/
A New Approach to Joint Imaging A New Approach to Joint Imaging

A New Approach to Joint Imaging - PowerPoint Presentation

trish-goza
trish-goza . @trish-goza
Follow
379 views
Uploaded On 2016-07-10

A New Approach to Joint Imaging - PPT Presentation

of Electromagnetic and Seismic Wavefields International Symposium on Geophysical Imaging with Localized Waves Sanya Hainin Island China July 2428 2011 Gregory A Newman Earth Sciences Division ID: 398897

data imaging seismic amp imaging data amp seismic north joint model velocity fourier laplace conductivity csem salt grid wave

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "A New Approach to Joint Imaging" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

A New Approach to Joint Imaging of Electromagnetic and Seismic Wavefields International Symposium on Geophysical Imaging with Localized WavesSanya, Hainin Island ChinaJuly 24-28, 2011

Gregory A. NewmanEarth Sciences DivisionLawrence Berkeley National LaboratorySlide2

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW Controlled Source EM and Magnetotellric Data Acquisition Motivation for Joint Imaging Formulation of the Joint Inverse ProblemLarge Scale Modeling ConsiderationsNeed for High Performance Computing Joint MT/CSEM Imaging ResultsGulf of Mexico (synthetic example)Joint Imaging - EM & Seismic DataIssues & Proposed Methodology Laplace-Fourier Wave Field ConceptsSimilarities and Differences to the EM Wave FieldImaging Across Multiple Scale Lengths3D Elastic Wave Fields Preconditioners

and solvers for 3D Seismic Wave Field SimulationsConclusionsSlide3

Marine CSEM & MT Surveying CSEMDeep-towed Electric Dipole transmitter~ 100 AmpsWater Depth 1 to 7 km Alternating current 0.01 to 3 Hz‘Flies’ 50 m above the sea floor Profiles 10’s of km in length Excites vertical & horizontal currents Depth of interrogation ~ 3 to 4 km Sensitive to thin resistive beds MT Natural Source Fields Less than 0.1 Hz

Measured with CSEM detectors Sensitive to horizontal currents Depth of interrogation 10’s km Resolution is frequency dependent Sensitive to larger scale geologySlide4

JOINT 3D INVERSE MODELINGj = a S {(djobs - djp)/ej}2 + b S {(Zjobs - Zj

p)/pj}2 + lh mh WT W mh + lv mv WT W mv

s.t

.

m

v

m

h

d

obs

and

d

p

are N observed and predicted CSEM data Zobs and Zp are M observed and predicted MT impedance datae & p = CSEM and MT data weights mh = horizontal conductivity parametersmv = vertical conductivity parameters W = Ñ2 operator; constructs a smooth model lh & lv = horizontal & vertical tradeoff parametersa & b = scaling factors for CSEM and MT data types

N

j=1

M

j=1

Minimize:Slide5

LARGE-SCALE 3D MODELINGCONSIDERATIONSRequire Large-Scale Modeling and Imaging Solutions10’s of million’s field unknowns (fwd problem)Solved with finite difference approximations & iterative solvers Imaging grids 400 nodes on a side Exploit gradient optimization schemes, adjoint state methodsParallel ImplementationTwo levels of parallelizationModel Space (simulation and inversion mesh)Data Space (each transmitter/MT frequency - receiver set fwd calculation independent)Installed & tested on multiple distributed computing systems; 10 – 30,000 ProcessorsAbove procedure satisfactory except for very largest problemsTo treat such problems requires a higher level of efficiency

Optimal GridsSeparate inversion grid from the simulation/modeling grid Effect: A huge increase in computational efficiency ~ can be orders of magnitude Slide6

Optimal Grids

m

imaging grid

s

simulation grid

sail lines

10 km

10 km

100 km

100 kmSlide7

GRID SEPARATION EFFICIENCIESAdvantagesTaylor an optimal simulation grid Ωs for each transmitter-receiver setInversion grid Ωm covers basin-scale imaging volumes at fine resolutionSimulations grids much smaller, a subset of the imaging gridFaster solution times follow from smaller simulation gridsWhat’s RequiredA mapping of conductivity from Ωm to Ωs & Ωs to

