The present invention relates to a Bayseian approach to microseismic source inversion, and is applicable to determination of characteristics of fractures and/or faults.
Earthquakes occur from the creation and propagation of a rupture. Rapid motion produces seismic waves, which are usually observed in the far-field. Source inversion can use such observations to describe the kinematic behaviour of the source by the moment tensor, while accounting for measurement uncertainties.
For regional and global earthquakes, it is often feasible to pre-calculate databases of Green functions to perform full waveform inversions efficiently (Heimann 2011; Duputel et al. 2012b), although this can also be done on the fly for less complex velocity structures (e.g. Dziewonski et al. 1981; Ekström et al. 2012) and even for microseismic cases (e.g. O'Toole 2013). However microseismic earthquakes are small-magnitude earthquakes often detected on a small local network of receivers. For these cases, it is difficult to compute the Green functions database because the velocity structure is rarely well constrained and the event locations are often distributed throughout the network. Furthermore, velocity variations in the region may have a large effect on the ray paths due to the close proximity of the receivers to the sources. Therefore, observations such as P- and S-wave polarities and amplitude ratios are more robust in these regimes, so are commonly used to constrain the source inversion (Reasenberg & Oppenheimer 1985; Hardebeck & Shearer 2002, 2003; Snoke 2003). Such approaches still depend on knowing the velocity model to calculate the azimuths and take-off angles of the rays from the source to the instrument. Many of the current inversions provide a result and an estimate of some misfit or quality parameter.
There are several Bayesian approaches to source inversion. Often these are based on full waveform inversion approaches (e.g. Kennet et al. 2000; Weber 2006), and can extend the approach to near-field observations and finite-fault models (e.g. Zollo & Bernard 2007; Minson et al. 2013), or other data sources (e.g. O'Toole 2013; Kaeufl et al. 2013).
The source function of an earthquake is a function of both time and position, although, in the case of microseismic events, the time dependence is generally modelled as a step function, so it is usually assumed that there is no spatial dependence of the time component. Therefore, the source function can be split into the time-dependent sourcetime function, S(t), and the spatially dependent moment tensor, M. The moment tensor describes the nine force couples required to define a point source (
In most cases, especially for teleseismic events, the moment tensor appears to be double-couple or close to double-couple, signifying slip along a fault plane. Some non-double-couple mechanisms have been observed, such as those associated with nuclear explosions (Müller 1973; Ford et al. 2008), and potentially non-double-couple mechanisms in events in volcanic and geothermal regions and other areas associated with induced seismicity, such as hydraulic fracturing (Vasco 1990; Foulger et al. 2004; Templeton & Dreger 2006; Vavry{hacek over (c)}uk et al. 2008). These non-double-couple mechanisms could arise from processes such as conduit collapse or fracture opening, perhaps associated with fluid movement. However, apparent (but incorrect) non-double-couple characteristics can also be caused by uncertainties in the inversion such as noise in the data or velocity model uncertainties, finite fault effects (Kuge & Lay 1994), as well as the improved fit due to the extra two parameters in the full moment tensor compared to the double-couple source (Panza & Sarao 2000).
The six independent moment tensor components can be written as a six-vector, in a form similar to the Voigt form (Voigt 1910) and that of Chapman & Leaney (2011). Using this notation, it is possible to write the far-field seismic amplitude equation as shown in eq. (1), where a is the matrix of station propagation coefficients, aSTA
The six-vector components are scaled in eq. (1) so that the six-vector can be normalized to give a normalized moment tensor (eq. 2), defined following Chapman & Leaney (2011):
Because eq. (1) is linear, a suitable left pseudo-inverse can be calculated and the moment tensor determined. The seismic amplitude equation (eq. 1) can also represent the full waveform problem, with u signifying the vector of waveforms and the station propagation coefficients (a), now time dependent and containing the Green functions and station responses. This is again a linear problem for known Green functions.
When using first-motion polarity information (Y) for source inversion, the signum function prevents a linear inversion approach:
Y=sgn(a·{tilde over (M)}). (3)
For amplitude inversions, the propagation effects are dependent on the velocity structure and attenuation models used, whereas amplitude ratios are less dependent on these, and so are often used in preference to absolute amplitudes (Hardebeck & Shearer 2002, 2003; Snoke 2003). While it is possible to invert directly for the moment tensor using amplitudes or amplitude ratios, multiple different observation types can make it difficult to invert for the source directly, and impossible when using the easily measured first-motion polarities due to the non-linear signum function (eq. 3).
The present invention takes a Bayesian approach to source inversion, and is typically focussed on the far-field observations such as polarities and amplitude ratios, rather than the full waveform approach, because these measurements are more robust when the velocity model is uncertain. Walsh et al. (2009) explored a method for determining double-couple focal mechanism parameters using P-wave polarities. The approach of the present invention is consistent with that framework and extends it to different independent observation types and to full moment tensor inversion. This inversion process also enables a comparison of the best fitting double-couple and full moment tensor solutions to be made. This allows a more detailed examination of any non-double-couple components.
