A Combined Deterministic / Stochastic Model for Induced Seismicity

Riffault, Jeremy; Archer, Rosalind; Dempsey, David; Kelkar, S.

doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201414289

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such modeling can provide a synthetic microseismic catalog containing event source time, location, and even stress drop and moment magnitude, which offers some insights into event spatial-temporal and statistical characteristics and their relation to model inputs (Goertz-Allmann & Wiemer, 2012). The synthetic catalog can also be compared against laboratory and field observations for calibration of model physics, including, for example, medium rheology (Heinze et al, 2015), effects of stress transferring (Catalli et al, 2016;Rinaldi & Nespoli, 2017), and effects of poroelastic coupling (Riffault et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fully Dynamic Spontaneous Rupture Due to Quasi‐Static Pore Pressure and Poroelastic Effects: An Implicit Nonlinear Computational Model of Fluid‐Induced Seismic Events

Jin

Zoback

2018

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fluid perturbations play a pivotal role in triggering earthquakes. However, the role of fluid in the coseismic rupture process remains largely unknown. To this end, we develop a 2‐D fully dynamic spontaneous rupture model for fluid‐induced earthquakes. The effect of fluid in the preseismic quasi‐static regime is modeled as either pore pressure diffusion or fully coupled poroelasticity, using our Jin and Zoback (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JB014892) computational model. The two approaches lead to radically different predictions on the time of earthquake nucleation. Correspondingly, the evolved fluid pressure or poroelastic stress on the fault, together with the spatially altered density of the fluid‐saturated hosting rock, is passed to the dynamic regime. Under the assumption of an undrained coseismic fluid‐solid system, we discretize the fully dynamic Cauchy equation of motion subjected to an exact fault contact constraint using a split‐node finite element method in space and an implicit Newmark family finite difference method in time. Within each time step, a fully implicit Newton‐Raphson scheme is implemented iteratively for linearizing the fully discrete equations. Within each Newton iteration, a physics‐based and nonstationary preconditioner is designed to accelerate the convergence of the selected generalized minimal residual method iterative linear solver. The effect of fluid is highlighted throughout the discretization and computational procedures. Finally, by conducting a numerical experiment, we illustrate that a fully coupled poroelastic model can lead to significantly different predictions on coseismic rupture behaviors and wavefields compared to a decoupled model. Our computational model can also serve as one of the earliest full‐physics modeling tool for fluid‐induced earthquakes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fully Dynamic Spontaneous Rupture Due to Quasi‐Static Pore Pressure and Poroelastic Effects: An Implicit Nonlinear Computational Model of Fluid‐Induced Seismic Events

Jin

Zoback

2018

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Catalli et al (2016) modeled the static stress transfers from induced earthquakes and showed that cascading events could be triggered outside the fluid pressurized region. Riffault et al (2019Riffault et al ( , 2018 used pressurization-rate models to invert for the evolving permeability distributions around EGS projects in Australia. Various approaches have been taken to address stochastic randomness, including seeding random earthquake sources (Rinaldi & Nespoli, 2017), modeling stochastic fracture networks (Norbeck et al, 2018), and introducing fractal stress distributions (Dempsey & Suckale, 2016).…”

Section: Physics-based Models Of Induced Seismicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Association Between Injection and Microseismicity in Geothermal Fields With Multiple Wells: Data‐Driven Modeling of Rotokawa, New Zealand, and Húsmúli, Iceland

Dempsey

Rinaldi³

et al. 2023

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding injection‐induced microseismicity in geothermal systems can provide insight into reservoir connectedness. However, fault and reservoir complexity are difficult to represent in simple analytical models, which makes it difficult to discern clear relationships from incidental associations. Here, we have used data‐driven models to study how fluid injection and microseismicity are related in the Rotokawa (New Zealand) and Hellisheiði (Iceland) geothermal fields. We tested two classes of model: (a) lagged linear regression of seismicity rate as a function of well injection rates; and (b) systematic extraction of injection time series features that are then evaluated for associations with the seismicity. These models allowed us to determine which wells had the greatest correlation with microseismicity and to explain this association in a reservoir context. Finally, exploring different data types and transformations, we were unable to establish a link between rapid changes in injection rate and seismicity spikes, as suggested by some theoretical models.

