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 λ = wavelength a/λ > ¼ a/λ < 1/8 media theory seismic imaging equivalent
Modified from McBeth 1995

fractured media exhibit anisotropic wave propagation where seismic wave velocities are dependant on the direction of propagation.Seismic Resolution In the seismic frequency band. 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. Douma … Linear Slip model • Thomsen based on Hudson’s model extended to account for fluid flow between cracks and spherical pores . Sayers. Liu …. Aligned parallel penny shaped cracks embedded in an isotropic solid • Schoenberg.

) • N = total number of cracks in volume V containing cracks. ν = N/V crack density (number density of cracks) a = mean radius of cracks (circular cracks) νa3 << 1 .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.

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 ⎛ λ + 2μ ⎜ ⎜ λ ⎜ λ C0 = ⎜ ⎜ 0 ⎜ 0 ⎜ ⎜ 0 ⎝ First-order Second-order λ Isotropic Background λ + 2μ λ λ + 2μ 0 0 0 0 0 0 λ λ 0 0 0 μ 0 0 0 0 0 0 μ 0 0⎞ ⎟ 0⎟ 0⎟ ⎟ 0⎟ 0⎟ ⎟ μ⎟ ⎠ ⎛ λ 2U33 ⎜ λ 2U33 ⎜ ⎜ ⎛ ν a 3 ⎞ ⎜ λ ( λ + 2 μ )U33 1 C =⎜− ⎟ ⎝ μ ⎠⎜ 0 ⎜ ⎜ 0 ⎜ ⎜ 0 ⎝ λ 2U33 λ 2U33 λ ( λ + 2 μ )U33 0 0 0 λ ( λ + 2 μ )U33 λ ( λ + 2 μ )U33 0 0 0 2 μ 2U11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 μ 2U11 0 ( λ + 2 μ )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 .

ε11. • The layers are in welded contact.. ε22. and <τ12> • Consider the stress-strain relation and identify the equivalent (effective) stiffness matrix .Equivalent Media Theory Schoenberg model METHOD •Under quasi-static or low frequency equilibrium requirement. <τ22>. Since all the layers are constrained to have some deformation in the x1x2 plane. τ22. 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 field is assumed to vary slowly •The stresses that act on a face perpendicular to the x3 axis. • Compute average strains <ε31>. and ε12 are assumed constant (continuous). and τ12 are discontinuous. <ε23> and <ε31> • Compute average stresses <τ11>.. i. strains that lie in a plane parallel to the layering. The ε33. and ε13 are discontinuous. i. τ23. τ13.e. and τ33 are assumed constant (continuous) across a set of layers of width H while τ11. ε23.e.

. • 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. embedded in a background.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.

Equivalent Media Theory Schoenberg model LONG THIN PARALLEL FRACTURES Multiple fracture sets Compliance tensor ε ij = Sijklσ 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 .

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

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 = iω A u + f u=⎡ ⎣ u x u y u z τ xz τ zz τ yz ⎤ ⎦ T .

Ru. . and Tu through the stack of layers using iteration equation. Td.py) and frequency (ω) 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.Synthetic Seismograms in layered media – Reflectivity Approach For each ray-parameter (px.

complex 6X6 .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.

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 .

00 Incidence Angle 10.00 0.AVOA Tests frac=0.00 0.00 0.174E+00 0.15_90\rpp.00 5.140E+00 100.400E-01 300.100E+00 0.00 15.dir 0.00 0.00 0.120E+00 Azimuth 150.00 360.00 d e p t h 200.800E-01 0.100E-02 .160E+00 50.200E-01 350.600E-01 250.00 0.15 HTI C:\usr\Mrinal\Mallick\FracTest\M0.00 y-line = 1 0.00 x-distance(km) 20.00 0.00 25.

00 0.00 360.200E-01 350.176E+00 0.1 HTI C:\usr\Mrinal\Mallick\FracTest\M0.400E-01 300.00 20.00 0.00 15.160E+00 50.00 d e p t h 200.00 Incidence Angle 10.600E-01 250.104E-02 .120E+00 Azimuth 150.00 5.100E+00 0.00 y-line = 1 0.AVOA Tests frac=0.140E+00 100.800E-01 0.dir x-distance(km) 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1_90\rpp.

00 5.400E-01 300.05 HTI C:\usr\Mrinal\Mallick\FracTest\M0.100E+00 0.05_90\rpp.AVOA Tests frac=0.00 25.00 15.00 Incidence Angle 10.00 0.160E+00 50.00 d e p t h 200.465E-02 .00 360.600E-01 0.179E+00 0.800E-01 250.140E+00 100.120E+00 150.00 Azimuth 0.00 0.00 0.00 y-line = 1 0.00 20.dir x-distance(km) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.200E-01 350.