In a first aspect, the present invention provides a method for processing microseismic data whereby the relative probability of an earthquake source model type, or combination of source model types, is estimated by:
In a related second aspect, the present invention provides a method for processing microseismic whereby the relative probability of an earthquake source model type (such as double-couple), or combination of source model types, may be estimated by:
The method of the first or second aspect may include a preliminary step of performing seismic testing, e.g. using one or more hydrophones, geophones, accelerometers, and/or distributed acoustic sensing, to obtain the microseismic data.
In a further aspect, the present invention provides a procedure for performing a hydraulic fracturing operation in a well including:
Further aspects of the present invention provide: a computer program comprising code which, when run on a computer, causes the computer to perform the method of the first or second aspect; a computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising code which, when run on a computer, causes the computer to perform the method of the first or second aspect; and a computer system programmed to perform the method of the first or second aspect. For example, a computer system may be provided for processing microseismic data, whereby the system estimates the relative probability of an earthquake source model type, or combination of source model types, the system including one or more processors arranged to: (i) perform forward modelling source parameter estimation on the microseismic data, the estimation being constrained to one or more selected source model types; (ii) calculate the likelihoods of the microseismic data for given source model types by forward-modelling synthetic data from a sampled source parameter probability distribution derived from the estimation for each given source model type, and comparing the synthetic data against the microseismic data; (iii) marginalize the calculated data likelihoods over prior probabilities for the model parameters for the given source model types to give respective likelihoods for the given source model types; and (iv) use Bayesian inference to convert the source model type likelihoods and the prior probabilities to posterior probabilities for the source model types. The system may further include a storage medium storing the microseismic data.
In a further aspect, the present invention provides a method for estimating the magnitude and/or associated uncertainty in an earthquake source model parameter using microseismic measurements according to any one of the embodiments described herein.
In a further aspect, the present invention provides a method for processing microseismic data whereby the probability of an earthquake source model type may be estimated using a method of Bayesian inference, given a set of noisy seismic data recorded by stations with positional uncertainty, and an earth model with uncertain parameters.
Optional features of the invention will now be set out. These are applicable singly or in any combination with any aspect of the invention.
The constrained source parameter estimation may be performed for one or more source model types selected from the group consisting of: a double-couple source model type, a volumetric opening source model type, a volumetric closing source model type, and a combined tensile crack and double-couple source model type.
The forward modelling source parameter estimation may also be performed for the unconstrained full moment tensor solution.
The sampled parameter probability distribution may include a probability distribution of seismic wave first-arrival polarity and/or of seismic wave amplitude ratio.
Embodiments of the invention will now be described by way of example with reference to the accompanying drawings in which:
Embodiments of the present disclosure provide for characterizing properties of a fracture/fault from a probability estimation of an earthquake-source-type being double-couple and/or non-double-couple, using a probabilistic forward-model approach that rigorously incorporates known uncertainties.
In a hydraulic fracture operation, high pressure fluids are injected into a low permeability rock. Often, the fluids are injected through perforation holes in a cased borehole. The purpose of the injection is to open a fracture through the rock to create a high permeability path for the later flow of formation fluids, usually hydrocarbons, into the producing well. To keep the newly created fracture open, the injection fluids transport into the fracture a proppant, often rounded sand grains of a uniform size, which proppant prevents the fracture from closing once the injections pressure is released. During emplacement of the fracture, brittle rocks fail and release elastic energy in the form of propagating compressional (P) and shear (S) seismic waves. Each brittle rock failure is a small earthquake and is often called a microseismic event.
With sets of seismic detectors and recording equipment, and an understanding of the seismic wave propagation properties of the medium between the microseismic event and the detectors, the energy released by each microseismic event may be localized in space and time to identify where and when the event took place. Mapping the spatio-temporal evolution of the microseismic events allows the direction, height and extent of the hydraulic fracture to be evaluated.
The seismic energy recorded by the detectors may also be back-propagated to a notional unit sphere, called the focal sphere, around the microseismic event. The distribution of the P and S energy around the focal sphere is indicative of the type and geometry of rock rupture, and the amplitudes of the distribution are indicative of the rupture dynamics (size of rupture, rupture velocity, stress drop etc.). The amplitude distribution may be fully characterized by the six elements of the moment tensor, computable from the seismic observations and Green functions modelled for the medium between event location and the detectors.
Because underground stresses are high, most naturally occurring earthquakes occur as slip along a fault plane by shear failure. Such a rupture is called “double-couple” because the shear stress distribution in the rock just before failure has the form of two balanced force couples, separated by two orthogonal planes. At rupture, failure takes place along one of the two planes which must be identified using other information.
In a hydraulic fracture, pressure along the rupture plane is high and exceeds the fracture toughness of the rock. The rock fails by opening against the minimum horizontal earth stress and the fracture propagates parallel to the maximum horizontal stress, often in the form of multiple, discrete microseismic failure events, each of which may have elements of both double-couple and volumetric opening modes, possibly followed by closing modes as hydraulic pressure is released. To understand/manage the hydraulic fracturing process and/or characteristics of fractures/faults resulting from the hydraulic fracturing process, a quantitative estimate of the moment tensor components, together with an estimate of their uncertainties, may be used in order to characterize each microseismic rupture. Embodiments of the present disclosure provide for obtaining a quantitative estimate of the probability of an event being non-double-couple, including the different uncertainties on both the data and the earth model, because the most productive hydraulic fractures are those with the highest permeability created by the greatest opening between the rock walls bounding the fracture. Reliable analysis of the moment tensor in accordance with the present disclosure also enables mapping of those parts of the fracture that have been injected with proppant.
