CHINESE JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICS Vol.53, No.

3, 2010, pp: 430439

COMMON-ANGLE GATHERS BASED ON KIRCHHOFF PRE-STACK TIME MIGRATION

ZOU Zhen1,2 , LIU Hong1 , LIU Hong-Wei1,2
1 Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources Research, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China 2 Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Abstract In this paper we present the improved algorithm for common-angle gathers based on Kirchho pre-stack time migration. The algorithm can calculate relatively true incident angle under three-dimensional circumstance, while the traditional ray-parameter method could not gain the incident angle between incident ray and dipping reector normal. Compared with straight-ray Kirchho angle domain gathers method proposed in recent years, our method is able to extract much wider angle for taking interval velocity and ray bending into account. Moreover, we apply non-hyperbolic moveout equation to calculate the travel time, thus the commonangle gathers are atter at large angle than straight ray method. Ecient true-amplitude weighting function as well as hit-count correction is benecial for AVA inversion. The results of synthetic model data have veried that, compared with angle gathers transformed from oset to angle domain with CMP gathers or CRP gathers after migration, common-angle gathers based on Kirchho pre-stack time migration have following advantages: much more accurate incident angle, the amplitude versus angle (AVA) is robust and clear. The real 3-D data test shows that angle gathers provided with our method are benecial for AVA analysis and AVA inversion, and could improve pre-stack inversions resolution. Key words Kirchho PSTM, Common-angle gathers (CAG), Angle-domain common image gathers (ADCIG)

1 INTRODUCTION The technique of amplitude versus oset (AVO) is widely used in reservoir inversion and petrophysical prediction, and it eciently enhances the accuracy of prediction. The theory of AVO technique is based on amplitude versus angle (AVA), the two are equivalent only when the subsurface reectors are horizontal[1] . Transformation from osets to incident/reection angles is the key step of AVO. Common-angle gathers (CAG), known to domestic oil-industry, are obtained from mapping Common middle point gathers (CMP) after NMO correction or Common imaging gathers (CIG)/Common reection point gathers (CRP) after pre-stack migration. It seldom uses the ray tracing method to map from oset domain to angle domain, owing to its high requirement of velocity accuracy. The Walden approximation[2] is usually used for the transformation. The formula is based on horizontal layered medium assumption, thus it couldnt gain the incident angle between the incident ray and normal direction of inclined reector. Analyzing the AVO eect of CMP gathers after NMO, DMO and CRP gathers after pre-stack time migration, Resnick et al.[3] proposed to use Kirchho migration in conjunction with AVO analysis. Mosher et al.[4] derived the ray parameter p gathers during plane wave prestack time migration, and compared them with CMP gathers. It showed the value of pre-stack time migration in improving stratigraphy and AVO resolution. In recent years, angle domain common imaging gathers (ADCIG) for velocity and AVA analysis aroused academic attention widely[510] . Compared to oset domain common imaging gathers (ODCIG), ADCIG could reduce artifacts considerably. These studies are most based on pre-stack depth migration (PSDM). Other than the ones got from surface oset approximation during Kirchho PSTM, the incident angles got during PSDM are relatively true angles of subsurface reector when the interval velocity is accurate. However, building velocity model of PSDM is challenging and entails high calculation cost, so the ADCIG based on PSDM,
E-mail: zouzhen@mail.iggcas.ac.cn

