1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 67, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 67 Number 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Seismic attenuation mechanisms receive increasing attention for the characterization of fractured formations because of their inherent sensitivity to the hydraulic and elastic properties of the probed media. Attenuation has been successfully inferred from seismic data in the past, but linking these estimates to intrinsic rock physical properties remains challenging. A reason for these difficulties in fluid‐saturated fractured porous media is that several mechanisms can cause attenuation and may interfere with each other. These mechanisms notably comprise pressure diffusion phenomena and dynamic effects, such as scattering, as well as Biot's so‐called intrinsic attenuation mechanism. Understanding the interplay between these mechanisms is therefore an essential step for estimating fracture properties from seismic measurements. In order to do this, we perform a comparative study involving wave propagation modelling in a transmission set‐up based on Biot's low‐frequency dynamic equations and numerical upscaling based on Biot's consolidation equations. The former captures all aforementioned attenuation mechanisms and their interference, whereas the latter only accounts for pressure diffusion phenomena. A comparison of the results from both methods therefore allows to distinguish between dynamic and pressure diffusion phenomena and to shed light on their interference. To this end, we consider a range of canonical models with randomly distributed vertical and/or horizontal fractures. We observe that scattering attenuation strongly interferes with pressure diffusion phenomena, since the latter affect the elastic contrasts between fractures and their embedding background. Our results also demonstrate that it is essential to account for amplitude reductions due to transmission losses to allow for an adequate estimation of the intrinsic attenuation of fractured media. The effects of Biot's intrinsic mechanism are rather small for the models considered in this study.

© 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2018 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12667
2018-08-06
2024-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12667
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlasbaliA., PevznerR., TertyshnikovK., BónaA. and GurevichB.2016. Estimation of seismic attenuation and prediction of VTI anisotropy parameters from VSP and log data: a case study from the Middle East. Arabian Journal of Geosciences9, 485.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BarbosaN.D., RubinoJ.G., CaspariE., MilaniM. and HolligerK.2016. Fluid pressure diffusion effects on the seismic reflectivity of a single fracture. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America140, 2554–2570.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BerengerJ.P.1994. A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves. The Journal of Computational Physics114, 185–200.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BiotM.A.1956. Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid‐saturated porous solid. I. Low‐frequency range. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America28, 168–178.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BiotM.A.1962a. Mechanics of deformation and acoustic propagation in porous media. Journal of Applied Physics33, 1482–1498.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BiotM.A.1962b. Generalized theory of acoustic propagation in porous dissipative media. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America34, 1254–1264.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. BiotM.A.1941. General theory for three‐dimensional consolidation. Journal of Applied Physics12, 155–164.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. CarcioneJ.M.1996. Wave propagation in anisotropic, saturated porous media: plane wave theory and numerical simulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America99, 2655–2666.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. CarcioneJ.M. and DavideG.2009. Theory and numerical simulation of fluid‐pressure diffusion in anisotropic porous media. Geophysics74, N31–N39.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. CarcioneJ.M., MorencyC. and SantosJ.E.2010. Computational poroelasticity – A review. Geophysics75, 75A229–75A243.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. CaspariE., MilaniM., RubinoG.J., MüllerT.M., QuintalB. and HolligerK.2016. Numerical upscaling of frequency‐dependent P‐ and S‐wave moduli in fractured porous media. Geophysical Prospecting64, 1166–1179.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. ChapmanM.2003. Frequency‐dependent anisotropy due to meso‐scale fractures in the presence of equant porosity. Geophysical Prospecting51, 369–379.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. DaleyT.M., MajerE.L. and PetersonJ.E.2004. Cross‐well seismic imaging in a contaminated basalt aquifer. Geophysics69, 16–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. DrossaertF.H. and GiannopoulosA.2007. Complex frequency shifted convolution PML for FDTD modelling of elastic waves. Wave motion44, 593–604.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. DuttaN.C. and OdéH.1983. Seismic reflections from a gas‐water contact. Geophysics48, 148–162.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. GuoJ., RubinoG.J., GlubokovskikhS. and GurevichB.2016. Effects of fracture intersections on seismic dispersion: theoretical predictions versus numerical simulations. Geophysical Prospecting65, 1264–1276.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. GurevichB., BrajanovskiM., GalvinR.J., MüllerT.M. and Toms‐StewartJ.2009. P‐wave dispersion and attenuation in fractured and porous reservoirs–poroelasticity approach. Geophysical Prospecting57, 225–237.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. GurevichB. and PevznerR.2015. How frequency dependency of Q affects spectral ratio estimates. Geophysics80, A39–A44.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. GurevichB., ZyrianovV.B. and LopatnikovS.L.1997. Seismic attenuation in finely layered porous rocks: effects of fluid flow and scattering. Geophysics62, 319–324.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. HunzikerJ., FavinoM., CaspariE., QuintalB., RubinoJ., KrauseR.et al. 2018. Seismic attenuation and stiffness modulus dispersion in porous rocks containing stochastic fracture networks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth123, 125–143.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. JänickeR., QuintalB. and SteebH.2015. Numerical homogenization of mesoscopic loss in poroelastic media. European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids49, 382–395.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. JohnsonD.L., KoplikJ. and DashenR.1987. Theory of dynamic permeability and tortuosity in fluid‐saturated porous media. Journal of Fluid Mechanics176, 379–402.