Determining (micro)-earthquake/microseismic source parameters from surface and/or borehole seismic observations is highly dependent on event location determination and the velocity model. Uncertainties in both the model parameters and the observations need to be rigorously incorporated into an inversion approach. These uncertainties include the background noise at the instrument, the receiver network geometry, the location uncertainty, uncertainty in the polarity of the seismic arrivals and the uncertainty in the velocity structure. A probabilistic forward-model approach can include these uncertainties by using marginalization over the uncertainty parameters. The forward model approach tests possible models against the data by computing synthetic observations for samples drawn from possible sources, which are then compared to the observed data, producing samples of the PDF.
In the forward model approach, different data types may be used, provided that the data measurements are independent. In embodiments of the present invention, different data types may be used by combining suitable probability distribution functions (PDFs) for the observations. These PDFs can be marginalized (integrated or summed) over the uncertainties, resulting in samples from a posterior PDF which includes the uncertainty information.
In most cases, especially for naturally occurring, long-range earthquakes, the moment tensor characterizing the source appears to be double-couple or close to double-couple, signifying slip along a fault plane. However, some non-double-couple mechanisms have been observed, such as those associated with nuclear explosions. Additionally, potentially non-double-couple mechanisms have been observed in events from volcanic and geothermal regions and other areas associated with induced seismicity, such as hydraulic fracturing. These non-double-couple mechanisms (e.g. event A in
A goal of microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fracture operations is to quantify the fracture opening or closing component of an event through moment tensor inversion. Quantification of fracture opening is desirable because fracture opening is necessary to emplace proppant in the fracture, which emplacement of proppant is itself necessary to maintain a high permeability conduit for fluid flow after hydraulic pressure is released.
More generally, knowledge of sub-surface processes derived using microseismic monitoring enables operations that involve the placement of material in the earth's sub-surface (for example, storage of carbon dioxide) and/or the extraction of material from the earth's sub-surface (for example, hydrocarbon extraction from a compartment of a reservoir) to become more effective. However, apparent non-double-couple characteristics can also be caused by uncertainties in the moment tensor inversion, such as noise in the data or velocity model uncertainties; elastic anisotropy in the source region, and the improved fit to noisy data due to the extra two parameters in the full moment tensor compared to the four parameters (orientation and magnitude) in a constrained double-couple source, in which the inverted solution is forced to be a double-couple.
By running the source parameter inversion constrained to the double-couple space and again in the full moment tensor space, posterior samples are generated for both of the different source models, although this could be added to any other source models, such as the crack+double-couple model. In embodiments of the present disclosure, the likelihood of the data given a specific source model, such as double-couple, can be evaluated for the different source models using Bayesian evidence. In embodiments of the present disclosure, this is calculated by marginalizing over the prior probabilities for the model parameters for the source type:
P(data|model)=∫P(data|x)P(x|model)dx
where: x represents the parameters of the specific source model type. If the appropriate PDFs are analytic, this expression can be evaluated directly, otherwise it is evaluated by summation over forward-modelled samples generated by a suitable sampling process, such as a Monte-Carlo process or the like.
In embodiments of the present disclosure, for discrete random samples, this can be formulated as a Monte Carlo integration, given an explicit form of a suitable PDF, although care needs to be taken to ensure a sufficient random sampling of the model space to evaluate this correctly.
In embodiments of the present disclosure, the model likelihoods can be converted to posterior probabilities for each model type using Bayes' theorem for some suitable prior PDF for the different model types:
P(model|data)P(data)=P(data|model)P(model)
The resulting values can be normalized as the space of source models is complete, enabling a quantitative estimate of the relative probability of a non-double-couple source to a pure double-couple source. In embodiments of the present disclosure, this allows interpretation of the underlying physical processes, such as fracture growth.
This approach can be further extended to the source type in anisotropic materials by marginalizing over the anisotropy when inverting for the potency tensor, which is the contraction of the moment tensor with the compliance tensor of the medium local to the source.
Embodiments of the present disclosure provide for taking microseismic data recorded by a microseismic receiver during a hydraulic fracturing operation and converting this data into an understanding/image of the fractures/faults during/after the hydraulic fracturing operation. This provides for managing the hydraulic fracturing process and/or understanding the properties of the fractures/faults and/or proppant placement resulting from the hydraulic fracturing. In turn, in some aspects, the knowledge of the fractures/faults and/or proppant placement resulting from the hydraulic fracturing may be used in modeling of hydrocarbon production through the faults/fractures. This modeling may result in further hydraulic fracturing operation. Moreover the knowledge of the properties of the fractures/faults and/or proppant placement may be used in further hydraulic fracturing operation. Processing microseismic data to generate an image/understanding of the rock structure/characteristics resulting from hydraulic fracturing provides for understanding/managing both hydrocarbon production and/r the hydraulic fracturing operation.
