Estimating tilted fracture weaknesses from azimuthal differences in seismic amplitude data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tilted transverse isotropy (TTI) provides a useful model for the elastic response of a medium containing aligned fractures with a symmetry axis oriented obliquely in the vertical and horizontal coordinate directions. Robust methods for determining the TTI properties of a medium from seismic observations to characterize fractures are sought. Azimuthal differencing of seismic amplitude data produces quantities that are particularly sensitive to TTI properties. Based on the linear slip fracture model, we express the TTI stiffness matrix in terms of the normal and tangential fracture weaknesses. Perturbing stiffness parameters to simulate an interface separating an isotropic medium and a TTI medium, we derive a linearized P-to-P reflection coefficient expression in which the influence of tilt angle and fracture weaknesses separately emerge. We formulate a Bayesian inversion approach in which amplitude differences between seismic data along two azimuths, interpreted in terms of the reflection coefficient approximation, are used to determine fracture weaknesses and tilt angle. Tests with simulated data confirm that the unknown parameter vector involving fracture weakness and tilted fracture weaknesses is stably estimated from seismic data containing a moderate degree of additive Gaussian noise. The inversion approach is applied to a field surface seismic data acquired over a fractured reservoir; from it, interpretable tilted fracture weaknesses, consistent with expected reservoir geology, are obtained. We determine that our inversion approach and the established inversion workflow can produce the properties of systems of tilted fractures stably using azimuthal seismic amplitude differences, which may add important information for characterization of fractured reservoirs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".