ZOU Z et al.: Common-Angle Gathers Based on Kirchho Pre-Stack Time Migration

431

especially wave-equation PSDM, has not been used for 3D AVA inversion. Kirchho integration pre-stack time migration with good adaptability to observing system, costing low calculation, dominates in practical application. Thus common-angle gathers extracted during Kirchho PSTM are applicable to AVA analysis. Zheng[11] and Perez[12] proposed an angle-domain imaging approach of Kirchho PSTM, which is based on straight ray approximation, then applied it to high resolution imaging and fracture analysis (AVAZ). Cheng[3] proposed the algorithm of table-driven angle-domain imaging approach of Kirchho PSTM, with the travel time calculated using ray tracing method, and non-hyperbolic moveout method[14] . For taking ray bending eect and the equivalent horizontal isotropy into account, the relatively accurate value of incident angles and travel time could be calculated. Wang[15] analyzed the ray parameter p gathers acquired from plane wave decomposition pre-stack time migration, and applied them to 2D AVO analysis. But extending it to 3D cases is dicult. In this paper, we rstly analyze the deciencies of the traditional conversion algorithm from oset domain to angle domain, and then propose a new method to extract common-angle gathers during 3D Kirchho PSTM. The travel time is calculated with the optimized six-order NMO equation[16] that adapts to far oset (large incidence angle), or the non-symmetric travel-time algorithm[17,18] which has better focus in linear lateral velocity variation medium. For the purpose of true-amplitude, we adopt the relatively amplitude-preserving weighting factor and hit-count correction technique. The theoretical model and real data tests show that common-angle gathers during Kirchho pre-stack time migration could obtain more accurate mapping between oset and incident angle, the amplitude is relatively well preserved, and this kind of CAG is suitable for AVA analysis and inversion. 2 CMP, CRP AND CAG In contemporary oil industry, Formula (1)[2] is usually used to convert CMP, CRP/CIG gathers to commonangle gathers vint x , (1) = sin1 2 vRms t where stands for the angle between incident ray and time axis (Fig. 1), vint for interval velocity, vRms is RMS velocity, t is two-way travel time, x is oset. This formula is valid only in the 2D horizontal layered medium. In Fig. 1, when the subsurface reector is horizontal, common depth point M is the reecting point. While the formation is tilted, the reecting point is located at point N . However, we will range the reecting information of point N to point M when sorting CMP gathers. The incident angle at point N is dierent from the one of horizontal layer. With dip angle value increasing, deviation between them enlarges. Moreover, the amplitude of point M will be contaminated. Muerdter et al.[19] numerically analyzed the relationship between osets and reecting angles when dip angle varies, and showed that the eect of slope strata must be considered in AVA analysis. In addition to the angle factors, lateral discontinuity of fault and etc bring fault plane reection and diraction wave, which will interfere with the reected wave of target object in CMP gathers. AVO/AVA analysis based on the horizontal cases is not credible. Thus, the AVA analysis based on pre-stack migration becomes necessary. Pre-stack migration could migrate the tilted reectors to their real locations, converge the diraction wave, and improve the lateral resolution as well as signal to noise ratio. In one word, pre-stack migration provides relatively good preserved-amplitude data to attribute predication and inversion[2023] . Conversion from CRP gathers to angle gathers has following problems: when the subsurface structures are complicated, ray shadow area appears, where CRP gathers exhibit kinematic artifacts[7] ; as CRP gathers

Fig. 1 Contrast between CMP, CRP and CAG gathers

432

Chinese J. Geophys.

Vol.53, No.3

record the coordinate of neither shots nor receivers and ignore azimuth factor, the incident angle according to Walden formula will far deviate from its true value when dip angle of tilted reector is large enough; the improper stack times of near, middle and far osets and sorting interval of CRP gathers will result in amplitude anomalies and lead AVA to misunderstanding. Angle domain pre-stack migration algorithm recording incident/reecting angle information simultaneously during migration procedure, not only retains the advantages of CRP gathers but also avoids the dependency on horizontal layered medium assumption for converting CRP gathers to CAG gathers. The appropriate amplitude weighting factor and hit-count correction technique enable angle-domain imaging gathers suitable for AVA inversion. Besides, because the stretch factor of angle gathers is time-invariant, it is very convenient to remove the stretch eect of large-oset traces, which aects resolution of imaging and AVA inversion[24] . 3 CAG PRODUCED BY KIRCHHOFF PSTM Common-angle gathers extracted by pre-stack time migration take incident/reection angle as sorting header words instead of osets. Dierent osets of seismic traces are mapped into dierent angles. Fig. 2a shows the ray path of straight ray PSTM. Travel time is calculated using DSR hyperbolic moveout equation (Formula (2)): t = ts + t g = ti 2
2

2 rsi 2 vRms

ti 2

2 rig , 2 vRms

(2)

rsi = (xi xs )2 + (yi ys )2 rig = (xi xg )2 + (yi yg )2 , (3)

where ti is the two way travel-time of zero oset, rsi , rig is horizontal distance from shot and geophone points to the imaging points respectively. The coordinate of shot point S is (xs , ys , 0), (xg , yg , 0) stands for the geophone point R, (xi , yi , ti ) is the coordinate of imaging point I.