Embodiments of the present disclosure provide for: using the posterior distributions marginalized over uncertainties for different source model types to estimate the posterior source model probabilities using the Bayesian evidence and suitable prior probabilities. The resultant probabilities can be used to quantify the probability of the event being a source with an opening or closing component or just slip on a fault plane.
The foregoing outlines features of several embodiments so that those skilled in the art may better understand the aspects of the present disclosure. Those skilled in the art should appreciate that they may readily use the present disclosure as a basis for designing or modifying other processes and structures for carrying out the same purposes and/or achieving the same advantages of the embodiments introduced herein. Those skilled in the art should also realize that such equivalent constructions do not depart from the spirit and scope of the present disclosure, and that they may make various changes, substitutions and alterations herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the present disclosure.
Inversion methods aim to find the best fitting model parameters for the given data. In the case of source inversion, the probability of obtaining the data is evaluated for the possible sources. The resulting estimates of the probability density function (PDF) can be combined for all the data to approximate the true PDF for the source. This PDF describes the likelihood of observing the data for a particular source given the model, p(data|model). However, the value of interest in such an inversion is the probability of the model given the observed data, the posterior PDF. This can be evaluated from the likelihood using Bayes' Theorem (Bayes & Price 1763; Laplace 1812; Sivia 2000):
Bayes' theorem links the two PDFs using prior probabilities. This incorporates the prior known information for the data, and can be used to include known constraints such as fault geometries or source type. Quantifying the prior state of knowledge for a system is often not trivial, and Bayes' theorem states that any assumptions made when formulating the prior will be directly reflected in the posterior PDF (Sivia 2000, Chapter 2). Although a commonly used prior is the null prior, which is a uniform distribution and does not change the posterior from the likelihood.
The normalized full moment tensor has five independent components, compared to three in the normalized double-couple tensor. These extra free parameters provide an improved fit, for example, to both data and noise. However, the commonly held view is that most earthquakes are double-couple, so a possible choice of prior could reduce the tendency for full moment tensor inversions to over-fit double-couple solutions, without taking the step of forcing the solution to be double-couple.
Source inversion is particularly sensitive to uncertainties and, because it is usually carried out after several other necessary steps, the effect of the uncertainties may be difficult to understand. The uncertainties can be broken down into several different types: instrument errors, model errors, and background noise. Table 1 shows some of the error types and their origins, although there is an additional source of uncertainty arising from an inability to resolve all the model parameters given the available data.
Although interdependencies between the uncertainties can be explored, no quantitative relationship is known. For such a treatment to be truly rigorous, the variations in these errors must be included throughout the inversion.
The Bayesian formulation allows rigorous inclusion of uncertainties in the problem using marginalization (Sivia 2000, section 2.3). Marginalization removes the dependence of the joint PDF, p(A, B), on one of the variables by integrating over the PDF for that variable:
p(A)=∫p(A,b)dB=∫p(A|B)p(B)dB. (5)
Consequently, marginalization can be used to reduce the PDF to a form that is dependent only on the parameters of interest, while taking all the uncertainties into account.
To incorporate the measurement errors in the inversion, for example, it is necessary to produce a PDF for the error (Δmes) over which to marginalize. The assumption made for the background noise is that the mean and variance are measurable and, therefore, the most ambiguous (maximum entropy) distribution for these measurements is the Gaussian distribution, as can be shown using variational calculus (Appendix B). For de-meaned data, the background noise can be assumed also to have zero mean, and a standard deviation σmes, so that the PDF is:
Location and velocity model uncertainties can have significant effects on the source. A common location method for microseismic events is NonLinLoc (Lomax et al. 2000, 2009), which produces samples from the source location PDF. Velocity model uncertainty can be included in that method by marginalizing the location PDF with respect to the velocity models. These approaches can therefore be used to incorporate location and velocity model uncertainty in the source inversion approach as described below.
The inversion approach described here is designed for microseismic events. In many cases where microseismic events are recorded, it would be difficult and time consuming to calculate the Green functions for all the events due to poorly constrained velocity models and event locations that often vary across the network, increasing the number of calculations. Furthermore, velocity variation has a larger effect on the ray paths due to the close proximity of the receivers to the source, unlike the teleseismic case. The approach of the present invention aims to produce a robust result for the moment tensor, which includes known uncertainties in the measurements. The approach has been tested with polarity and amplitude ratio data, and can easily be extended to other possible data types such as amplitude and the full-waveform fitting, provided a suitable PDF can be described relating the source to the data and the uncertainties.
A necessary caveat when performing any inversion is that any dependence in the data must be accounted for. For example, if combining P-, SH-, and SV-amplitude measurements into amplitude ratios, the ratios used must be independent, so from three measurements it is possible to construct only two independent ratios.
The uncertainties, both in the polarity and amplitude ratio measurements and in the model parameters are included in the source PDF using Bayesian marginalization (see above). This requires an estimate of the PDFs for the different uncertainties, either from estimates on the measurements or from direct sampling of the associated PDF if it is known (e.g. location). Often a Gaussian uncertainty is assumed as the uncertainty PDF, but this may be incorrect, leading to systematic errors in the resultant PDFs.
