1887
Volume 50, Issue 5
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Improving the accuracy of seismic wave propagation for imaging and inversion purposes often requires evaluating the validity of any underlying anisotropic assumption. Over the previous decades different models have been proposed to address the assumption of azimuthally anisotropic media; however, to our knowledge there is no published comparative analysis between these models that would allow practitioners to understand which provides more accurate theoretical predictions given specific field conditions. We evaluate two rock physics models for azimuthal anisotropy in widespread use (Mavko and Sayers) to determine which offers the better predictive power for benchmark laboratory data sets measured on three different kinds of dry rocks: Massillon Sandstone, Barre Granite and Ottawa Sand. We find that the Mavko model generally provides more accurate predictions, with a maximum 7% error for the consolidated Massillon Sandstone and Barre Granite rocks. Neither model provides very accurate approximations for Ottawa Sand due to the fact that this unconsolidated rock violates the underlaying assumption that the total rock compliance is affected only by the rock's matrix and crack compliances. We conclude that even though Mavko's approach provides more accurate predictions, both models are sufficiently accurate for simulating wave propagation in consolidated rocks with azimuthal anisotropy (e.g. well consolidated and cemented sandstones, and granites).

© 2019 Australian Society of Exploration Geophysics
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2019.1621503
2019-09-03
2026-01-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2019.1621503
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Benson M., and A. Wilson 2015 Frac Sand in the United States - A Geological and Industry Overview. 1st ed.Reston, VA: United States Geological Survey.
  2. Bonner B. 1974 Shear wave birefringence in dilating granite. Geophysical Research Letters1, no. 5: 217–220. doi: 10.1029/GL001i005p00217
     https://doi.org/10.1029/GL001i005p00217 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bording R., and L. Lines 1997 Seismic Modeling and Imaging with the Complete Wave Equation. Society of Exploration Geophysicists29–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Coyner C. 1984 Effects of Stress, Pore Pressure, and Pore Fluids on Bulk Strain, Velocity, and Permeability in Rocks: PhD thesis, Massachussets Institute of Technology.
  5. Fang X., M. Fehler, Z. Zhu, T. Chen, S. Brown, A. Cheng, M. N. Toksöz 2013 An approach for predicting stress-induced anisotropy around a borehole. Geophysics78, no. 3: D143–D150. doi: 10.1190/geo2012‑0145.1
     https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2012-0145.1 [Google Scholar]
  6. Gao F., A. Levander, G. Pratt, and C. Zelt 2005 Seismic velocity, Q, geological structure and lithology estimation at a ground water contamination site. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts2005: 1561–1564. doi: 10.1190/1.2147990
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2147990 [Google Scholar]
  7. Gibson R. L., and M. N. Toksöz 1989 Permeability estimation from velocity anisotropy in fractured rock. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts1989: 573–575.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Granryd L., I. C. Getting, and H. Spetzler 1983 Path dependence of acoustic velocity and attenuation in experimentally deformed Westerly Granite. Geophysical Research Letters10, no. 1: 71–74. doi: 10.1029/GL010i001p00071
     https://doi.org/10.1029/GL010i001p00071 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gurevich B., M. Pervukhina, and D. Makarynska 2011 An analytic model for the stress-induced anisotropy of dry rocks. Geophysics76, no. 3: WA125–WA133. doi: 10.1190/1.3567950
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3567950 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hornby B., J. Howie, and D. Ince 2003 Anisotropy correction for deviated-well sonic logs. Application to seismic well tie: Geophysics68, no. 2: 464–471.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Huang L., G. Zhang, Y. Tang, and X. Wang 2017 In Modeling elastic anisotropy for triaxially stressed rocks: Theoretical and laboratory examination: International Geophysical Conference, Qingdao, China, 17–20 April 2017, 1091–1094.