Fig. 2 Ray path and incident angle of (a) straight-ray and (b) bending-ray

Incident angle , half of the angle between incident ray SI and reected ray IR, could be calculated by cosine law[12] . This algorithm overcomes the dependence of Formula (1) on the horizontal layered medium assumption and could obtain the incident angle between incident ray and reector normal. However, the straight ray angle-domain PSTM method has the following shortcomings: the hyperbolic travel time (Formula (2)) retains only 2-order term of oset r, as r increases, the deviation between travel time t and the true one rises, as a result the events of far oset/angle could not be attened. As the ray bending eect is not taken into account, the incident angles calculated by straight ray PSTM have poor illumination on target stratum, and

ZOU Z et al.: Common-Angle Gathers Based on Kirchho Pre-Stack Time Migration

433

the loss of illumination badly aects the imaging of inclined reectors with large dip angle and AVA inversion. Large oset acquisition is widely used in oil-industry. The largest oset of land acquisition system reaches 50006000 meter, or even longer. The straight ray method couldnt meet the need of travel-time and incidentangle accuracy. In order to improve the accuracy of AVO inversion, Ross[25] and Bale et al.[26] proposed to combine with AVO and NMO correction using non-hyperbolic moveout equation. We combine and extend their ideas to Kirchho pre-stack time migration, using non-hyperbolic moveout equation, such as optimized 6-order NMO equation and the asymmetric travel-time algorithm that adapts linear lateral velocity variation, to calculate travel-time. According to ray parameter method and taking the high order terms of oset into account, we obtain higher precision at large angle. We take optimized 6-order NMO equation for example to indicate the principle of extracting CAG during non-hyperbolic (bending ray) Kirchho PSTM, Formula (4) is double square root (DSR) optimized 6-order NMO travel-time equation 6 c4 rig c4 r6 , (4) t = ts + tg t3s + cc si + t3g + cc t3s t3g where t3s =
2 4 c1 + c2 rsi + 4c3 rsi , t3g = 2 4 c1 + c2 rig + 4c3 rig , c1 , c2 , c3 and c4 are equal to the rst four coe-

cients proposed by Tanner[27,28] , cc is a constant, ts is the travel time from shot to imaging point and tr is the time from geophone to imaging point. According to Snell theorem namely the horizontal ray parameter p invariance principle, the derivations of ts and tr along r direction is given by following expressions
6 3 dts 1 cc c4 rsi (c2 rsi + 8c3 rsi ) 3 5 , = (c2 rsi + 8c3 rsi + 6cc c4 rsi ) 3 drsi t3s t3s 6 3 cc c4 rig (c2 rig + 8c3 rig ) dtg 1 3 5 , = (c2 rig + 8c3 rig + 6cc c4 rgi ) drig t3g t3 3g

(5)

1 = sin1 vint 2 = sin1

dts , drsi dtg vint . drig

(6)

When computing 1 , 2 , we retain the terms up to 5-order, with the aim of saving computation cost. This action has little eect on the accuracy of incident angle measured in degrees. In this article, both the synthetic model data and real data adopt this truncation. Alternative superposition between angle intervals is implemented in order to improve the signal to noise ratio. As shown in Fig. 2b, the angle 1 between ray M I and time axis t0 and angle 2 between ray N I and timeline are calculated with Eq.(6). The incident angle could be given by vector space law[29] 1 MI NI = cos1 (7) , 2 |M I||N I| where stands for vector dot product, the unit vector of the angle between incident/reection ray and time axis could be denoted as Formula (8), module of the vector equals to 1: MI = sin 1 cos 1 xs xi ys y i , sin 1 , rsi rsi , NI = sin 2 xg xi y g yi , sin 2 , rig rig . (8)

cos 2

We adopt following weight factor, that is adaptive to ray bending eect, for amplitude-preserved Kirchho pre-stack time migration[3032] cos s0 cos r0 ts tr 1 1 ts tr . (9) + + w= v0 tr ts tr ts Where coss0 , cosr0 represents the angle between incident/emergent ray and time axis on the surface respectively, v0 demonstrates the surface velocity. The uneven illumination of subsurface targets caused by the uneven

434

Chinese J. Geophys.

