffractions.
Lots of useful information which can be obtained through
diffraction were wasted during the stacking procedure [2].
As stated above, diffraction was neglected because of
its confusing norm. Diffraction itself has a complicated
physical nature of diffracted wave which had led to a
complicated description of phenomena or time-consuming
program for its computer simulation. Also, previously the
modelling for diffraction is also expensive because it involves
numerical simulation of surface integral. Fortunately, in 1977,
Troyey had come with a substitute where he replaced the
expensive integration with a cheaper convolution. The
convolution can be expressed analytically as explicit form. The
substitution had open ways for more inexpensive modelling of
diffraction.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
In data processing, if diffraction is considered as a
signal, the complex structures can be identified in seismic data.
For a long time, diffraction was considered as noise in the raw
data. So, during the processing step, they will be neglected and
removed because it is not the result from the reflection of
layering or bedding. When the wave was diffracted on
unconformity or small-scale element like fractures or edges of
fault, diffraction hyperbola will be formed. The diffraction
hyperbola contains information about the subsurface and will
help in better imaging and reservoir characterization. In order
to prove the relevancy of diffraction in identifying complex
structures, synthetic data will be used which is Sigsbee complex
salt model.
 1.3 OBJECTIVES
The objective of this project are to identify complex
structures using diffraction through modelling and imaging, to
prove the relevancy of diffraction as a signal that can contribute
to a better image and to do qualitative and quantitative
comparison on the effect of different frequency on the
diffraction hyperbola towards synthetic data,
1.4 SCOPE OF STUDY
In this project, synthetic model will be used to prove
the diffraction as a signal in data processing. The expected
outcome for this project will be a thorough understanding about
how the complex structures will be identified by using
diffraction portrayed by using synthetic data. The reason why
synthetic data was used instead of actual area is because when
a research was based on synthetic data, the result is more
comprehensive and holistic instead of being limited to the
specific area only. So, the concept can be applied anywhere
despite the location.
Other than that, the focus of the project would be more
towards salt deposit and fractured. The methods that will be
used in this project would be modelling and imaging. Sigsbee
synthetic model will be used to explain the diffraction
hyperbola.
Figure 1: Base map of the study area
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GULF OF MEXICO
Gulf of Mexico (GOM) is located at Atlantic Ocean
and surrounded by North American continent. It is surrounded
by Gulf Coast of United States in the northeast, north and
northwest, by Mexico in southwest and south and by Cuba in
southeast [3
]. This Gulf of Mexico was formed by plate tectonic movements
about 300 million years ago. Now, its basin is one of the most
important offshore petroleum producer in United States.
Gulf of Mexico only existed after Late Triassic. Previously,
the area was a dry land together with the current continental
crust that underlies Yucatan located in the middle of Pangea.
Geologists had agreed that the GOM was created through the
rifting process of Pangea in the Late Triassic time. The rifting
was related to the zone of weakness in the Pangea as well as the
collision of Laurentia, South American and African plate which
created sutures [3].
The rifting started in the Late Triassic to Early Jurassic which
had formed rift valleys with continental red beds. Then the
rifting progress through Early and Middle Jurassic causing
stretching and thinning of continental crust. The rifting also had
connected Pacific Ocean across central Mexico and eastward
towards Atlantic Ocean.
This had caused flooding in the opening basin which created
an enclosed marginal sea, hence causing the subsiding
transitional crust to be overlaid by the abundant deposition of
Louann Salt which associate with anhydrite and evaporates. In
Late Jurassic, salt deposition stopped because adequate
circulation with Atlantic Ocean was established. At the end of
Jurassic time, seafloor spreading stopped. The emerged
Yucatan and Florida platform sank and became carbonates and
evaporites in mid-Cretaceous.
2.2 DIFFRACTION HYPERBOLA
For complex structures detection, diffraction
hyperbola was used to explain about the diffraction phenomena.
The diffraction hyperbola gives information about the true
diffraction which is used for better imaging and reservoir
characterization. The existence of this diffraction hyperbolic
pattern give an evidence about discontinuities in subsurface
reflector geometry. Usually rise in hyperbolic pattern occur at
every point diffractor, edge of reflector and at fault. In order to
understand diffraction hyperbola, double radical equation and
synthetic data was used on various depth and velocities values
[4]. With increasing velocity, the diffraction curves become less
