Multi-component synthetic seismograms in anisotropic (fractured) media

Mrinal K. Sen Institute for Geophysics

John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences

The University of Texas at Austin

OUTLINE
Introduction Equivalent model Reflection coefficients Seismogram synthesis Example synthetics Summary

Introduction

Most fractures are small well beyond the imaging range of conventional seismic data

They do have strong influence on the amplitude, travel time and waveform of seismic data

Seismic Resolution
Megascale large basin
description Macroscale distribution of lithofacies on the well-to-well scale Mesoscale cross-bed features such as ripple lamination Microscale grains, pores, crystals

a = scale length = wavelength a/ > a/ < 1/8 media theory seismic imaging equivalent
Modified from McBeth 1995

Seismic Resolution
In the seismic frequency band, fractured media exhibit anisotropic wave propagation where seismic wave velocities are dependant on the direction of propagation.

Shear wave splitting is a diagnostic of such media

Equivalent Media Theory

Equivalent media theories map the fractured rock layers into their equivalent anisotropic earth models. The medium is described by an equivalent (or effective) elastic stiffness or compilance matrix Static model (low or zero frequency approximation) Dynamic model (frequency dependant)

Equivalent Media Theory Static Model

Popular approaches Hudson, Crampin, Liu . Aligned parallel penny shaped cracks embedded in an isotropic solid Schoenberg, Sayers, Douma Linear Slip model

Thomsen based on Hudsons model extended to account for fluid flow between cracks and spherical pores

Equivalent Media Theory Hudson model

Assumptions
Cracks are scatterers cracks are aligned in single direction (multiple sets are possible) cracks have the same internal condition (dry, fluid filled etc.) N = total number of cracks in volume V containing cracks, = N/V crack density (number density of cracks) a = mean radius of cracks (circular cracks) a3 << 1

Equivalent Media Theory Hudson model

Method
Total wavefield = wavefield due to background + wavefield due to scatterers regard the distribution of scatterers as one of a statistical ensemble and take the expectation determine the properties of the mean displacement field when it takes the form of a plane wave radii and separation distance are small compared with a wavelength theory includes second order scattering work to the zeroth order in frequency identify the equivalent stiffness tensor

Equivalent Media Theory Hudson model

background

Method
0 2 Cijkl = C ijkl + C1 + C ijkl ijkl
+ 2 C0 = 0 0 0

First-order

Second-order

Isotropic Background

+ 2 + 2
0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

2U33 2U33 a 3 ( + 2 )U33 1 C = 0 0 0

2U33 2U33 ( + 2 )U33

0 0 0

( + 2 )U33 ( + 2 )U33

0 0 0 2 2U11 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 2U11 0

( + 2 )2 U33
0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Equivalent Media Theory Schoenberg model

Schoenberg first derived Backus formula for anisotropy due to periodic layering

H hiH

Equivalent Media Theory Schoenberg model

METHOD
Under quasi-static or low frequency equilibrium requirement, the field is assumed to vary slowly The stresses that act on a face perpendicular to the x3 axis, i.e., 13, 23, and 33 are assumed constant (continuous) across a set of layers of width H while 11, 22, and 12 are discontinuous. The layers are in welded contact. Since all the layers are constrained to have some deformation in the x1x2 plane, strains that lie in a plane parallel to the layering, i.e., 11, 22, and 12 are assumed constant (continuous). This is because the layers are constrained to having the same in-plane motion in a medium of infinite extent in the x1 and x2 directions. The 33, 23, and 13 are discontinuous. Compute average strains <31>, <23> and <31> Compute average stresses <11>, <22>, and <12> Consider the stress-strain relation and identify the equivalent (effective) stiffness matrix

Equivalent Media Theory Schoenberg model

LONG THIN PARALLEL FRACTURES
The

behavior of long parallel fractures or joint in an otherwise anisotropic background may be modeled as a set of thin constituent layers not necessarily isotropic, embedded in a background. material inside fractures have an arbitrary anisotropic behavior fracture filling material is soft such that elastic moduli are much smaller than a typical non-zero background modulus.

Equivalent Media Theory Schoenberg model

LONG THIN PARALLEL FRACTURES Multiple fracture sets
Compliance tensor

ij = Sijkl kl

Sijkl = S ijkl + S ijkl

b m
Z N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZT

( )

m f

Excess compliance for a single fracture ZN : normal compliance ZT : tangential compliance

0 0 0 ZT 0 0 0 0

Anisotropic Modeling
Ray-based Modeling:
Quick and Easy Complicated for computing Shear modes.

Reflectivity Modeling:
Moderately Fast Complete seismic response Horizontally Stratified Media Only

Finite Difference Modeling:

Complete response for any arbitrary medium Extremely expensive for any realistic medium.

Synthetic Seismograms in layered media

Apply Fourier transform to the linearized momentum equation and the constitutive equation Derive a system of ODE in depth z as a function of frequency and wave-number (or ray-parameter)

z u = i A u + f u= u x u y u z xz zz yz
T

Synthetic Seismograms in layered media Reflectivity Approach

For each ray-parameter (px,py) and frequency () we need to compute for each layer/interface the vertical slowness q upward and downward looking reflection/transmission coefficients. We propagate four fundamental matrices Rd, Td, Ru, and Tu through the stack of layers using iteration equation.

