2007
DOI: 10.1007/s00024-007-0266-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anisotropy Effects on Microseismic Event Location

Abstract: Seismic anisotropy in sedimentary environments is significant-microseismic waveforms often show strong shear-wave splitting, with differences reaching 40% between horizontally and vertically-polarized shear-wave velocities. Failure to account for this anisotropy is shown to result in large microseismic event location errors. A method is presented here for determining the five elastic parameters of a homogeneous, vertical transverse-isotropic (VTI) model from calibration shot data. The method can also use data … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The values of 0.1 to 0.3 are common for both of these parameters, and these values are similar to those obtained by King and Talebi (2007) in a coal mine using similar shot receiver geometries. This degree of anisotropy is relatively common in microseismic monitoring and is evident in large segments of microseismic data.…”
Section: Determining Anisotropy Parameterssupporting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The values of 0.1 to 0.3 are common for both of these parameters, and these values are similar to those obtained by King and Talebi (2007) in a coal mine using similar shot receiver geometries. This degree of anisotropy is relatively common in microseismic monitoring and is evident in large segments of microseismic data.…”
Section: Determining Anisotropy Parameterssupporting
confidence: 82%
“…A simple method to evaluate the importance of anisotropy is to prepare some synthetic cases in which the accuracy of location methods can be tested under controlled conditions (e.g., King and Talebi 2007). The first case considered is a homogenous (no layers) formation with anisotropic properties, given below: α 0 = 15,000 ft/sec; β 0 = 8,000 ft/sec δ = 0.l; ε = 0.2; γ = 0.15 This case assumes that microseisms are evenly distributed on a fracture plane that is in line with the receiver well, and that the fracture height is 250 ft and fracture half-length is 250 ft, with the center of the fracture 1,500 ft away.…”
Section: Synthetic Case Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(); and Holt et al . (); to improving the location of micro‐seismic events (e.g., King and Talebi () and Li et al . ()) and the interpretation of their focal mechanisms (e.g., Vavryčuk () and Kawasaki and Tanimoto ()); and to evaluating seismic hazard (Maxwell, Zhang, and Damjanac ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model allows us to do such a study. However, it must be kept in mind that commonly technical issues do not allow for accurate mapping of spatial and temporal distribution of the events (King and Talebi, 2007). Thus we have to balance the accuracy of a geometrical scheme with that available or expected in field measurements.…”
Section: Development Of the Methodology For Microseismic Data Inversionmentioning
confidence: 99%