A probabilistic approach to source inversion requires an approximation to the posterior PDF for the source parameters, p(M|d, k). The parameters used in this section are summarized in Table 2. The posterior PDF depends on the observations, d=(d′, r), the unknown nuisance parameters that are marginalized over, ε=(ε′, x), where ε′=(A, σ, ω), and the known parameters, k=(s, σr, G).
Bayes' theorem (eq. 4) allows us to rewrite the posterior PDF in terms of the likelihood of the data and the model prior:
p(M|(d,k)∝p(d|M,k)p(M). (7)
Expanding the observations, d, into those used for the source mechanism inversion, d′, and the phase arrival times, τ, gives:
p(M|d′,τ,k)∝p(d′|M,τ,k)p(M). (8)
which is dependent on the likelihood of the source type observations, p(d′|M, τ, k). This likelihood is a joint distribution over the observed data used for constraining the source, and can be separated into the product over the set of N receivers with observation, because the measurements at a receiver are independent of the others:
where the i subscript indicates the coordinates for receiver i. Unfortunately the data likelihood is dependent on the nuisance parameters, so to obtain eq. (9), the nuisance parameters, ε, must be marginalized (eq. 5) over:
where the product corresponds to the product of the data PDFs over each receiver. The nuisance parameters can be expanded using the product rule for conditional probabilities:
p(a,b,c)=p(a|b,c)p(b|c)p(c) (11)
The nuisance parameter components are: ε′, which includes the modelled amplitudes and data uncertainties, and the location x. This gives:
However, the observations, d′i, depend only on ε′ and the pick times, while the location, x, depends only on the arrival times, τ, and the known parameters, k. Therefore, the likelihood can be simplified to:
Expanding for the nuisance variables in ε′ using the product rule and splitting these variables into the receiver dependent and independent parameters gives:
The likelihood of observing the data given the source model parameters, the time picks and associated uncertainties, the station locations and the velocity model is marginalized over four nuisance parameters: the theoretical amplitude probability, p(Ai |x, M), which is dependent on the location and the model parameters; the location PDF, p(x|τ, k); the probability of obtaining the observed measurement errors for the polarities and amplitude ratios, p(σ); and the probability of an instrument trace reversal, p(ω).
The theoretical amplitude probability can be written in terms of the dot product between the station propagation coefficients and the moment tensor six-vector, ai·{tilde over (M)}, where the station propagation coefficients depend on the location, x. The PDF for the amplitude for a given source location, xj, is dependent only on that location, so is given by a delta function, δ(Ai aij·{tilde over (M)}), where aij=ai(xj) refers to the station propagation coefficients for the receiver i, associated with the location at xj:
Integrating over the delta function (eq. 57) is equivalent to evaluating the theoretical amplitude associated with the location:
The integral over the location uncertainty is not analytic but can be evaluated using a Monte Carlo approach by summing over M hypocentre samples drawn from the location PDF, p(x=xj|τ, k):
Eq. (17) includes the location uncertainty in the PDF by converting the integral over dx to a sum over the location PDF samples.
Following Walsh et al. (2009), the likelihood for a case with an unknown earth model differs from the known earth model case (eq. 17). It has an additional Monte Carlo integration over the possible velocity models, with the station propagation coefficients now dependent on the location, x, and the earth model, G, where aijk=ai(xj, Gk) refers to the station propagation coefficients associated with a location at x, and an earth model Gk. For Q earth models and M locations, there are Q×M location and velocity model samples to sum over to carry out the marginalization:
Assuming the measurements are independent, the data likelihood at receiver i, p(d′i |Ai=ijk·{tilde over (M)}, σi,ωi, τi) can be expanded as the product of the different PDFs observation types (Sivia 2000, section 4.5). Sections 4.2 and 4.3 below define specific PDFs for the polarity, p(Yi |Ai=aijk·{tilde over (M)}, σi, ωi, τi), and amplitude ratios p(Ri |Ai=aijk·{tilde over (M)}, σi, τi), giving:
p(d′i|Ai=aijk·{tilde over (M)},σi,ωi,τi)=p(Yi|Ai=aijk·{tilde over (M)},σi,ωi,τi)p(Ri|Ai=aijk·{tilde over (M)},σi,τI). (19)
There is no dependence on the trace reversal probability, co in the amplitude ratio likelihood because the observations are unsigned, so are unaffected.
p(σ) and p(ω) are the chosen priors for the measurement uncertainties and the probability of instrument trace reversal respectively. It is possible to remove any dependence on the trace reversal probability, co by using observations from a source with a known mechanism (e.g. a teleseismic earthquake) to calibrate the trace orientation. So the trace reversal probability in eqs (27) and (59) would be either 0 or 1, or more usefully, any incorrect traces could be inverted so that ωi=0 for all stations.
The likelihoods for a known velocity model (eq. 17) and unknown velocity models (eq. 18) have been defined in some detail. The equations include uncertainties in the observations, the location, with all of its associated uncertainties, and the probability of a trace reversal. The source model distribution is fully described by the posterior PDF, p(M|d, k), which can be evaluated by multiplying the likelihood (eqs 17 and 18) with the chosen source prior.