Vol.53, No.3

surface acquisition is the main problem for 3D AVA. Data regularization before migration could only reduce the uniformity of surface cover, and the hit-count correction in angle domain should be applied to weaken the AVA illusion[33] . The idea is to record the number of eective hit-count at imaging point meanwhile calculating incident angle, and then get the corrected angle gathers through regularization division in angle domain[8] . 4 MODEL TEST In order to test the correctness of the algorithm proposed in this article, we design a 2D model, as shown in Fig. 3, the velocity model consists of three reectors, the P-wave velocity of the four layers are 3000 m/s, 3500m/s, 4500 m/s and 5000 m/s, the maximum depth is 6000 m, there are 1700 CMP in the horizontal x axis with spacing 10 m. The synthetic wave eld is simulated by acoustic wave equation with high-order nite dierence method. The maximum oset is 6000 m, recording length lasts for 4 s, sampling is 4 ms, shot interval 40 m and group interval 20 m, unilateral spreading, one side shooting. Common-angle gathers, at the point A (x=10000 m) as shown in Fig. 3, are produced with straight ray and bending ray Kirchho PSTM. We also transform the CMP and CRP gathers on point A to commonangle gathers using Hampson-Russell (HRS) software, which calculates the incident angles with Formula (1). All results are shown in Fig. 4. As illustrated in Fig. 5, normalized amplitude peak of the common-angle gathers transformaed from the CMP, CRP gathers and produced by our method, are compared with the theoretical reection coecient calculated using Aki formula, with the aim of inspecting their respective AVA eect.

Fig. 3 Velocity prole of depression model

Fig. 4 CAG at location A in depression model extracted by dierent algorithms

(a) CAG transformed with CMP gathers; (b) CAG transformed with Kirchho PSTM CRP gathers; (c) CAG extracted with straight-ray Kirchho PSTM; (d) CAG extracted with non-hyperbolic travel time Kirchho PSTM.

ZOU Z et al.: Common-Angle Gathers Based on Kirchho Pre-Stack Time Migration

435

In Fig. 4a, common-angle gathers transformed from CMP has low signal to noise ratio, and the diracted wave produced by the second inclined reector couldnt be migrated. Comparing AVA curves with theoretical reection coecient, the AVA curve of rst reector is in good agreement with the theoretical curve (Fig. 5a), as the diracted wave produced by second reector contaminates the reected wave of second and third reector, the amplitude curves of this two reectors deviate from the theoretical value greatly (Fig. 5(b,c)); Fig. 4b demonstrates the common-angle gathers transformed from migration CRP gathers. The reection wave is migrated to its correct location and the diraction is convergent. The amplitude curves of the rst and third at layer match relatively well to the theoretical values, while the second inclined reector doesnt match well with the theoretical curve, as Formula (1) ignores the case of inclined layer. Fig. 4c shows CAG produced by the straight ray Kirchho PSTM. Fig. 4d illustrates CAG extracted by our method, which has the advantages of CRP gathers and overcomes the defects of CRP gathers. All the curves of the rst and third horizontal reector, and the second slope reector are consistent with theoretical curves (Fig. 5). Compared with the straight ray PSTM, our method enlarges the range of incident angle. The incident angle of middle and deep reector increases by about 15 degree. Retaining large angle information is quite important for target imaging and AVA inversion. According to the numerical results, common-angle gathers produced by our method, with more accurate incident angle, travel-time and relatively well preserved amplitude, are suitable to pre-stack AVA inversion.

Fig. 5 Contrast between amplitude variation with angle, extracted with CMP, CRP, our PSTM-CAG method, and theoretical reection coecient curve using Aki formula
(a) The rst reector; (b) The second reector; (c) The third reector; Aki: the theoretical reection coecient curve; CMP-CAG, CRP-CAG: Common-angle gather transformation based on CMP, CRP gathers; PSTM CAG: CAG gathers extracted by our PSTM mehod.

5 REAL DATA We applied pre-stack AVA inversion to one certain work area in western China, where the targets belong to Ordovician carbonate reservoirs, located at 50005700 m. Owing to strong surface absorption, seismic data has low S/N and the reected wave of carbonate reservoirs is messy. And these features bring diculties to seismic imaging and inversion. Because of the low S/N ratio, CMP gathers are not suitable for AVO inversion in this area. As Kirchho PSTM is able to get good imaging of fractured-cave reservoir, CRP gathers are usually

436

Chinese J. Geophys.