steep as shown in Figure 2.
In figure 3, the occurrence of diffraction is not so clear
on the sharp edges of the intrusion layer. However, when the
width was increased, the intruded layer can be seen pretty clear
in the zero-offset seismic gather section. The exact locations of
the sharp edges were shown by the blue arrows. In real data, the
real subsurface condition is unknown so the location of the
sharp edges cannot be located based on the depth. So, the
changes in diffraction hyperbola will give important
information about the location of the unconformity. As seen in
figure 4, the diffraction hyperbola is widely spread. Also, by
comparing the depth and the location of the diffraction
hyperbola, the sharp edges are marked at the peak of the
diffraction curves.
Figure 2: Diffraction curves with increasing velocity.
Figure 3: Velocity model intruded layer width 100 m.
Figure 4: Velocity model intruded layer width 300 m.
2.3 MIGRATION METHOD
Migration is used to reconstruct geometry from
measurement of the reflected seismic energy. In diffraction,
migration will collapse the hyperbola to a point. The function
of migration has become wider as it has evolved into a tool for
velocity estimation and attribute analysis, making detailed use
of the amplitude and phase information in migration image,
instead of just being a structural imaging tool previously [5].
With the addition of the functions of migration, migration had
become one of the main process in the seismic acquisition and
processing flow. The migration has close relationship with
seismic modelling as it was said that these two are actually an
inverse of each other. The seismic modelling is focusing on
forward process to create the seismic data, while migration will
reverse the wave-propagating effect to create the subsurface
image.
In diffraction, Kirchhoff migration is commonly used
for migration. It is a process which moves dipping events by
summation of diffraction. It is the most flexible migration
algorithm and can be implemented in 2D and 3D, pre and post
stack as time or depth migration. Migration was used to
represent seismic data as a summation of diffraction hyperbolas
governed by the velocities at their apex [6]. Essential
parameters used in Kirchhoff migration are trace spacing, dip
limit and aperture. The hyperbola amplitude was gathered using
aperture size in migration. Determination of the aperture size is
very important because it will affect the run time and create
noise in shallower section. However, wider aperture is better
than having small aperture.
METHODOLOGY
All the materials are in terms of software and synthetic data
for imaging and modelling. The software that was used for
modelling and imaging is Madagascar that run with Linux
operating system. Madagascar software is an open source
software package that is used for multidimensional data
analysis and reproducible computational experiment. For the
modelling, velocity model used is Sigsbee model. The velocity
model is synthetic data used for velocity estimation testing. The
Sigsbee model is based in the deep water of Gulf of Mexico.
3.1 LOW RANK APPROXIMATION ALGORITHM
For seismic modelling, there are two commonly used methods
which are Finite Difference and Low Rank Approximation. For
this project, the method that will be used is Low Rank
Approximation (LRA). LRA was used instead of Finite
Difference modelling because LRA is dispersion free and no
noise artifacts. Plus, it also produces better reflection. The LRA
will decompose the wave extrapolation matrix.
3.2 PLANE WAVE DESTRUCTION (PWD)
PWD was used in Diffraction Imaging. PWD filter
originated from local plane-wave model for characterizing
seismic data. It works in time domain (T-X) as well as
frequency domain [7]. By applying this method, noise will be
attenuated and unconformity can be detected. PWD was
introduced to characterize seismic image by superposition of
local plane wave. PWD able to detect fault, interpolate missing
data and noise attenuation. For this project, PWD was used to
separate signal and noise and for noise attenuation. It was done
by estimating two dip components for synthetic data input and
separate them by using least square system. Hence, it means
that, the principle of separating noise and signal is to have
different local slope which later it can be separated by using
PWD.
3.3 QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE
Comparison between conventional imaging and advanced
imaging with diffractions will be made qualitative and
quantitatively. The conventional imaging is imaging using
Finite Difference method without diffraction signal meanwhile The highlighted sections show that the diffraction hyperbola is
advance imaging is full wave imaging using Low Rank enhanced and shows a continuous hyperbolic behavior.
Approximation method with preservation of diffraction signal.
Besides that, the comparison with be made between the effect
of different frequency towards the diffraction hyperbola. For
quantitative comparison, it will be done by plotting frequency
spectrum graph. Between diffraction migration and reflection
migration. The effect of source frequency towards the
frequency spectrum will be observed.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 FREQUENCY ANALYSIS

