Estimating two groups of fracture weaknesses using azimuthal differences in partially incidence-angle-stacked seismic amplitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Geophysical and geologic data, e.g., results obtained using rock cores, outcrops, and borehole images, reveal the presence of multiple sets of fractures in rock. To analyze how fracture interactions affect seismic anisotropy and dispersion, we consider an effective model that contains two sets of orthogonal fractures. In seismic amplitude analysis, we focus on the case of subsurface target zones containing a fracture network composed of primary and secondary fracture sets. Focusing on gas-bearing rocks with small fracture densities, we formulate simplified stiffness parameters in terms of two groups of fracture weaknesses, which are related to the primary and secondary fractures, respectively. Using the simplified stiffness parameters, we derive the PP-wave reflection coefficient and the azimuthal elastic impedance (AEI) as functions of the two groups of normal and tangential fracture weaknesses. Based on the derived PP-wave reflection coefficient and AEI, we propose a method and workflow in which the azimuthal variations of the partial incidence-angle-stacked seismic data are used to estimate the AEI and differences in AEI (which we refer to as DEI) is input to a nonlinear inversion for two groups of fracture weaknesses. In the nonlinear inversion, the initial values of fracture weaknesses are obtained based on a two-term approximation of the PP-wave reflection coefficient. First- and second-order derivatives of DEI with respect to fracture weakness parameters are calculated to generate the update in the unknown parameter vector. Synthetic seismic gathers with varying signal-to-noise ratios are used to validate the robustness of the estimation. Applying the inversion method to a real data set, we obtain what we interpret to be reliable fracture weakness estimates that produce azimuthal amplitude differences matching those extracted from real seismic data. The results provide a potential tool for determining if two sets of fractures have developed in a reservoir.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".