Vol.53, No.3

transformed to CAG as basic data for AVA inversion. Fig. 6 shows CAG produced by straight ray PSTM, Fig. 7 shows CAG transformed from CRP with HRS software, while CRP are produced by the bending-ray PSTM. Fig. 8 shows CAG produced by our method. Comparing these three gures, CAG produced by straight ray PSTM have small range of incident angle, with the maximum angle of target objects about 30 degree; the others could reach 42 degree, that means they meet the need of two terms AVA analysis. We compare AVA curves of these CAGs near the well around 3452 ms. In order to compare, the amplitude peak value around this time is normalized. Fig. 9 shows the amplitude of CAG converted from CRP uctuates obviously, and CAG gained by straight ray PSTM has narrower range; while the amplitude of CAG, obtained with our method, varies gently with incident angles and could meet the requirement of inversion. Furthermore, there are amplitude anomalies at the maximum/minimum angle transformed from CRP, therefore in practice terms, we should limit maximum and minimum angle used for inversion.

Fig. 6 Section of common-angle gather extracted by Straight ray PSTM

Fig. 7 Section of common-angle gather (transformed CRP with HRS Software)

Fig. 8 Section of common-angle gather extracted by bending-ray Kirchho PSTM

ZOU Z et al.: Common-Angle Gathers Based on Kirchho Pre-Stack Time Migration

437

Combining the common-angle gathers produced by our method with the well logging data of this work area, we carry out pre-stack simultaneous inversion. Fig. 10 shows the prole of transverse wave impedance with the well, horizontal and vertical distributions of the string bead reservoir are well described. The results demonstrate CAG produced by this algorithm are much more suitable for AVA prestack inversion.

Fig. 9 AVA curve contrast between CAG transformed based on CRP, by straight ray PSTM and bending ray PSTM at 3452 ms

Fig. 10 Section of shear wave impedance inversion with CAG extracted by our method
Tz72 is well number, the color scale stands for the value of shear wave impedance in unit of (ms1 )(gcm3 ).

6 CONCLUSION In this paper, we propose a new method for extracting common-angle gathers during non-hyperbolic traveltime Kirchho pre-stack time migration. Dierent from traditional CAG converted from oset gathers, it has following advantages: more precise angle value, larger angle range and relatively well preserved amplitude. On the other hand, computation cost increases limitedly. So the kind of CAG is suitable for pre-stack AVA analysis and inversion. The hit-count correction technique is available only in simple geological situation. Once the geological structure is complex, there will be error in coverage statistics of reecting point and it will bring articial error to amplitude. Thus it is necessary to take further study on the topic how to reduce the uneven illumination and coverage of imaging point in angle domain as to improve the accuracy of 3D AVA. Amplitude preserving includes seismic preserved processing and preserved migration, both are indispensable. If amplitude anomaly appears during processing, it will aect the following amplitude-preserved migration. When amplitude anomaly shows up either in processing or migration, it will make the AVA analysis and inversion inaccurate. So quantication of preserved processing and interpretation is urgent for the lithologic reservoir description. PSTM is applicable to the medium with smooth lateral velocity variation, when the geological structure is complex with intense lateral velocity variation, the common-angle gather produced by Kirchho PSTM will

438

Chinese J. Geophys.