120E+00 5.05 Dip=45 C:\usr\Mrinal\Mallick\FracTest\M0.00 0.00 0.AVOA Tests frac=0.100E+00 Azimuth 150.00 0.600E-01 250.400E-01 300.00 Incidence Angle 10.00 0.200E-01 350.00 d e p t h 200.00 y-line = 1 0.00 100.05_45\rpp.00 15.00 20.00 0.00 0.140E+00 50.00 0.dir x-distance(km) 0.800E-01 0.00 360.00 25.706E-03 .

00 0.00 x-distance(km) 20.800E-01 0.00 d e p t h 200.556E-03 .00 0.05 TTI Dip=30 C:\usr\Mrinal\Mallick\FracTest\M0.120E+00 50.100E+00 Azimuth 150.AVOA Tests frac=0.135E+00 0.00 0.00 100.600E-01 250.00 360.00 15.00 25.dir 0.00 Incidence Angle 10.400E-01 300.00 5.00 0.00 y-line = 1 0.200E-01 350.05_30\rpp.00 0.00 0.

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 .

05 km 2 km A’ A B .05 km DY=0.Receiver Geometry B’ Y 40 X-Lines 40 Y-Lines DX=0.

Model 1 Explosion source .

20 1.60 1.80 0.60 0.80 1.20 0.70 1.90 1.30 0.10 0.50 0.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 Z R T .10 1.30 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.50 1.40 0.70 0.Yline 1 Model 1 Explosion source seismic section display 1 0.

00 1.50 0.20 1.60 1.30 1.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 Z R T .20 0.Yline 20 Model 1 Explosion source seismic section display 1 0.90 1.80 0.10 0.40 1.80 1.10 1.50 1.00 0.30 0.60 0.40 0.70 0.70 1.

80 1.50 1.40 1.60 0.20 0.70 0.20 1.10 1.60 1.70 1.30 0.30 1.10 0.80 0.40 0.00 0.90 1.Yline 40 Model 1 Explosion source seismic section display 1 0.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 Z R T .50 0.00 1.

40 1.Xline 20 Model 1 Explosion source seismic section display 21 0.80 0.60 0.50 0.30 0.90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z R T .80 1.90 1.70 0.20 1.40 0.20 0.10 1.00 0.30 1.10 0.00 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.

Model 2 Explosion source .

30 1.50 1.00 1.50 0.10 1.60 0.Yline 1 Model 2 Explosion source seismic section display 1 0.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 Z R T .20 0.80 1.70 1.40 1.00 0.80 0.60 1.30 0.40 0.10 0.70 0.20 1.90 1.

10 1.40 1.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 Z R T .30 0.50 0.60 0.00 0.50 1.70 1.00 1.10 0.Yline 20 Model 2 Explosion source seismic section display 1 0.30 1.80 1.20 0.90 1.60 1.70 0.20 1.80 0.40 0.

80 1.40 1.40 0.30 1.10 1.50 1.50 0.70 1.60 0.30 0.70 0.00 0.Yline 40 Model 2 Explosion source seismic section display 1 0.60 1.90 1.80 0.90 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 1 11 21 31 Z R T .10 0.20 1.00 1.20 0.

60 1.00 1.50 0.40 1.50 1.00 0.10 1.80 0.20 1.30 0.90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z R T .70 1.60 0.Xline 20 Model 2 Explosion source seismic section display 21 0.80 1.20 0.70 0.30 1.40 0.90 1.10 0.

Model 2 Explosion source τp -p .

Model 3 Explosion source x -t x-t .

Model 4 Explosion source x -t x-t .

Model 4 Explosion source τp -p .

1 km DY=0.1 km B’ 3 km HTI – fracture zone (15% crack density) A B A’ .Model 5 Explosion source OBC geometry 300 layer well log model Y 30 X-Lines 30 Y-Lines DX=0.

60 3.00 3.10 0.80 3.50 6.20 5.00 3.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5.30 A A’ 5.50 3.60 4.40 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 B B’ .00 4.50 4.50 3.70 4.50 2.50 1.70 2.50 8.10 5.20 4.90 7.30 3.00 4.50 3.20 15 3.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 3.40 4.50 4.30 5.10 4.50 4.40 3.00 6.00 1.00 3.Model 5 Explosion source OBC geometry seismic section display 1 0.90 4.80 7.

00 1 11 21 31 41 1 11 21 31 41 1 11 21 31 41 X seismic section display 6 26 46 0.50 5.50 1.50 8.0 sec/km py = 0.48 sec/km .00 7.50 3.00 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 6.50 1.50 2.50 3.00 TAU Sec 1.00 1.00 1.50 5.00 0.50 4.50 7.00 4.50 3.00 3.00 1 11 21 31 41 1 11 21 31 41 1 11 21 31 41 py = -0.50 8.50 1.48 sec/km Y py = 0.00 2.50 6.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.50 4.50 8.00 2.seismic section display 6 0.50 2.00 0.00 6.50 4.00 7.50 5.00 5.50 6.50 7.00 4.00 7.50 7.00 5.00 6.00 5.50 6.50 2.00 0.

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

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 .