Effectiveness of Fiber Optic Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) in Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) Field Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of fiber optic technology in the past few decades has led to significant advancements in various fields, including high-speed and long-distance communication, big data transport, optical imaging, and sensing. However, relatively few studies have examined the use of fiber optic sensors (FOSs) as point and distributed sensors in geophysics. Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) is a widely used method for subsurface imaging and monitoring in wells, specifically in Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) surveys. This method allows for detailed analysis of subsurface structures and properties of reservoirs. Four different strategies for deploying FOS cables in DAS VSP are evaluated and compared: cementing behind casing, cable behind inflatable liner, strapping to production tubing, and wireline deployment. Cementing the fiber behind casing is considered the most effective method for coupling with the formation. However, the other methods also have their own advantages and limitations. The fiber cable behind inflatable liner, for example, allows for accessibility to the fiber without affecting the acoustic signal, while strapping the fiber to production tubing can still record DAS signals; tubing noise and signal attenuation from the annular fluid, however, can make it difficult to differentiate from the seismic signal. Nonetheless, this method has the benefit of being simpler to deploy and replace in case of failure. Wireline deployment can pick up some acoustic signals in regions where the cable touches the well wall, but in vertical sections where the cable is not in contact with the wall, the signal is attenuated. Results from pilot tests in a field in Canada are discussed and evaluated, and suggestions for improving the VSP signal are provided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".