Figure 7: (20 Hz) Diffraction migration.
The result shows the migrated diffractions signal of the Sigsbee
For diffraction analysis, different frequency parameters will
escarpment. Some of the small events in the data salt body were
be used. The frequency tested are 20 Hz, 30 Hz, 80 Hz and 90
enhanced. The arrow shows that the diffraction able to image
Hz. To separate diffraction from reflection, Plane Wave
the bedding and edges of the salt body. Also, it shows that the
Destruction method was used, as explained in the methodology
diffraction alone is able to image the features of the salt body.
part.

4.1.1 Frequency: 20 Hz A B

Figure 8: (20 Hz) Zero-offset migration consists of reflection

Figure 5: (20 Hz) Calculated dip of seismic data according to
PWD.
This estimated dip of the data is important as it is useful in
determination of dipping wave which will be used during the
PWD filtering.
and diffraction.
Figure 8 shows the zero offset migration method upon Sigsbee
salt escarpment in Gulf of Mexico. The result shows the
presence of reflection and diffraction in the migrated zero-
offset data. The data was migrated to locate back the signal to
their original position. Area 8 (A) shows that the bedding of the
Gulf of Mexico was enhanced with the aid of the diffraction.
Also, the edges of the salt body also well defined as shown in
area 8 (B). Meanwhile in area 8 (C), the reflector at the water
bottom almost completely imaged.

4.1.2 Frequency: 30 Hz

To compare the effect of frequency change on the diffraction

hyperbola, 10 Hz was increased. However, based on the results
with small changes of frequency, the effect is minimal as the
result is almost the same with 20 Hz frequency.

Figure 6: (20 Hz) Separated diffractions hyperbola using

PWD.
Figure above shows the separated diffractions zero-offset data
from reflection signal through Plane Wave Destructions method.

Figure 9: (30 Hz) Calculated dip of seismic data according to
PWD.
Figure 10: (30 Hz) Separated diffractions hyperbola using
PWD.
In the highlighted box, the diffraction is low compared to the
diffractions result in Figure 6 which is of 20 Hz frequency.
They become less sharp and not continuous.
Figure 11: (30 Hz) Diffraction image after diffraction
migrations.
The migrated diffraction signal above shows that the edges
of the salt body can be defined although not as sharp as
frequency 20 Hz.
A
Figure 12: (30 Hz) Zero-offset migration consists of reflection
and diffraction.
The zero-offset migrated data shows that the image is
almost the same as the 20 Hz data. The changes are very small.
The bedding still can be seen although the boundary is not so
sharp. Noise artifacts started to be visible as shown in section
(A).
4.1.3 Frequency: 40 Hz
Figure 13: (40 Hz) Slope estimation for PWD.
B C
A
Figure 14: (40 Hz) Separated diffractions using PWD.
The diffraction at section A and B started to be discontinuous
and the edges are less defined. While at C, the diffraction
response has become lesser and less steep because of the
increased frequency which will also affect the velocity. Higher
velocity will produce broader hyperbola as travel time
increased [4].