show abstract

“…Other: Other EGS and HDR test sites targeting granitic basement rocks or tight sandstones included in the database are Fenton Hill (Phillips et al, 1997), Fjällbacka (Jupe et al, 1992), Paralana (Albaric et al, 2014; Riffault et al, 2016) and Rosemanowes (Batchelor, 1982; Richards et al, 1994; Parker, 1999; Evans et al, 2012); see further Table S2 (in the Supplementary Material available online at ). Maximum magnitudes during stimulations at these sites were respectively M 1.3, M L 0.2, M L 2.5 and M 2.0.…”

Section: Seismicity In Geothermal Systems: Case History Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of induced seismicity in geothermal systems worldwide and implications for geothermal systems in the Netherlands

Buijze

Bijsterveldt²,

Cremer³

et al. 2019

Netherlands Journal of Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geothermal energy is a viable alternative to gas for the heating of buildings, industrial areas and greenhouses, and can thus play an important role in making the transition to sustainable energy in the Netherlands. Heat is currently produced from the Dutch subsurface through circulation of water between two wells in deep (1.5–3 km) geothermal formations with temperature of up to ∼100 °C. As the number of these so-called doublets is expected to increase significantly over the next decades, and targeted depths and temperatures increase, it is important to assess potential show-stoppers related to geothermal operations. One of these potential hazards is the possibility of the occurrence of felt seismic events, which could potentially damage infrastructure and housing, and affect public support. Such events have been observed in several geothermal systems in other countries. Here we review the occurrence (or the lack) of felt seismic events in geothermal systems worldwide and identify key factors influencing the occurrence and magnitude of these events. Based on this review, we project the findings for seismicity in geothermal systems to typical geothermal formations and future geothermal developments in the Netherlands. The case study review shows that doublets that circulate fluids through relatively shallow, porous, sedimentary aquifers far from the crystalline basement are unlikely to generate felt seismic events. On the other hand, stimulations or circulations in or near competent, fractured, basement rocks and production and reinjection operations in high-temperature geothermal fields are more prone to induce felt events, occasionally with magnitudes of M > 5.0. Many of these operations are situated in tectonically active areas, and stress and temperature changes may be large. The presence of large, optimally oriented and critically stressed faults increases the potential for induced seismicity. The insights from the case study review suggest that the potential for the occurrence of M > 2.0 seismicity for geothermal operations in several of the sandstone target formations in the Netherlands is low, especially if faults can be avoided. The potential for induced seismicity may be moderate for operations in faulted carbonate rocks. Induced seismicity always remains a complex and site-specific process with large unknowns, and can never be excluded entirely. However, assessing the potential for inducing felt seismic events can be improved by considering the relevant (site-specific) geological and operational key factors discussed in this article.

show abstract

A Combined Deterministic / Stochastic Model for Induced Seismicity

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Fully Dynamic Spontaneous Rupture Due to Quasi‐Static Pore Pressure and Poroelastic Effects: An Implicit Nonlinear Computational Model of Fluid‐Induced Seismic Events

Fully Dynamic Spontaneous Rupture Due to Quasi‐Static Pore Pressure and Poroelastic Effects: An Implicit Nonlinear Computational Model of Fluid‐Induced Seismic Events

Association Between Injection and Microseismicity in Geothermal Fields With Multiple Wells: Data‐Driven Modeling of Rotokawa, New Zealand, and Húsmúli, Iceland

Review of induced seismicity in geothermal systems worldwide and implications for geothermal systems in the Netherlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About