ΩmConductivity on Ωs edged basedConductivity on Ωm cell basedAn appropriate mixing law for the conductivity mappings Slide8

Joint CSEM - MT Imaging Mahogany Prospect, Gulf of Mexico Study: 3D Imaging of oil bearing horizons with complex salt structures present Simulated Example: 100 m thick reservoir, 1 km depth, salt below reservoir Model: 0.01 S/m salt, 2 S/m seabed, 0.05 S/m reservoir, 3 S/m seawater MT Data: 7,436 data points, 143 stations & 13 frequencies 0.0005 to 0.125 Hz CSEM Data: 12,396 data points, 126 stations & 2 frequencies 0.25 and 0.75 Hz Starting Model: Background Model without reservoir or salt Processing Times: 5 to 9 hours, 7,785 tasks, NERSC Franklin Cray XT4 System

0x(km) -5

-10

10

5

y=5 km cross section

Survey LayoutSlide9

JOINT CSEM-MT IMAGING:The Benefits Slide10

Joint CSEM - MT ImagingMahogany Prospect Gulf of MexicoSlide11

Joint Imaging of EM and Seismic DataIssuesRock Physics Model links attributes to underlying hydrological parameterstoo simplisticdifficult or impossible to define robust/realistic modelDiffering Resolution in the DataEM data 10x lower resolution compared to seismicRTM & FWI of Seismic Datarequires very good starting velocity modelvelocity can be difficult or impossible to definehuge modeling cost due to very large data volumes (10,000’s of shots; 100,000’s traces per shot) Slide12

Joint Imaging of EM and Seismic DataA way forwardAbandon Rock Physics Model assume conductivity and velocity structurally correlatedemploy cross gradients: t =    t = 0 =>   ;  = 0 and/or  =0 Equalize Resolution in the Datatreating seismic and EM data on equal termsLaplace-Fourier transform seismic data – Shin & Cha 2009 Slide13

Acoustic Wave EquationTime DomainFourier/Frequency Domain At first glance similar physics & similar resolution with EM fields skin depth: Laplace/Fourier Domain

Propagating WaveDamped Diffusive WaveSlide14

Seismic Imaging: Laplace-Fourier Domain BP Salt ModelStarting Velocity Model

Laplace ImageLaplace-Fourier ImageStandard FWI ImageNew FWI Image

337 shot gathers

151 detectors/shot

maximum offsets 15km

s

= 10.5 to 0.5

=0.5

s

= 10.5 to 0.5

f

= 6 to 0.5

=0.5

Taken from Shin & Cha, 2009Slide15

Laplace-Fourier Wavefield Modeling There are differences compared to EM fieldswavelength and skin depth are decoupledMeshing Issues to Consider grid points per wavelength:10 points – 2nd order accuracygrid points per skin depth: 6 points – 2nd order accuracyAccuracy Issueswavefield dynamic range extreme ~ 70 ordersiterative Krylov solvers require tiny solution tolerances tol=Slide16

LAPLACE-FOURIER IMAGING: Mahogany ProspectMisfit*

Survey line N 7500 km

Survey line N 5000 km

Survey line N 10000 km

Survey line N 2500 km

Survey line N -5000 km

-20 km

20 km

Survey line N 0 km

Survey line N -2500 km

287 sources, (

σ

=1,

ω

=2

π

)

Source & Receiver & Spacing 1 km & 300 m

Max. offsets 17 km 50 m below sea surface

West-East Study: 3D Imaging of oil bearing horizons with complex salt structures present

Simulated Example: 100 m thick reservoir, 1 km depth, salt below reservoir Model: 6 km/s salt, 3 km/s seabed, 2 km/s reservoir, 1.5 km/s seawaterSeismic Data: 24,577 data points, 287 stations at 1 frequency (

σ=1, ω=2π)

Starting Model: Background Model without reservoir or salt

Processing Times: 10.3 hours, 6,250 tasks, NERSC Franklin Cray XT4 SystemSlide17

LAPLACE-FOURIER IMAGE:

Mahogany Prospect -18.5 km18.5 km

-0.9 km

13.5 km

-18.5 km

18.5 km

-0.9 km

13.5 km

0 km North

0 km North

2.5 km North

2.5 km North

5.0 km North

5.0 km North

7.5 km North

7.5 km North

10.0 km North

10.0 km North

12.0 km North

12.0 km NorthSlide18

LAPLACE-FOURIER IMAGE: Mahogany Prospect1km below seabed 12.0 km North-5.0 km North

-18.5 km 18.5 km West – East West – East -18.5 km

18.5 km

12.0 km North

-5.0 km NorthSlide19

Joint EM-Seismic ImagingProblem Formulation and

are N observed and predicted EM data and are

M

observed and predicted Laplace-Fourier seismic data

and

= EM and

seismic

data weights

=

m

conductivity parameters

=

m acoustic velocity

parameters

=

Ñ

2

operator; constructs a smooth model

and

=

conductivity

& velocity tradeoff parameters

and

=

scaling factors for

EM and

seismic

data types

are cross gradient structural constraints; is a penalty parameter Slide20

Recipe for Auxiliary Parameters

First carry out separate inversions for seismic and EM => choose smoothing parameters (cooling approach)

Next balance data

funtionals

for seismic and EM :

=> set

=> rescale accordingly

Test out values for

=> selected

=> trail values tested out over a few inversion iterations

balances

Consider total objective functional : Slide21

Initial Imaging Resultsmarine example conductivity image correlated with velocity; =1011 conductivity imageno correlation to velocity; =0 velocity imagecorrelated with conductivity; =1011

velocity imageno correlation to conductivity; =0s =5,4,3,2,1 f = 0f = 0.25

seismic

12-16 km offsets

85 shots

121-161

detectors/shot

CSEM

16 km max. offsets

17 shots

161 detectors/shot

Computational Requirements: 4250 cores – Franklin NERSC

Processing Time: ~22 hoursSlide22

Elastic Wave Field Simulator First- order system for velocity –stress components Laplace-Fourier Domain

- velocity components, - stress components,  - density,  and  - Lame coefficients.

Forces are defined via

Moment-Tensor components (R. Graves 1996) Slide23

Boundary and Initial ConditionsThe ordinary initial conditions for all components are zeros.The boundary conditions area) PML absorbing boundary conditions for velocityb) free surface boundary for normal stress component Slide24

Solution Realization Iterative Krylov Methods System transformed

: solve only for the velocity componentsD is complex non-symmetric15 diagonals for 2nd order scheme4th order scheme 51 diagonals

Coupled System

- matrices of FD first derivative

operators

Slide25

Solution Accuracy Slide26

Two Half Spaces Model Test Slide27

200x200x130 nodes Vertical cross section of velocity (p) y=4800 m. 3D salt body

SEG/EAEG SALT MODEL TESTSnap-shots of velocity field y-component y=4800 m s=(3+18.85i) sec-1Point source at r=(800,800,500), m ).Solution Time 1355 sec, 576 Iterations

Solution Tolerance 1e-7

y=4800 m

s=(3+18.85i) sec

-1

real

imaginarySlide28

Laplace-Fourier TransformationBenefitsWave field simulations excellent choice for a preconditioner (frequency domain ) On a class of preconditioners for solving the Helmholtzs equation: Erlangga et al., 2004, Applied Numer. Mathematics, 50 409-425.Imagingpossibilities to image at multiple scales and attributesA consistent Joint EM seismic imaging approach known to produce robust macro-models of velocityCritical to successful RTM and FWI of seismic reflection dataSlide29

ConclusionsDemonstrated Benefits Massively Parallel Joint Geophysical ImagingJoint CSEM & MTacoustic seismic (Laplace-Fourier Domain)HPC essentialFuture Developments in LF elastic wavefield imaging massively parallel (MP) LF elastic wavefield simulatorexploit simulator as a preconditionerfrequency domain wavefield modelingexam MP direct solvers gradient based 3D LF elastic imaging codeFuture Plans in Joint Imagingjoint EM and elastic wavefield 3D imaging capability Slide30

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My Colleagues: M. Commer, P. Petrov and E. Um Research Funding US Department of Energy Office of Science Geothermal Technologies Program

Slide31

Computational Details