The first-arrival polarity is a commonly used measurement for constraining source inversion (e.g. Reasenberg & Oppenheimer 1985; Hardebeck & Shearer 2002; Snoke 2003), and is measured as the direction of the first peak of the arrival waveform at a receiver (
The PDF for polarity, Y, given a polarity observation, y, at an instrument for a given theoretical amplitude, A, is given by a step function such as the Heaviside step function,
H(x)=∫−∞∞δ(s)ds. (20)
This PDF is dependent on the error in the amplitude, ΔY,
p(Y=y|A,ΔY)=H(y(A+ΔY)). (21)
Marginalizing eq. (21) over ΔY, for a given standard deviation, σY, using a Gaussian noise model (eq. 6) gives:
The product yΔY changes the sign of the noise to reflect the polarity, but because the PDF for ΔY is symmetric about 0, this change in sign has no effect. Eq. (23) can be integrated using this behaviour of the step function:
∫−∞∞H(x+Δ)f(Δ)dΔ=∫−∞∞f(Δ)dΔ. (24)
So, eq. (23) can be rewritten as:
which due to the symmetry of the normal distribution about the mean, results in:
with the Gauss error function defined as
possibility that a manufacturing or user error has occurred and the instrument is incorrectly wired, such that the trace is inverted. Consequently, the PDF for a given polarity is also dependent on the probability of such a trace inversion occurring, w:
This polarity PDF is consistent with that shown by Brillinger et al. (1980) and Walsh et al. (2009).
Because the moment tensor six-vector is normalized, the modelled amplitude can therefore take values between 1 and 1. The polarity standard deviation, σY, is related to the amplitude uncertainty compared to the maximum theoretical amplitude at the station (based purely on the event magnitude, source-to-station propagation and receiver coupling). However, this is difficult to calculate, especially for events with poor focal sphere coverage.
Walsh et al. (2009) call σY the noise for the arrival, but this does not scale correctly in comparison to the modelled amplitude due to the propagation effects. They treat it as a user-determined value, representing the confidence in the arrival. σY could be estimated from the fractional amplitude uncertainty, but this will be greater than or equal to the true value, because the amplitude at a receiver is only ever less than or equal to the maximum theoretical amplitude (accounting for propagation effects). Therefore, this would most likely overestimate the uncertainty. It is clear that the uncertainty value should be station-specific because noise environments at different stations often vary, so the maximum estimate of the event signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) fails to account for the variation across the receivers.
The difficulty in estimating the uncertainty is increased further when polarity picking is done manually, so the uncertainty on the trace is perhaps not known. Due to the difficulty in quantifying the uncertainty, it is best left as a user-defined parameter, as Walsh et al. (2009) do, that reflects the confidence in the arrival polarity pick, which can be mapped to the pick quality. However, Pugh et al. (2016) propose an alternate method for calculating polarity uncertainties that can be included in this framework.
The amplitude ratio is more complex than the polarity, and there are different approaches to the measurement (
The modelled amplitude ratio is dependent on the theoretical amplitudes, AP, ASH and ASV. Each amplitude observation has a measurement uncertainty, and the uncertainty of the ratio is not simply the ratio of the amplitude uncertainties. The PDF for a given ratio observation vector r=(rSHP, rSVP) at an instrument with given theoretical amplitudes AP, ASH and ASV is 2-D. However, because the observations are independent, the PDFs are independent and, therefore, the PDFs for each ratio can be multiplied together to give the total PDF for the ratios.
Considering a single observed ratio r=x/y and theoretical amplitudes AX and AY, the PDF for the ratio is given by the delta function δ(x), although this is again dependent on the measurement error of the two observations AX and AY:
There are several approaches for measuring the amplitude of a seismic arrival. The simplest approach is to take the maximum absolute value (Amax) from the arrival window. However, the maximum peak-to-peak amplitude (APP) has a higher SNR for uncorrelated noise (
However, the choice of window length is important because the arrival is finite; therefore, extending the RMS window a long way beyond the noise reduces the effect of the signal by a similar factor of √n. As a consequence, it can be difficult to compare RMS observations for different window lengths.
The choice between these different approaches is, therefore, not straightforward. Additionally, the presence of noise on an arrival complicates the matter. The noise leads to an increasing difference from the true value of the amplitude, as shown in
Hardebeck & Shearer (2003) found that S-wave/P-wave amplitude ratio uncertainties may be large due to noise and site effects, and are sometimes not effective in improving well-constrained solutions.
The amplitude observations must be consistent between different receivers, which can be complicated by the different coupling of the receiver components to the ground. This coupling varies between receivers, creating the need for an additional correction.
The observed amplitude ratio does not simply relate to the ratio of the modelled amplitudes, but it is dependent on a propagation correction, Z (Aki & Richards 2002, cf. Chapter 4, eq. 4.97):
While this is unity for S amplitude ratios, the coefficient depends on the velocity ratio between the different phases involved.