Reflection Coefficients
Reflection and transmission coefficients are computed from the eigen vectors of the system matrices of the two corresponding layers

The system matrix A is, in general, complex 6X6

Models
Isotropic HTI/TTI MODEL1 HTI Isotropic MODEL2

Isotropic HTI Isotropic MODEL3 HTI

Isotropic

Isotropic MODEL4

Model 5

300 layer well-log model containing a fracture zone

AVOA Tests frac=0.15 HTI

C:\usr\Mrinal\Mallick\FracTest\M0.15_90\rpp.dir

0.00 0.00

5.00

Incidence Angle 10.00 15.00

x-distance(km)

20.00

25.00 0.174E+00

0.160E+00 50.00 0.140E+00 100.00 0.120E+00

Azimuth

150.00 d e p t h 200.00

0.100E+00

0.800E-01

0.600E-01 250.00 0.400E-01 300.00 0.200E-01

350.00 360.00 y-line = 1

0.100E-02

AVOA Tests frac=0.1 HTI

C:\usr\Mrinal\Mallick\FracTest\M0.1_90\rpp.dir x-distance(km) 0.00 0.00 5.00

Incidence Angle 10.00 15.00

20.00

25.00 0.176E+00

0.160E+00 50.00 0.140E+00 100.00 0.120E+00

Azimuth

150.00 d e p t h 200.00

0.100E+00

0.800E-01

0.600E-01 250.00

0.400E-01 300.00 0.200E-01 350.00 360.00 y-line = 1

0.104E-02

AVOA Tests frac=0.05 HTI

C:\usr\Mrinal\Mallick\FracTest\M0.05_90\rpp.dir x-distance(km) 0.00 0.00 5.00

Incidence Angle 10.00 15.00

20.00

25.00 0.179E+00

0.160E+00 50.00

0.140E+00 100.00

Azimuth

0.120E+00 150.00 d e p t h 200.00

0.100E+00

0.800E-01

250.00

0.600E-01

0.400E-01 300.00 0.200E-01 350.00 360.00 y-line = 1

0.465E-02

AVOA Tests frac=0.05 Dip=45

C:\usr\Mrinal\Mallick\FracTest\M0.05_45\rpp.dir x-distance(km) 0.00 0.00 0.140E+00 50.00 0.120E+00 5.00

Incidence Angle 10.00 15.00

20.00

25.00

100.00 0.100E+00

Azimuth

150.00 d e p t h 200.00

0.800E-01

0.600E-01

250.00 0.400E-01

300.00 0.200E-01

350.00 360.00 y-line = 1

0.706E-03

AVOA Tests frac=0.05 TTI Dip=30

C:\usr\Mrinal\Mallick\FracTest\M0.05_30\rpp.dir

0.00 0.00

5.00

Incidence Angle 10.00 15.00

x-distance(km)

20.00

25.00 0.135E+00

0.120E+00 50.00

100.00

0.100E+00

Azimuth

150.00 d e p t h 200.00

0.800E-01

0.600E-01

250.00

0.400E-01

300.00 0.200E-01

350.00 360.00 y-line = 1

0.556E-03

PP AVOA observation
of the fracture is clearly observable in the sinusoidal variation in AVOA With increase in fracture density PP reflection coefficient decreases Effect of dipping fractures on AVOA is similar There remains ambiguity between fracture density and dip of the fracture in the PP AVOA data AVO is symmetric with respect to angle of incidence for HTI but is asymmetric for the TTI case
Strike

Receiver Geometry
B

Y
40 X-Lines 40 Y-Lines DX=0.05 km DY=0.05 km

2 km
A

Model 1 Explosion source

Yline 1 Model 1 Explosion source

seismic section display 1 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31

Yline 20 Model 1 Explosion source

seismic section display 1 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31

Yline 40 Model 1 Explosion source

seismic section display 1 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31

Xline 20 Model 1 Explosion source

seismic section display 21 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Model 2 Explosion source

Yline 1 Model 2 Explosion source

seismic section display 1 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31

Yline 20 Model 2 Explosion source

seismic section display 1 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31

Yline 40 Model 2 Explosion source

seismic section display 1 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31

Xline 20 Model 2 Explosion source

seismic section display 21 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Model 2 Explosion source p -p

Model 3 Explosion source x -t x-t

Model 4 Explosion source x -t x-t

Model 4 Explosion source p -p

Model 5 Explosion source OBC geometry

300 layer well log model
Y
30 X-Lines 30 Y-Lines DX=0.1 km DY=0.1 km

3 km
HTI fracture zone (15% crack density)
A

Model 5 Explosion source OBC geometry

seismic section display 1 0.00
3.20 15 3.00 3.10

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

3.30

3.40

3.50

3.60

3.70

2.50
3.80

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50

4.40

4.50

4.60

4.70

4.80

7.00
4.90

7.50 8.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5.00

5.10

5.20

5.30

5.40

seismic section display 6 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 26 46

Z
seismic section display 6
1 11 21 31 41 1 11 21 31 41 1 11 21 31 41

26

46

0.00 0.50 1.00

TAU

Sec

1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 1 11 21 31 41 1 11 21 31 41 1 11 21 31 41

X
seismic section display 6 26 46

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 1 11 21 31 41 1 11 21 31 41 1 11 21 31 41

py = -0.48 sec/km

py = 0.0 sec/km

py = 0.48 sec/km

Summary
Seismic Modeling is useful to identify anisotropic propagation effects in the recorded data Simple single interface, primaries only, linear model is not adequate to describe seismic data Iterative seismic modeling (waveform inversion) can be applied to field data to estimate fracture parameters. Does the equivalent media theory adequately represent fractures commonly observed? Is there a need for a dynamic equivalent media theory?

Shear-Wave Splitting in Anisotropic Medium

Fractures oriented in the North-South direction Shear wave polarized parallel to fractures is FAST Shear wave polarized perpendicular to fractures is SLOW