  12. Hudson J. 1981 Wave speeds and attenuation of elastic waves in material containing cracks. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society64: 133–150. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‑246X.1981.tb02662.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1981.tb02662.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Hudson J., E. Liu, and S. Crampin 1997 The mean transmission properties of a fault with imperfect facial contact. Geophysical Journal International129: 720–726. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‑246X.1997.tb04507.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb04507.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Li R., K. Dodds, A. Siggins, and M. Urosevic 2006 A rock physics simulator and its application for sequestration process. Exploration Geophysics37, no. 1: 67–72. doi: 10.1071/EG06067
     https://doi.org/10.1071/EG06067 [Google Scholar]
  15. Liu E., J. A. Hudson, and T. Pointer 2000 Equivalent medium representation of fractured rock. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth105: 2981–3000. doi: 10.1029/1999JB900306
     https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JB900306 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lockner D., J. Walsh, and J. Byerlee 1977 Changes in seismic velocity and attenuation during deformation of granite. Journal of Geophysical Research82: 5374–5378. doi: 10.1029/JB082i033p05374
     https://doi.org/10.1029/JB082i033p05374 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lubbe R., J. Sothcott, M. Worthington, and C. McCann 2008 Laboratory estimates of normal and shear fracture compliance. Geophysical Prospecting56: 239–247. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‑2478.2007.00688.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00688.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Mavko G., T. Mukerji, and J. Dvorkin 2009 The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis of Porous Media. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Mavko G., T. Mukerji, and N. Godfrey 1995 Predicting stress induced velocity anisotropy in rocks. Geophysics60: 1081–1087. doi: 10.1190/1.1443836
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443836 [Google Scholar]
  20. Mukerji T., and G. Mavko 1994 Pore fluid effects on seismic velocity in anisotropic rocks. Geophysics59: 233–244. doi: 10.1190/1.1443585
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443585 [Google Scholar]
  21. Murphy W. F. 1982 Effects of microstructure and pore fluids on the acoustic properties of granular sedimentary materials: PhD thesis, Standford University.
  22. Nur A. 1971 Effects of stress on velocity anisotropy in rocks with cracks. Journal of Geophysical Research76, no. 8: 2022–2034. doi: 10.1029/JB076i008p02022
     https://doi.org/10.1029/JB076i008p02022 [Google Scholar]
  23. Nur A., and G. Simmons 1969 Stress-induced velocity anisotropy in rock. An experimental study: Journal of Geophysical Research74: 6667–6674.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Richter D. A. 1987 Barre Granite quarries, Barre, Vermont. Geological Society of America Centennial Field Guide - Northeastern Section1987: 239–242. doi: 10.1130/0‑8137‑5405‑4.239
     https://doi.org/10.1130/0-8137-5405-4.239 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sayers C. 2002 Stress-dependent elastic anisotropy of sandstones. Geophysical Prospecting50, no. 1: 85–95. doi: 10.1046/j.1365‑2478.2002.00289.x
     https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2002.00289.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Sayers C. M. 2006 Effects of borehole stress concentration on elastic wave velocities in sandstones: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2006.
  27. Sayers C., and M. Kachanov 1991 A simple technique for finding effective elastic constants of cracked solids for arbitrary crack orientation statistics. International Journal of Solids and Structures27, no. 6: 671–680. doi: 10.1016/0020‑7683(91)90027‑D
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(91)90027-D [Google Scholar]
  28. Sayers C. M., J. V. Munster, and M. King 1990 Stress-induced ultrasonic anisotropy in Berea Sandstone. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts27, no. 5: 429–436. doi: 10.1016/0148‑9062(90)92715‑Q
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(90)92715-Q [Google Scholar]
  29. Shragge J., and D. Lumley 2012 Elliptical dip moveout for 3D seismic imaging in the presence of azimuthal anisotropy. Geophysics77, no. 1: C1–C12. doi: 10.1190/geo2011‑0044.1
     https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2011-0044.1 [Google Scholar]
  30. Stout W. 1944 Sandstones and Conglomerates in Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science44, no. 2: 75–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Thomsen L. 1999 Coarse-layer stripping of vertically variable azimuthal anisotropy from shear wave data. Geophysics64: 1126–1138. doi: 10.1190/1.1444619
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444619 [Google Scholar]
  32. Tsvankin I., J. Gaiser, V. Grechka, M. van der Baan, and L. Thomsen 2010 Seismic anisotropy in exploration and reservoir characterization. An overview: Geophysics75, no. 5: A15–A29.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. White J. E. 2000 Underground Sound: Application of Seismic Waves. In Seismic Wave Propagation: Collected Works of J. E. White: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  34. Yin H. 1992 Acoustic velocity and attenuation of rocks: isotropy, intrinsic anisotropy and stress induced anisotropy: PhD thesis, Stanford University.
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2019.1621503
Loading
A comparison of rock physics models for stress-related seismic azimuthal anisotropy
Exploration Geophysics 50, 490 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1080/08123985.2019.1621503
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2019.1621503
/content/journals/10.1080/08123985.2019.1621503
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Anisotropy; modelling; rock physics

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error