The simplest form of the propagation correction, assuming constant VP/VS ratio along the ray path, is given by:
Z=(VP/VS)3. (31)
Assuming a Gaussian uncertainty for the VP/VS ratio, it becomes necessary to determine the distribution of the propagation coefficient (
μZ=μV
σZ=3(VP/VS)2σV
where σZ can be determined from the Taylor expansion of the correction function:
However, instead of applying the correction to the modelled S-amplitude, it can be applied to the observed P-amplitude, as in this case. The corrected P-amplitude can be approximated by a Gaussian distribution, with mean and standard deviation given by
μApi=μZ*μAp, (34)
σAp′=AP2σZ2+Z2σAp2, (35)
It is possible to describe the amplitude ratio in terms of two parameters: the mean and standard deviation, given by
In this case, the maximum entropy distribution is the Gaussian distribution (Appendix B).
These two parameters describe a possible Gaussian model for the amplitude ratio uncertainty, with the PDF given by:
defined over r≧0, and the cumulative distribution function (CDF) by
where the Gaussian PDF is given by:
The inversion approach uses unsigned (absolute) amplitude ratios, so the distribution reflected in R=0 must be included.
While the Gaussian distribution is the maximum entropy distribution given a mean and a variance, so is consistent with the uncertainty on the amplitude observations, the modelled amplitude ratio is a ratio of two normally distributed parameters. So the distribution of the ratio must be used. Assuming that a Gaussian model is sufficient for the corrected P amplitude, there are, in fact, five parameters: μP′, μSH, σP′, σSH, and ρ.
Fieller (1932) derived a distribution for the ratio, R=X/Y, of two normally distributed observations with means μX and μY, standard deviations σX and σY, and correlation ρ. ρ is the correlation between the parameters. The PDF for R is determined from the joint density of X, Y, g(x, y) by:
p(R=r)=∫−∞∞|y|g(ry,y)dy. (44)
Substituting a bivariate normal density for g(x, y) gives the ratio PDF (Hinkley 1969),
where φ(x) is the Gaussian CDF (eq. 43). The coefficients in eq. (45), a(r), b(r), c and d(r) given by
This ratio PDF shows a much better fit to the sampled ratio distributions (
For ease of use throughout the rest of this description, the ratio PDF (eq. 45) is referred to as V(r, μX, μY, σX, σY, φ. The ratio distribution has a CDF given by eq. (50) (Hinkley 1969):
where L(u, v; γ) is the standard bivariate integral:
with zero means and covariance matrix V:
To account for the fact that the amplitude ratio used is unsigned (absolute), the PDF used is given by eq. (53):
p(R=|r|)=V(r,μX,μY,σX,σY,φ+V(−r,μX,μY,σX,σYρ. (53)
Therefore, the likelihood for the absolute ratio is given
φ
where μX, μY≧0. For the amplitude ratio distribution, ρ is assumed to be zero, because the observations are independent.
The amplitude ratio noise model is given by the ratio PDF (eq. 53). The ratio PDF is not symmetric in the means and the ratio, but it is straightforward to show that the distribution depends only on the ratio of the means and the percentage errors, and so the uncertainties in eq. (53) (σX and σY) are determined from the percentage error in the measurement:
The likelihood PDF (eq. 28) can be marginalized using the uncertainty scaling (eq. 55) and the ratio noise model (eq. 53) to give:
which can be evaluated using this property of the delta function:
∫−∞∞δ(s−x)f(s)ds=f(x). (57)
The distribution for the ratio uncertainty is then given by:
Therefore, the marginalized PDF is given by:
p(R=|r∥AX,AY,σX,σY)=N(r,AX,AY,σX,σY,φ=0)+N(−r,AX,AY,σX,σY,ρ=0). (59)
Because the normalized full moment tensor source is 5-D, it is difficult to represent the source on paper, and there are several different methods of representing the source (Hudson et al. 1989; Riedesel & Jordan 1989; Chapman & Leaney 2011; Tape & Tape 2012a). The same is true of representing the source PDF using the Hudson plot or the fundamental eigenvalue lune (Tape & Tape 2012a).
Care must be taken in interpreting the plots as well as how to plot the source PDF. Both the Hudson plot and the fundamental lune plot only show the source type, rather than any orientation information, so the PDF should first be marginalized with respect to the orientation parameters, when plotting the source PDF using these projections. The most likely source type from the marginalized PDF cannot be linked to any orientation, and it does not necessarily correspond to the maximum probability source from the full (unmarginalized) PDF.
It may be of more use to examine the silhouette of the full PDF projected onto this projection, which shows the maximum probability value from the unmarginalized PDF for each coordinate point on the plot, rather than the integral over the marginalized parameters as in the marginalized case. This silhouette plot allows deductions to be made about the maximum probability source, as well as its orientation. A similar approach can be applied to the orientation information of a source, considering either the most likely orientation marginalized over the source-type parameters, or the orientation of the most likely source.
A comparison of the silhouette and orientation marginalized Hudson projections is shown in
As mentioned above, it is often desirable to understand whether a source is a full moment tensor, or if deviations from the double-couple source are due to over-fitting of the source by the extra free parameters. There are several approaches to distinguishing between the full-moment tensor and double-couple source models, but the method described herein allows a clear understanding of the robustness of any non-double-couple component in a source.
