Using laboratory experiments to develop and test new Marchenko and imaging methods

Carlos Alberto da Costa Filho, Katherine Tant, Andrew Curtis, Anthony Mulholland, Carmel M. Moran

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution book

2 Citations (Scopus)
24 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The Marchenko redatuming method estimates surface-to-subsurface Green’s functions. It has been employed to diminishthe effects of multiples in seismic data. Several such methods rely on an absolute scaling of the data; this is usually considered to be known in synthetic experiments, or is estimated using heuristic methods in real data. Here, we show using real ultrasonic laboratory data that the most common of these methods may be ill suited to the task, and that reliable ways to estimate scaling remains unavailable. Marchenko methods which rely on adaptive subtraction may therefore be more appropriate. We present two adaptive Marchenko methods: one is an extension of a current adaptive method, and the other is an adaptive implementation of a non-adaptive method. Our results show that Marchenko methods improve imaging compared to reverse-time migration, but less so than expected. This reveals that some Marchenko assumptions were violated in our experiment and likely are also in seismic data, showing that laboratory experiments contribute critical information to the development and testing of Marchenko-based methods.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationSEG Technical Program
Subtitle of host publicationExpanded Abstracts
Place of PublicationTulsa, OK.
Pages4352-4356
Number of pages5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17 Oct 2018

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • ultrasonic
  • autofocusing
  • imaging
  • internal multiples
  • reverse time migration

Cite this

da Costa Filho, C. A., Tant, K., Curtis, A., Mulholland, A., & Moran, C. M. (2018). Using laboratory experiments to develop and test new Marchenko and imaging methods. In SEG Technical Program: Expanded Abstracts (pp. 4352-4356). Tulsa, OK.. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2018-2979521.1