Vol.53, No.3

not be t for AVA analysis anymore. Using common-angle gathers produced by true amplitude pre-stack depth migration is the development direction of AVA inversion. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by the Project of National 863 Plan of China (2006AA09A102-08), and the Project of National 973 Plan of China (2007CB209603). We thanks Zhang Bing (Geophysical Technology Research Institute, Sinopec Nanjing) for providing the modeling data, and CGG for its University donation scheme providing the HRS software. REFERENCES
[1] Shang Z, Mcdonald J A, Gardner G H F. Automated extraction of AVA information in the presence of structure. 63th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1993. 713715 [2] Walden A T. Making AVO sections more robust. Geophysical Prospecting, 1991, 39(7): 915942 [3] Resnick J R, Ng P, Larner K. Amplitude versus oset analysis in the presence of dip. 57th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1987. 617620 [4] Mosher C C, Keho T H, Weglein A B, et al. The impact of migration on AVO. Geophysics, 1996, 61(6): 16031615 [5] Prucha M L, Biondi B L, Symes W W. Angle-domain image gathers by wave-equation migration: angle-domain common image gathers by wave equation. 69th Annual Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1999. 824827 [6] Mosher C C, Jin S, Foste D J. Migration velocity analysis using common angle image gathers. 71st Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2001. 889892 [7] Xu S, Chauris H, Lambare G, et al. Common-angle migration: a strategy for imaging complex media. Geophysics, 2001, 66(6): 18771894 [8] Sava P C, Fomel S. Angle-domain common-image gathers by waveeld continuation methods. Geophysics, 2003, 68(3): 10651074 [9] Stolk C C, de Hoop M V, Symes W W. Kinematics of prestack shot-geophone migration. 75th Annual International meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2005. 18661869 [10] Chen L, Wu R S, Wang W J. Common angle image gathers obtained from Gabor daubechies beamleat prestack depth migration. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 2004, 47(5): 876885 [11] Zheng Y. Seismic azimuthal anisotropy and fracture analysis from PP reection data [Ph. D. Thesis]. Calgary: University of Calgary, 2006 [12] Perez G, Marfurt K J. Improving lateral and vertical resolution of seismic images by correcting for wavelet stretch in common-angle migration. Geophysics, 2007, 72(6): 94104 [13] Cheng J B, Wang N, Ma Z T. Table-driven 3-D angle-domain imaging approach for Kirchho prestack time migration. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 2009, 52(3): 792800 [14] Cheng J B, Wang N. Azimuth/angle-domain imaging in prestack time migration using non-hyperbolic moveout. CPS/SEG Beijing International Geophysical Conference & Exposition. 2009. ID 1179 [15] Wang D, Zheng X D, Chen J B. Amplitude-preserving plane-wave prestack time migration for AVO analysis. Applied Geophysics, 2008, 5(3): 212218 [16] Sun C W. Optimized 6 order NMO correction for long-oset seismic data. 72th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2002 [17] Liu H, Wang X M, Zeng R, et al. Symbol description to integral solution of one-way wave operator. Progress in Geophysics (in Chinese), 2007, 22(2): 463471 [18] Li B, Liu G F, Liu H. A method of using GPU to accelerate seismic pre-stack time migration. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 2009, 52(1): 18 [19] Muerdter D, LLC L, Kelly M, et al. The eect of reector dip on AVO analysis. 75th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2005 [20] Liu H L, Zhu Q Y. AVO inversion and interpretation based on prestack depth migration. Progress in Geophysics (in Chinese), 2007, 22(3): 905913 [21] Hu Y G, Shang X M, Shi L G, et al. AVO process technique based on prestack time migration data. Geophysical Prospecting for Petroleum (in Chinese), 2002, 41(3): 343346

ZOU Z et al.: Common-Angle Gathers Based on Kirchho Pre-Stack Time Migration

439

[22] Tygel M, Santons L T, Schleicher J. Kirchho imaging as a tool for AVO/AVA. The Leading Edge, 1999, 18(8): 940945 [23] Avseth P, Mukerji T, Mayko G. Quantitative seismic interpretation. Cambridge University Press, 2005. 190200 [24] Roy B, ANmo P D, Baumel R, et al. Analytic correction for wavelet stretch due to imaging. 75th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2005. 234237 [25] Ross C. AVO and nonhyperbolic moveout: a practical example. First Break, 1997, 15: 4348 [26] Bale R, Leaney S, Dumitru G. Oset-to-angle transformations for PP and PS AVO analysis. 71th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2001. 235238 [27] Taner M T, Koehler F. Velocity spectra-digital computer derivation and applications of velocity functions. Geophysics, 1969, 34(6): 859881 [28] Castal R J. A theory of normal moveout. Geophysics, 1994, 59(6): 983999 [29] Zou Z, Liu H, Liu W H. 3-D angle-domain common imaging gathers during Kirchho PSTM. 79th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2009. 326330 [30] Zhang Y, Gray S, Yong J. Exact and approximate weights for Kirchho migration. 70th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2000. 10391039 [31] Lee S, King D, Lin S. Ecient true-amplitude weights in Kirchho time migration. 74th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2004. 10891092 [32] Dellinger J A, Gray S H, Murphy G E, et al. Ecient 2.5-D true-amplitude migration. Geophysics, 2000, 65(3): 943950 [33] Audebert F, Nicoletis L, Froidevaux P. Regularization of illumination in angle domains-A key to true amplitude migration. The Leading Edge, 2005, 24(6): 643654