Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) and

AVO inversion

Purpose:
Seismic Lithology and/or fluid Estimation
Seismic Lithology and/or fluid
Estimation

Gathers Stack

AVO Analysis Inversion

Attribute 1 Attribute 2 Estimate

Z= VP
Estimate VP, VS, and 
The AVO method allows us to use multiple attributes to simultaneously
estimate VP, VS, and , thus inferring fluid and/or lithology.
 Raypaths imaging a common midpoint in the subsurface at
increasing angles of incidence for sources S1-4 and receivers
R1-4. During seismic processing, these traces are formed into
CMP gather, the input AVO analysis

Model CMP gather contrasting the expected AVO response of

a typical wet sand and gas sand. The increasing amplitudes at
the far offsets for the gas sand anomalous with respect to
most other reflections, such as the wet sand reflection.
AVO response
Common Offset Stack from Gathers
(a) Common offset stack
(b) Picks
from the
trough.

(c) Picks
from the
peak.
Common Offset Picks as Function of sin2θ

Offset
+A
+B

sin2q

Time -B
(a) Small portion of the -A
common offset stack.

(b) Peak and trough picks vs sin2q.

Mode Conversion of an Incident P-wave
If θ > 0°, an incident P-wave will produce both P and SV reflected and
transmitted waves. This is called mode conversion.

Incident Reflected
P-wave SV-wave
Reflected
r P-wave = RP

qi qr
VP1 , VS1 , 1
VP2 , VS2 , 2 qt
t Transmitted
P-wave
Transmitted
SV-wave
The Zoeppritz Equations

Zoeppritz derived the amplitudes of the reflected and transmitted waves

using the conservation of stress and displacement across the layer
boundary, which gives four equations with four unknowns. Inverting the
matrix form of the Zoeppritz equations gives us the exact amplitudes as a
function of angle:

1
  sin q1  cos 1 sin q 2 cos 2 
RP   cos q  sin 1 cos q 2  sin 2   sin q1 
R   1   cos q 
 S    sin 2q VP1 2VS22VP1 2VS 2VP1   1 
cos 21 cos 21 cos 2
TP   1
VS1 1VS1VP 2
2
1VS12
2
 sin 2q1 
   2VP 2 2VS 2
  
TS   cos 21
VS1
sin 21 cos 22  sin 22  cos 2 1
 VP1 1VP1 1VP1 
PERSAMAAN SHEUY (1985)
Sesuai dengan uji data dan pemodelan pendekatan Sheuy (1985 akan
digunakan, dimana koefisien refleksi dirumuskan sebagai :

 Δσ  2 1 ΔVp
R θ   R 0  A 0 R 0   sin θ  (tan 2 θ  sin 2 θ)
 (1  σ) 
2 2 Vp

 
1  ΔVp Δρ 
R0    
2  Vp ρ 
 
1  2σ Dengan :
A 0  B  2(1  B)
1 σ
Vp = rata-rata kecepatan gelombang P antar lapisan
ΔVp /Vp
B Vp = perbedaan kecepatan gelombang P antar lapisan
ΔVp /Vp  Δρ/ρ
 = rata-rata densitas antar lapisan
 = perbedan densitas antar lapisan
 = rata-rata Poisson Ratio antar lapisan
 = perbedaan Poisson Ratio antar Lapisan
q = sudut datang
PSEUDO POISSON RATIO :

Δσ Δα Δβ
 
σ α β
 Rp  G

FLUID FACTOR :

Δα β Δβ
Δf   1.16
α α β
 1.252 Rp  0.58 G
Range Limited Stacking

Gathers

AVO Analysis

Near Stack Far Stack

Near stack Far stack
 Range Limited Stacking
Over Gas Sand
Here are the (a) near
angle (0o-15o) and (b)
(a) far angle (15o-30o)
stacks from the Colony
seismic dataset. Notice
that the amplitude of
the “bright-spot” event
at about 630 ms is
stronger on the far-
angle stack than it is on
the near-angle stack.
(b) As we saw earlier, this
is a gas-sand induced
“bright-spot”.
Cross-plotting Angle Range Stacks
Here is a crossplot of the near and far offset, with several high amplitude
zones highlighted.
Angle Range Stacks

Here are the highlighted zones from the crossplot shown back on the seismic
section. Note that the gas sand zone has been well delineated.
 Angle Range Stacks

(a) (b)
The above plot shows the (a) near-angle stack (0-15o), and (b) far- angle
stack (15-30o) over a 3D channel sand. To enhance the amplitude display,
the amplitude envelope has been averaged over a 10 ms window and the
Z-score transform has been applied. Again, note the excellent delineation
of the anomaly.
Lamda-Mhu-Rho(LMR)
RP/RS Inversion

