MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412990323 · doi:10.56952/arma-2025-0930

Fiber-Optic Distributed Acoustic Sensing in Laboratory-Scale Hydraulic Fracture Experiments: Implications for Monitoring

2025· article· en· W4412990323 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Finkbeiner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical fiberAcoustic emissionDistributed acoustic sensingFiber optic sensorScale (ratio)Fracture (geology)Computer scienceAcousticsFiberGeologyMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringTelecommunicationsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Hydraulic fracturing is commonly used to enhance permeability in subsurface reservoirs, and microseismic monitoring plays a crucial role in assessing the geometry, orientation, and extent of induced fractures. Although extensively applied in field operations, the complexity of stimulation mechanisms remains inadequately understood. Laboratory-scale experiments offer a controlled environment to improve our understanding but often suffer from limited spatial resolution due to the use of sparse piezoelectric acoustic emission (AE) sensors (Warpinski, 2009). Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) provides an alternative solution by transforming fiber-optic cables into dense continuous sensors, significantly improving both spatial and temporal resolution (Stanek et al., 2022). This study explores the use of DAS for high-resolution microseismic monitoring during hydraulic fracturing in a laboratory setup and evaluates its ability to detect and localize events in comparison to traditional AE sensors. A laboratory hydraulic fracturing experiment was conducted on a 40 cm × 40 cm × 40 cm limestone rock blocks characterized by a p-wave velocity of 5,282 m/s and a number of stylolites cutting at various angles across the block. We wrapped fiber optic cables around the block by embedding them into shallow grooves to prevent direct exposure to applied confining stresses. The center of the cube’s top face is penetrated by a 23 cm deep well 2.3 cm in diameter for injection of hydraulic fracturing fluid. As casing we cemented a stainless-steel tube into the well to a depth of 20 cm, leaving an open interval of 3 cm at the bottom for fluid injection and fracture initiation. The fiber-optic cables were carefully wrapped along each groove, ensuring continuous laser pulse propagation through elongated bends. The cables were calibrated over their entire length and separated into 18 distinct wraps that covered all the surfaces of the rock block. Prior to stimulation, a calibration ball drop experiment was conducted to verify sensor alignment and waveform timing. After this hydraulic fracturing fluid was injected through the well. For acoustic emission monitoring, we used both DAS and 8 AE transducers. DAS data were acquired at 125 kHz and AE data at 100 kHz. Signal preprocessing included detrending and bandpass filtering between 5 and 50 kHz. A Kirchhoff migration imaging technique was used to estimate event locations, with a zero-phase 20 kHz Ricker wavelet as the assumed source wavelet. Three hydraulically induced microseismic events were detected and validated by both DAS and AE systems. The dominant frequencies observed aligned with the expected spectral components, which were in the range of 20 to 45 kHz. Using Kirchhoff migration imaging, the hypocenter coordinates of the three events were estimated to be (28, 17, 13), (13, 19, 17), and (19, 28, 15) cm. The results show that DAS is a viable technology for lab-scale microseismic monitoring, with estimated event coordinates indicating possible activation of multiple fractures. Despite lower SNR, DAS effectively captured 3D acoustic information, demonstrating advantages over conventional AE sensors, particularly under confining stresses.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207