1 / 26

Moment tensor analysis of acoustic emission data from a triaxial laboratory experiment

Moment tensor analysis of acoustic emission data from a triaxial laboratory experiment. D. Kühn, V. Vavryčuk, E. Aker, F. Cuisiat, M. Soldal, K. D. V. Huynh 3rd Annual AIM Project Meeting, 10 – 12 Oct 2012, Smolenice, Slovakia. Motivation.

mulan
Download Presentation

Moment tensor analysis of acoustic emission data from a triaxial laboratory experiment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Moment tensor analysis of acoustic emission data from a triaxial laboratory experiment D. Kühn, V. Vavryčuk, E. Aker, F. Cuisiat, M. Soldal, K. D. V. Huynh 3rd Annual AIM Project Meeting, 10 – 12 Oct 2012, Smolenice, Slovakia

  2. Motivation • growing interest in induced seismicity to monitor reservoirs (petroleum, geothermal, CO2 storage) • need to better understand induced seismicity associated with • rock deformation • failure of rock • reactivation of faults • reservoirs/surrounding formations • field data: • inadequate instrumentation • insufficent knowledge of velocity structure • poor data quality • laboratory experiment: • full control over receiver coverage • possibility of repeated measurements of axial and radial P- and S-wave velocities during experiment

  3. Objectives of the lab experiment • study initiation of micro-fractures and development of borehole breakouts • relate resulting acoustic emissions (AE) to: • fracturing process • associated source mechanism • macroscopic deformation of the sample • numerical modelling of sample behaviour/acoustic emissions using a particle flow code (not shown here)

  4. Triaxial experiment • 12 1-C piezoceramic receivers: • full waveforms recorded • good coverage for event location and moment tensor inversion • dominant AE frequency: 500 kHz • sampling frequency: 10 MHz • typical AE wavelength: 10 mm • source dimension: < 1 cm • moment magnitude: < -4 • axial and radial P- and S-wave velocity:  monitor anisotropy • axial and radial strain measurements: • relate AE activity to deformation • sleeve and pinducers from Ergotech • sensor layout adapted from W. Pettitt (ASC) &P. Young (Univ.Toronto)

  5. Test sample • outcrop sandstone from quarry in the Vosges mountains, France • intact and perforated sample with a 5 mm horizontal borehole • porosity: 20% • uniaxial compressive strength: 48 MPa • horizontally layered • length: 12.7 cm • diameter: 5.08 cm • testing on dry sample

  6. (vertical vP) (horizontal vP) (horizontal vS, parallel to bedding plane) (horizontal vS, normal to bedding plane) • Four stages of AEs: • no AEs before point A • slow linear increase (A to B) development of borehole breakouts • (global contracting behaviour of sample) • sharp increase (B to C) localisation of macroscopic shear bands (dilatancy of sample) • accelerated phase (after C) catastrophic failure

  7. (vertical vP) (horizontal vP) (horizontal vS, parallel to bedding plane) (horizontal vS, normal to bedding plane) • Four stages of AEs: • no AEs before point A • slow linear increase (A to B) development of borehole breakouts • (global contracting behaviour of sample) • sharp increase (B to C) localisation of macroscopic shear bands (dilatancy of sample) • accelerated phase (after C) catastrophic failure

  8. (vertical vP) (horizontal vP) (horizontal vS, parallel to bedding plane) (horizontal vS, normal to bedding plane) • Four stages of AEs: • no AEs before point A • slow linear increase (A to B) development of borehole breakouts • (global contracting behaviour of sample) • sharp increase (B to C) localisation of macroscopic shear bands (dilatancy of sample) • accelerated phase (after C) catastrophic failure

  9. (vertical vP) (horizontal vP) (horizontal vS, parallel to bedding plane) (horizontal vS, normal to bedding plane) • Four stages of AEs: • no AEs before point A • slow linear increase (A to B) development of borehole breakouts • (global contracting behaviour of sample) • sharp increase (B to C)localisation of macroscopic shear bands (dilatancy of sample) • accelerated phase (after C) catastrophic failure

  10. (vertical vP) (horizontal vP) (horizontal vS, parallel to bedding plane) (horizontal vS, normal to bedding plane) • Four stages of AEs: • no AEs before point A • slow linear increase (A to B) development of borehole breakouts • (global contracting behaviour of sample) • sharp increase (B to C) localisation of macroscopic shear bands (dilatancy of sample) • accelerated phase (after C) catastrophic failure