Gathers

AVO Analysis

RP Estimate RS Estimate

Invert to ZP Invert to ZS

Crossplot
The LMR Approach

•Goodway et al (SEG Expanded Abstracts, 1997) proposed a new

approach to AVO inversion based on the Lamé parameters  and , and
density , or Lambda-Mu-Rho (LMR©). The theory is as follows:

  2 
VP  and VS 
 
therefore : ZS2  ( VS )2  
and : ZP2  ( VP )2  (   2  ) 
so :   ZP2  2 ZS2
a Cross Plot of Acoustic Impedance vs Shear Impedance
 Mu ~ pure rigidity

Mu - Rho

Lambda ~ pure
incompressibility Lambda - Rho
AVO/AVA
 Teori Dasar
Incident Reflected
P-wave S-wave
Reflected
P-wave = R(q)

q
q
VP1 , VS1 , 1
VP2 , VS2 , 2

Transmitted
P-wave
Transmitted
S-wave

AVA: Amplitude Variation with Angle

AVO: Amplitude Variation with Offset
Zoeppritz Equation
 Common midpoint gather (CMP)

What is AVO
anomaly?

near far
APA YANG MENYEBABKAN ANOMALI AVO?

Saturasi HC akan menurunkan Vp dan

densitas tetapi tidak mepengaruhi Vs
Bentuk sederhana persamaan Zoeppritz:

q  
R( ) A B sin 2
q  C sin tan q
2
q 2

Persamaan Aki-Richards

1  VP  
dimana: A  RP    
2  Vp  
VS  VS VS  
2 2
1 VP
B  Gradient   4   2 
2 Vp VP  VS VP  
1 VP
C
2 Vp
PERSAMAAN SHEUY (1985)
Sesuai dengan uji data dan pemodelan pendekatan Sheuy (1985 akan
digunakan, dimana koefisien refleksi dirumuskan sebagai :

 Δσ  2 1 ΔVp
R θ   R 0  A 0 R 0   sin θ  (tan 2 θ  sin 2 θ)
 (1  σ) 
2 2 Vp

 
1  ΔVp Δρ 
R0    
2  Vp ρ 
 
1  2σ Dengan :
A 0  B  2(1  B)
1 σ
Vp = rata-rata kecepatan gelombang P antar lapisan
ΔVp /Vp
B Vp = perbedaan kecepatan gelombang P antar lapisan
ΔVp /Vp  Δρ/ρ
 = rata-rata densitas antar lapisan
 = perbedan densitas antar lapisan
 = rata-rata Poisson Ratio antar lapisan
 = perbedaan Poisson Ratio antar Lapisan
q = sudut datang
PSEUDO POISSON RATIO :

Δσ Δα Δβ
 
σ α β
 Rp  G

FLUID FACTOR :

Δα β Δβ
Δf   1.16
α α β
 1.252 Rp  0.58 G
Model AVO Ostrander (1984)
 CMP gathers
for A and B
locations
(known gas
sand) show
amplitudes
increase with
offsets.

CMP gathers for location C

show no indication of
amplitude increase with offset,
may indicate the absence of
HC in this location.
 Tabel AVO

Acoustic Poisson’s Relative
Impedance Ratio AVO
Absolute
AVO AI AVO

Modifikasi dari Furniss, 2000

 Persamaan Aki-Richards

R(q )  A  B sin 2 q  C sin 2 q tan 2 q

1  VP  
dimana: A  RP    
2  Vp  
VS  VS VS  
2 2
1 VP
B  Gradient   4   2 
2 Vp VP  VS VP  
1 VP
C
2 Vp
Estimasi A(Rp) and B(G) dari data seismik

Offset
+A
+B
sin2q
-B
Time -A
 Gradient (G)

Zero Offset
Reflectivity (P) x
Gradient (G)
Intercept-gradient crossplots

Castagna,1997
Intercept (A) / Gradient (B) Crossplots

Class III
(pink/blue)

Class I Dolomitic
(orange)
Offset atau angle limited
stack

(a) Near-
offset stack

(b) Far-
offset stack
Problem and pitfalls in AVO analysis
(Castagna, 1993):

•Inadaquate petrophysical “signal”.

•Tuning and interference.
•Data quality issues.
•Geometric effects (dip, surface roughness,
etc.).
•Near surface effects.
•Processing problems.
•Inversion nonuniqueness.