1887

Abstract

Summary

As the need for continuous passive seismic monitoring grows, we continue to seek sensors that can provide a large aperture and are highly repeatable. Distributed acoustic sensing provides a unique opportunity to deploy optical fibres as a complementary distributed sensing instrument for seismic monitoring that is repeatable once permanently deployed (i.e., trenched or cemented) and with minimal maintenance effort when installed correctly. Additional cost savings can be achieved when repurposing the existing network of telecommunication optical fibres. However, the data rates, both temporally and spatially, can be challenging for near-real-time seismic monitoring solutions. We propose using a machine learning-enabled seismic phase picker (i.e., PhaseNet) and an automated pick corrections procedure in preparation for seismic event location. We demonstrate our workflow on synthetic data from a modified SEAM II Barrett unconventional model.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202310393
2023-06-05
2026-02-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ajo-Franklin, J.B., Dou, S., Lindsey, N.J., Monga, I., Tracy, C., Robertson, M., Rodriguez Tribaldos, V., Ulrich, C., Freifeld, B., Daley, T. and Li, X. [2019]. Distributed acoustic sensing using dark fiber for near-surface characterization and broadband seismic event detection. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Huot, F., Lellouch, A., Given, P., Clapp, R.G., Biondi, B.L., Nemeth, T. and Nihei, K. [2021]. Detecting microseismic events on DAS fiber with super-human accuracy. 1st International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy. Expanded Abstracts. 3174–3178.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Lim Chen Ning, I., Swafford, L., Craven, M., Davies, K., Earnest, E. and Thornton, D. [2022]. Automation of passive seismic processing via machine learning and physics-informed methods. 2nd International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy. Expanded Abstracts. 1521–1525.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Oristaglio, M. [2015]. SEAM Update: Elastic anisotropy in SEAM Phase II models. The Leading Edge, 34(8), 964–970.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Stork, A.L., Baird, A.F., Horne, S.A., Naldrett, G., Lapins, S., Kendall, J.M., Wookey, J., Verdon, J.P., Clarke, A. and Williams, A. [2020]. Application of machine learning to microseismic event detection in distributed acoustic sensing data. Geophysics, 85, KS149–KS160.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Withers, M., Aster, R., Young, C., Beiriger, J., Harris, M., Moore, S. and Trujillo, J. [1998]. A comparison of select trigger algorithms for automated global seismic phase and event detection. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 88(1), 95–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Wu, C. [2021]. 3D Finite-difference Elastic modeling for DAS VSP and microseismic surveys. 1st International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy. Expanded Abstracts. 2430–2434.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Zhu, T., Shen, J. and Martin, E.R. [2021]. Sensing Earth and environment dynamics by telecommunication fiber-optic sensors: an urban experiment in Pennsylvania, USA. Solid Earth, 12(1), 219–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhu, W. and Beroza, G.C. [2019]. PhaseNet: a deep-neural-network-based seismic arrival-time picking method. Geophysical Journal International, 216(1), 261–273.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202310393
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202310393
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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