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. LisitsaV., PodgornovaO. and TcheverdaV.2010. On the interface error analysis for finite difference wave simulation. Computational Geosciences14, 769–778.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. LiuE. and MartinezA.2012. Seismic Fracture Characterization: Concepts and Practical Applications. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. MainI.G., PeacockS. and MeredithP.G.1990. Scattering attenuation and the fractal geometry of fracture systems. Pure and Applied Geophysics133, 283–304.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. MangriotisM.D., RectorJ.W., HerkenhoffE.F. and NeuJ.C.2013. Scattering versus intrinsic attenuation in the vadose zone: a VSP experiment. Geophysics78, B49–B63.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. MassonY.J. and PrideS.R.2007. Poroelastic finite difference modeling of seismic attenuation and dispersion due to mesoscopic‐scale heterogeneity. Journal of Geophysical Research112, B03204.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. MassonY.J. and PrideS.R.2010. Finite‐difference modeling of Biot's poroelastic equations across all frequencies. Geophysics75, N33–N41.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. MassonY.J., PrideS.R. and NiheiK.T.2006. Finite difference modeling of Biot's poroelastic equations at seismic frequencies. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth111.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. MilaniM., MonachesiL., SabbioneJ.I., RubinoJ. and HolligerK.2016. A generalized effective anisotropic poroelastic model for periodically layered media accounting for both biot's global and interlayer flows. Geophysical Prospecting64, 1135–1148.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. MoczoP., KristekJ., VavrycukV., ArchuletaR.J. and HaladaL.2002. 3D heterogeneous staggered‐grid finite‐differece modeling of seismic motion with volume harmonic and arithmetic averaging of elastic moduli and densities. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America92, 3042–3066.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. MüllerT.M., GurevichB. and LebedevM.2010. Seismic wave attenuation and dispersion resulting from wave‐induced flow in porous rocks – a review. Geophysics75, 75A147–75A164.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. MuraiY.2007. Scattering attenuation, dispersion and reflection of SH waves in two‐dimensional elastic media with densely distributed cracks. Geophysical Journal International168, 211–223.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. NovikovM., CaspariE., HolligerK., QuintalB., LisitsaV., RubinoJ.G.et al. 2017a. Numerical study of fracture connectivity response in seismic wavefields. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 3786–3790. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  35. NovikovM., CaspariE., LisitsaV., QuintalB., RubinoG.J. and HolligerK.2017b. Attenuation in fluid‐saturated fractured porous media: quasi‐static numerical upscaling and wave propagation modeling. PoromechanicsVI, 1499–1506.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. PrideS.R.2005. Relationships between seismic and hydrological properties. In: Hydrogeophysics, Chap. 9 (eds Y.Rubin and S.Hubbard), pp. 253–291. Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. QuintalB., JänickeR., RubinoJ.G., SteebH. and HolligerK.2014. Sensitivity of S‐wave attenuation to the connectivity of fractures in fluid‐saturated rocks. Geophysics79, WB15–WB24.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. QuintalB., SteebH., FrehnerM. and SchmalholzM.2011. Quasi‐static finite element modeling of seismic attenuation and dispersion due to wave‐induced fluid flow in poroelastic media. Journal of Geophysical Research116, 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. RubinoJ.G., CaspariE., MüllerT.M. and HolligerK.2017. Fracture connectivity can reduce the velocity anisotropy of seismic waves. Geophysical Journal Internationl210, 223–227.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. RubinoJ., CaspariE., MüllerT.M., MilaniM., BarbosaN.D. and HolligerK.2016. Numerical upscaling in 2‐D heterogeneous poroelastic rocks: Anisotropic attenuation and dispersion of seismic waves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth121, 6698–6721.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. RubinoJ.G., GuarracinoL., MüllerT.M. and HolligerK.2013. Do seismic waves sense fracture connectivity? Geophysical Research Letters40, 692–696.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. RubinoJ.G., MüllerT.M., GuarracinoL., MilaniM. and HolligerK.2014. Seismoacoustic signatures of fracture connectivity. Journal of Geophysical Research119, 2252–2271.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. RubinoJ.G., RavazzoliC.L. and SantosJ.E.2009. Equivalent viscoelastic solids for heterogeneous fluid‐saturated porous rocks. Geophysics74, N1–N13.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. RytovS.M., KravtsovY.A. and TatarskiiV.I.1988. Principles of Statistical Radiophysics 2. Correlation Theory of Random Processes. Springer‐Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. SaengerE.H., KrügerO.S. and ShapiroS.A.2004. Effective elastic properties of randomly fractured soils: 3D numerical experiments. Geophysical Prospecting52, 183–195.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. SamarskiiA.A.2001. The Theory of Difference Schemes, Vol. 240. CRC Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. VinciC., RennerJ. and SteebH.2014. On attenuation of seismic waves associated with flow in fractures. Geophysical Research Letters41, 7515–7523.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. VirieuxJ.1986. P‐SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: velocity‐stress finite‐difference method. Geophysics51, 889–901.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. VishnevskyD., LisitsaV., TcheverdaV. and ReshetovaG.2014. Numerical study of the interface errors of finite‐difference simulations of seismic waves. Geophysics79, T219–T232.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. VlastosS., LiuE., MainI.G. and ClementN.2007. Numerical simulation of wave propagation in 2‐D fractured media: scattering attenuation at different stages of the growth of a fracture population. Geophysical Journal International171, 865–880.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. WenzlauF. and MüllerT.M.2009. Finite‐difference modeling of wave propagation and diffusion in poroelastic media. Geophysics74, T55–T66.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12667
Loading
Attenuation mechanisms in fractured fluid‐saturated porous rocks: a numerical modelling study
Geophysical Prospecting 67, 935 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12667
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12667
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12667
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Attenuation; Numerical study; 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