1887
Volume 57, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We test various methods of quantifying the compliance of single and multiple rock fractures from synthetic ultrasonic data. The data are generated with a 2D discrete particle scheme which has previously been shown to treat fractures in agreement with linear‐slip theory. Studying single fractures, we find that delays derived from peak amplitudes do not correspond to group delays, as might be expected. This is due to waveform distortion caused by the frequency‐dependent transmission across the fracture. Instead the delays correspond to an expression for phase delays, which we derive from linear‐slip theory. Phase delays are a unique function of compliance, whereas group delays are non‐uniquely related to compliance. We believe that this property of group delays has hindered the wider application of deriving fracture compliances from traveltimes. We further show that transmission coefficients derived from waveform spectra yield more accurate fracture compliances than those obtained from ratios of signal peak amplitudes. We also investigate the compliance of a set of parallel fractures. Fracture compliance can only be determined from transmission coefficients if the fracture spacing is so large that the first arriving pulse is not contaminated by reverberations. In the case of contamination the direct measurement of group or phase delays is not practical. However, we demonstrate that in such cases of strong waveform distortion the coda wave interferometry method is very effective for determining relative fracture compliance. First break delays in the fracture set data are related to those observed in single fracture simulations. This means that fracture set compliance can be estimated from first break data if used together with numerical simulations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00749.x
2008-10-17
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. CaiJ.G. and ZhaoJ.2000. Effects of multiple parallel fractures on apparent attenuation of stress waves in rock masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences37, 661–682.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. GretA., SniederR. and ScalesJ.2006. Time‐lapse monitoring of rock properties with coda wave interferometry. Journal of Geophysical Research111, B03305. doi:DOI: 10.1029/2004JB003354
    [Google Scholar]
  3. HooverW.G., AshurstW.T. and OlnessR.J.1993. Two‐dimensional computer studies of crystal stability and fluid viscosity. The Journal of Chemical Physics60, 4043–4047.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. HsuC.‐J. and SchoenbergM.1993. Elastic waves through a simulated fractured medium. Geophysics 58, 964–977.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. JaegerJ.C., CookN.G.W. and ZimmermanR.W.2007. Wave propagation in rocks. In: Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics (eds J.C.Jaeger , N.G.W.Cook and R.W.Zimmerman ). Blackwell . ISBN 9780632057597.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. KeikoY., SanoO., UtadaH., TakeiY., NakaoS. and FukaoY.2003. Long‐term observation of in situ seismic velocity and attenuation. Journal of Geophysical Research108, 2317. doi:DOI: 10.1029/2002JB002005
    [Google Scholar]
  7. LubbeR. and WorthingtonM.H.2006. A field investigation of fracture compliance. Geophysical Prospecting 54, 319–331. doi:DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2006.00530.x
    [Google Scholar]
  8. LubbeR., SothcottJ., WorthingtonM.H. and McCannC.2008. Laboratory estimates of normal and shear fracture compliance. Geophysical Prospecting 56, 239–247. doi:DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00688.x
    [Google Scholar]
  9. MyerL.R., HopkinsD., PetersonJ.E. and CookN.G.W.1995. Seismic wave propagation across multiple fractures. In: Fractured and Jointed Rock Masses (eds L.R.Myer , N.G.W.Cook , R.E.Goodman and C.F.Tsang ). Balkema, Rotterdam . ISBN 9054105917.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. NakagawaS., NiheiK.T. and MyerL.R.2000. Stop‐pass behavior of acoustic waves in a 1D fractured system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America107, 40–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. O'BrienG.S. and BeanC.J.2004. A 3D discrete numerical elastic lattice method for seismic wave propagation in heterogeneous media with topography. Geophysical Research Letters 31, L14608. doi:DOI: 10.1029/2004GL020069
    [Google Scholar]
  12. O'Brien, G.S.2008. Discrete visco‐elastic lattice methods for seismic wave propagation. Geophysical Research Letters 35, L02302. doi:DOI: 10.1029/2007GL032214
    [Google Scholar]
  13. O'DohertyR.F. and AnsteyN.A.1971. Reflections on amplitudes. Geophysical Prospecting 19, 430–458. doi:DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1971.tb00610.x
    [Google Scholar]
  14. PandolfiD., BeanC.J. and SaccorottiG.2006. Coda wave interferometric detection of seismic velocity changes associated with the 1999 M = 3.6 event at Mt. Vesuvius. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L06306. doi:DOI: 10.1029/2005GL025355
    [Google Scholar]
  15. PapoulisA.1962. The Fourier Integral and Its Applications . McGraw‐Hill. ISBN 0070484473.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. PrioulR., DonaldA., KoepsellR., El MarzoukiZ. and BrattonT.2007. Forward modeling of fracture‐induced sonic anisotropy using a combination of borehole image and sonic logs. Geophysics 72, E135–E147.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Pyrak‐NolteL.J., CookN.G.W. and MyerL.R.1987. Seismic visibility of fractures. 28th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics , Tucson , 29 June – 1 July, 47–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Pyrak‐NolteL.J., MyerL.R. and CookN.G.W.1990a. Transmission of seismic waves across single natural fractures. Journal of Geophysical Research95, 8617–8638.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Pyrak‐NolteL.J., MyerL.R. and CookN.G.W.1990b. Anisotropy in seismic velocities and amplitudes from multiple parallel fractures. Journal of Geophysical Research95, 11345–11358.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. ScherbaumF.2002. Analysis of digital earthquake signals. In: International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology , Vol. 81A (eds W.H.KLee , H.Kanamori , P.Jennings and C.Kisslinger ), pp. 349–355. Academic Press. ISBN 0124406521.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. SchoenbergM.1980. Elastic wave behavior across linear slip interfaces. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America68, 1516–1521.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. SchoenbergM. and SayersM.1995. Seismic anisotropy of fractured rock. Geophysics 60, 204–211.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SniederR.2002. Coda wave interferometry and the equilibration of energy in elastic media. Physics ReviewE66, 046615. doi:DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.046615
    [Google Scholar]
  24. SniederR. and PageJ.2007. Multiple scattering in evolving media. Physics Today60, 49–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. ToomeyA. and BeanC.J.2000. Numerical simulation of seismic waves using a discrete particle scheme. Geophysical Journal International141, 595–604.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. ToomeyA., BeanC.J. and ScottiO.2002. Fracture properties from seismic data ‐ a numerical investigation. Geophysical Research Letters 29, 1050. doi:DOI: 10.1029/2001GL013867
    [Google Scholar]
  27. WearK.2000. Measurement of phase velocity and group velocity in human calcaneus. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 26, 641–646.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. WillisM.E., BurnsD.R., RaoR., MinsleyB., ToksoezM.N. and VetriL.2006. Spatial orientation and distribution of reservoir fractures from scattered seismic energy. Geophysics 71, O43–O51.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. WorthingtonM.2007. The compliance of macrofractures. The Leading Edge 26, 1118–1122.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. ZhangJ.2005. Elastic wave modeling in fractured media with an explicit approach. Geophysics 70, T75–T85.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00749.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00749.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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