Figure 15: (40 Hz) Diffraction image after diffraction
migration method.
The bedding is not well defined and, there are dispersion
occurred as frequency increased.
A
Figure 16: (40 Hz) Zero-offset migration consists of reflection
and diffraction.
The image shows that there are noise artifacts occurred as
frequency increased. The arrow shows that the edge of the salt
body cannot be imaged clearly. This might due to less
diffraction response in higher frequency data. Also, at the
bottom left corner of the image shows a very high amplitude of
artificial noise because of the increased frequency as shown by
section (A). Section (B) also shows that the bedding of the salt
body is ambiguous and the result is mixed with noises as well.
Overall data shows that even though higher frequency source
produce better resolution imaging, the diffraction becomes less
and noises increased too because noise mostly have higher
frequency.
4.2 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
To prove the efficiency of the method, the result was
computed quantitatively using frequency spectrum graph. The
graph of diffraction migration against reflection migration was
plotted to explain about the resolution and frequency spectrum
of the image.
Figure 17: Frequency spectrum graph of 20 Hz frequency.
Figure 18: frequency spectrum graph of 30 Hz frequency.
Figure 19: Frequency spectrum graph of 40 Hz frequency.
The graph shows the improvement of the amplitude especially
in high and low frequency band. At low frequency (0-10 Hz),
for frequency spectrum of 20 Hz, 30 Hz and 40 Hz, the
resolution improved from 0.2 to 0.62, 0.25 to 0.6 and 0.3 to 0.5
respectively. Also, the data was significantly improved at
higher frequency band (40-60 Hz). The recovery of low and
high frequency data is very important especially the low
frequency signal as it is significant in the HC prediction.
The diffraction response decreased when frequency
increased because of the relationship f=v/λ. The greater the
energy, the larger the frequency and shorter the wavelength. So
short wavelength is more energetic than long wavelength. At
higher frequency, the wavelength is smaller compared to the
object size, so that is why the wave does not diffract very
effectively. If the object or barrier is smaller than wavelength,
then the diffraction produced is very effective with no shadow
zone behind it.
 4.3 COMPARISON WITH CONVENTIONAL METHOD
In this part, qualitative comparison between advance imaging
and conventional imaging was done. Advance imaging used
Low Rank Approximation (LRA) modelling and use Fast
Fourier Transform migration method while conventional
imaging used Finite Difference modelling and use Fourier
Finite Difference migration method Both methods were tested
with Frequency of 20 Hz using Ricker wavelet.
Figure 20: Full wave imaging using Low Rank Approximation
modelling.
Figure 21: Conventional imaging using Finite Difference
modelling.
Based on the result obtained, a qualitative comparison
between the two imaging methods can be done. Advance
imaging is free from dispersion compared to conventional
imaging. Also, the edges of the salt body is also well defined
and sharp in advance imaging. The reflector at the water bottom
also can be imaged really well. Advance imaging also has less
noise artifacts compared to conventional imaging. The huge
difference between the two methods is that, advance imaging
produce better resolution image compared to conventional
imaging.
CONCLUSION
Identification of complex structures by diffraction
modelling and imaging can give an important information by
proving that diffraction is not a noise and can be considered as
signal during data processing. Low Rank Approximation
modelling and plane wave destructions method were used to
separate diffraction and signal. Other than that, from the
diffraction analysis on Sigsbee model, it can be seen diffraction
able to image the complex structures and enhancing the features
of the salt escarpment. Hence, it can be concluded that from
the result, the objectives of this project were achieved. Which
are, to detect complex structures using imaging and modelling,
to prove that diffraction is a signal and helpful for complex
structures detection, also, to compare quantitative and
qualitatively the effect of different frequency on the diffraction
hyperbola. Diffraction imaging is capable in helping the
structural interpretation.
FURTHER STUDY
For better understanding about this project, it is suggested
to have exposure to real data as well. After obtaining
understanding using synthetic data, it is better if the methods
can be applied to real data like any field, to see its effect in both
data. Through this, I can see directly observe the significant of
this method to the structural interpretation in real life. Also,
extending this project to Marmousi model also will give a better
output as well because Marmousi model has fault and fractures
that is also significant in the diffraction analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Deva Ghosh,
my co-supervisor, Mr. Yasir Bashir and Mr. Seyed Yaser
Alashloo for the continuous support and guidance throughout
this study. My sincere appreciation also goes to all members of
Centre of Seimic Imaging for providing me the platform to
learn. Last but not least, I would like to thank all my family and
friends for their endless moral support.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Ueda, “A new principle of diffraction-diffraction
theory for solid obstacles,” IEEE Symposium on
Ultrasonics.
[2] B. R. Zavalishin, “Improvements in constructing
seismic images using the method of controlled
directional reception,” SEG Technical Program
Expanded Abstracts 1982, 1982.
[3] A. Salvador, The Gulf of Mexico Basin. Boulder, CO:
Geological Society of America, 1991.
[4] Y. Bashir, D. Ghosh, and C. Sum, “Detection of Fault
and Fracture using Seismic Diffraction and Behavior
of Diffraction Hyperbola with Velocity and
Time,” Seismic Driven Reservoir Characterization
and Production Management, 2015.
[5] S. H. Gray, J. Etgen, J. Dellinger, and D. Whitmore,
“Seismic migration problems and
solutions,” Geophysics, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 1622–1640,
2001.
[6] B. Yasir, D. P. Ghosh, S. Y. M. Alashloo, and C. W.
Sum, “Seismic Modeling and Imaging Using Wave
Theory for Fault and Fracture
Identification,” Offshore Technology Conference
Asia, 2016.
[7] S. Fomel, “Applications of plane‐wave destruction
filters,” Geophysics, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 1946–1960,
2002.