1887

Abstract

Summary

A physics‑informed alternative to fault likelihood was developed by teaching a U‑Net to predict cumulative maximum shear strain, γ_{p,max}, from seismic images. Mechanics‑consistent pairs were created by running CDEM simulations of a 45° normal fault in a 48‑layer, 5 km 2.77 km model with 10 891 particles across 521 time steps; particle‑scale density and velocity updates yielded impedance, vertical reflection coefficients, and band‑limited seismic via 20/40/60 Hz Ricker wavelets, providing inputs matched to γ_{p,max} labels. The U‑Net (MSE loss, AdamW 1×10−4, 250 epochs) achieved train/val MSE ≈0.0027/0.0056 and test R2 ≈0.64. Predicted high‑strain ribbons tracked major fault cores, tips, and splays while preserving finite deformation‑zone thickness and exhibiting tolerance to minor mis‑ties—advantages over categorical masks that compress faults to one‑voxel filaments. Newly learned limitations include under‑resolution of very thin splays and tip‑localized deformation and occasional false positives where strong stratigraphic edges mimic discontinuities; mild cross‑line striping reflects training on 2‑D inline patches. Overall, γ_{p,max} regression is a practical, interpretable path to rank structures by deformation intensity and to derive discrete surfaces by threshold‑and‑link post‑processing, with clear upgrade paths via multi‑task (mask + intensity + orientation) learning and broader 3‑D simulation libraries.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202639096
2026-03-09
2026-02-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Botter, C., Cardozo, N., Hardy, S., Lecomte, I., Escalona, A., 2014, From mechanical modeling to seismic imaging of faults: Marine and Petroleum Geology, 57, 187–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cardozo, N., and Hardy, S., 2023, cdem: A macOS program for discrete element modeling of tectonic structures: Geosphere, 19, 1259–1279.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cundall, P.A., and Strack, O.D.L., 1979, A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies: Géotechnique, 29, 47–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dou, Y., Li, K., Zhu, J., Li, T., Tan, S., and Huang, Z., 2022, Efficient training of 3-D seismic fault segmentation under sparse labels: IEEE TGRS, 60, 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Faulkner, D.R., Jackson, C. A-L., Lunn, R.J., Schlische, R.W., Shipton, Z.K., Wibberley, C.A.J., and Withjack, M.O., 2010, Structure, mechanics and fluid-flow properties of fault zones: J. Struct. Geol., 32, 1557–1575.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Labuz, J.F., and Zang, A., 2014, Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion: In ISRM Suggested Methods, 227–231.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Perez, R., Wiebe, M., and Pablos Corredor, A., 2024, Integrating deep-learning fault segmentation, HTI, and ambient microseismic: Interpretation, 12, SD1–SD16.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Wu, X., Liang, L., Shi, Y., and Fomel, S., 2019, FaultSeg3D: Geophysics, 84, 35–IM45.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Xiong, W., Ji, X., Ma, Y., Wang, Y., AlBinHassan, N.M., Ali, M.N., and Luo, Y., 2018, Seismic fault detection with CNN: Geophysics, 83, O97–O103.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202639096
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202639096
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