  11. 3D X-ray CT scan (post test) red: pore volume green: fractured volume

  12. Data analysis: work steps • 2551 events classified as AE (detected on a minimum of 3 receivers) • 1072 events located recorded on 6 or more receivers: • grid search method • transverse isotropic velocity model • InSite software • correct amplitudes according to calibration • assume cosine sensitivity function accounting for receiver sensitivity varying with incidence angle • subset of 305 events with clear P-wave arrivals recorded on at least 10 receivers analysed by moment tensor analysis: • volume changes during triaxial laboratory experiments interpreted as volume expansion by tensile opening of fractures • P-wave first onset amplitudes • Green’s functions assuming a homogeneous velocity model • linear inversion performed in time domain • neglecting time-dependence of source-time function • resulting in 162 moment tensors fulfilling quality requirements

  13. black triangles: pinducers red triangles: transducers (measuring velocities) left: coloured according to origin time right: coloured according to phase of experiment green: development of borehole breakouts blue: localisation of macroscopic shear bands red: catastrophic failure of the sample

  14. Decomposition of moment tensors

  15. Decomposition of moment tensors events close to borehole events located in the fracture wings • irregular distribution • events occurring close to borehole: higher fraction of isotropic percentage • events occurring in fracture wings: higher fraction of DC percentages

  16. Hudson (t-k) plots Interpretation of t-k coordinates coloured according to seismic moment • majority of events situated in upper half (opening fractures) • events with small seismic moment: mechanism tensile • events with large seismic moment: mechanism close to pure shear

  17. Hudson (t-k) plots coloured according to origin time events close to borehole events located in the fracture wings

  18. Hudson (t-k) plots phase 4 phase 2 phase 3 coloured according to distance from borehole

  19. Summary • majority of events indicates tendency of opening fractures • seismic moments increase with time • double couple percentages increase with time • isotropic percentages decrease with increasing seismic moment • events with small seismic moments are rather related to tensile mechanisms of explosive character, whereas events having a large seismic moment are related to more ”pure shear-type” mechanisms • events close to borehole show higher fraction of isotropic percentage compared to events in fracture wings (higher fraction of DC percentages)

  20. source mechanisms coincide with orientation of fractures developing • strike of nodal line close to strike of borehole • fractures almost vertical => focal mechanisms: normal/reverse faulting • focal mechanisms in fracture wing A (closer to borehole): more scattered, most likely due to complicated stress conditions close to borehole • significant non-double couple components • positive values of ISO and CLVD: tensile fracturing • vp/vs ratios retrieved correspond to values measured

  21. Challenges • records too noisy to automatically pick P-wave amplitudes • unknown amplification of sensors (due to unknown coupling) • changes in P- and S-wave velocity throughout experiment complicate interpretation of non-DC components • anisotropy may cause artificial ISO and CLVD percentages even for pure shear cracks (Vavryčuk, 2005) • difficult interpretation of moment tensors: correlation of mechanisms with time, seismic moment, location in sample is inconclusive • waveforms affected strongly by presence of horizontal borehole and probably specimen’s wall rendering moment tensor solutions computed employing P-wave first onset amplitudes and homogeneous velocity model potentially erroneous • outlook: full waveform inversion taking into account full geometry of sample will be applied using SEM to compute Green’s functions

  22. event close to borehole event located in the fracture wings • no S-wave distinguishable due to proximity of source and receiver (in most cases) • complex waveforms • long coda waves due to interaction with surface of borehole/specimen’s walls

  23. Spectral element method (Komatitsch and Tromp, 1999) strike-slip source with 900 kHz main frequency and ~4mm wavelength borehole walls: reflecting sample outer walls: absorbing CUBIT software for meshing of 194 710 hexahedral elements

  24. Spectral element method (Komatitsch and Tromp, 1999) Direct P wave Direct S wave S-to-S reflected wave (borehole walls)

  25. Conclusions • advanced laboratory equipment to measure acoustic emissions from stressed rock • initiation and coalescence of microcracks detected from AE around a small borehole • complex source mechanisms close to borehole, and shear/tensile opening along macroscopic failure plane • successfully shown that non-double couple events occurred during experiment • the larger the events the larger the DC component • SEM is a strong tool to compute waveforms in complex media and thus to improve understanding on potential sources of errors during full moment tensor inversion

  26. Thankyou for your attention!

More Related