One approach to estimating whether the result is due to over-fitting is the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), B, introduced by Schwarz (1978):
B=2 ln max−k ln n. (60)
where max is the maximum likelihood for the model, k is the model dimension, and n is the number of data points used. This provides a method for comparing the double-couple and the full moment tensor models. The absolute values are not useful, but the difference between values for the models is used as an indicator of evidence for the model with larger BIC. In the literature, differences between 2 and 6 are regarded as evidence for the larger BIC model, between 6 to 10 are considered strong evidence, and differences bigger than 10 are considered very strong evidence (Mukherjee et al. 1998; Jeffreys 1998).
However, because the approach described herein samples the full source PDF using eqs (17) or (18), it is possible to use the Bayesian model evidence:
p(data|model)=∫xp(data|x)p(x|model)dx. (61)
This is a more complex approach with a more easily understood result, corresponding to the likelihood of the data given the model type. It requires good sampling of the unnormalized likelihoods to compare between the models, with the higher dimensional models being penalized by the parameter priors. The resultant number corresponds to the data likelihood given the model, with a higher likelihood corresponding to a better model.
From the likelihood (eqs 17 and 18), the Bayesian model evidence can be evaluated by summing over the probability samples:
but care must be taken with the choice of the prior parametrization. This must correspond to the same parametrization in which the Monte Carlo samples were drawn, either directly or by correcting both the prior distribution and the Δx values. A Monte Carlo approach can be affected by small sample sizes in the integration, which is sometimes the case when the source PDF is dominated by a few very large probability samples.
The Bayesian evidence for the full moment tensor and double-couple models can be converted into the corresponding posterior values (pDC and pMT) using Bayes' theorem (eq. 4) for a suitable prior such as the uniform prior p=0.5. The posterior probabilities can be normalized together because the source is either a full moment tensor or a double-couple source. This is similar to a test of the hypothesis that an event is non-double-couple. Consequently, the approaches for determining statistical significance levels, well known in hypothesis testing can be applied, similar to Horalek et a/. (2010) using the F-test. The resultant probabilities help distinguish between whether or not a source is double-couple, providing discrimination between different types of events, and, therefore between different physical processes and source interpretations (Baig & Urbancic 2010).
A set of synthetic seismograms was computed from randomly generated moment tensor sources using a finite difference approach (Bernth & Chapman 2011) for a 1-D velocity model expanded into three dimensions. Random Gaussian noise was added to the traces in varying SNRs, close to a targeted ratio, although real-world events often have larger variation in SNR across a network. The synthetic examples are used to explore the dependency of the PDF solutions on different types of uncertainty, for both the fully constrained double-couple space and the full moment tensor space. The chosen prior for each case was the uniform prior, so no preferred source mechanism, or orientation was specified.
The synthetic data (
The network geometry can lead to uncertainties in the source inversion, because the sampling of the focal sphere by the receivers often does not constrain the source well, leading to an increased range of possible solutions (Vavry{hacek over (c)}uk 2007; Godano et al. 2009; Kim 2011). Increasing the number of receivers does not always improve the solution, since the receivers need to improve the sampling of the focal sphere to improve the constraint. It is possible to invert for the source from a small number of waveforms, but this is not always stable and can lead to large uncertainties (Kim et al. 2000; Vavry{hacek over (c)}uk 2007).
An event generated from a double-couple source was located and inverted for different numbers of stations and geometries (
The double-couple solution for the polarity-only inversion is well constrained, with orientation similar to the source and little variation in the range of solutions. But as the number of stations decreases, the range of non-zero solutions increases, with deviation from the source. The full moment tensor solutions show a wider range of solutions as the number of receivers decreases, along with some deviation of the PDF from the double-couple point.
Including amplitude ratios reduces the dependence of the solutions on the network distribution. The double-couple solutions are well constrained, with orientations similar to the source, and there is little variation in the range of solutions, even as the number of stations reduces. In both cases, the station geometry is more important than the number of stations, as a low station coverage case may still provide well-constrained solutions if there are sufficient constraining station positions (cf. Panza & Sarao 2000; {hacek over (S)}ilený et al. 1996). For full moment tensor solutions, the nodal regions of the radiation pattern are not necessarily planar, unlike the double-couple solution and, therefore, more stations are required to constrain the solution.
All of the solutions in
The results shown here are consistent with those of (Vavry{hacek over (c)}uk 2007; Godano et al. 2009; Kim 2011) showing that the position of the receivers is important for constraint of the source PDF, not just the number of receivers.
The effects of noise on the inversion are difficult to test, because noise has a large effect on the different steps leading up to the source inversion.
As the SNR decreases, the source solutions increase in range, showing some rotation away from the true source, and the full moment tensor PDF deviates from the double-couple point. The solutions using amplitude ratios show more uncertainty and skew as the SNR decreases. This is consistent with the results shown in Section 4.3.1, where the noise introduced a systematic deviation into the amplitude measurements, which may lead to the deviation of the full moment tensor solution from the true source. Alternatively, the polarity-only inversions show a wider range of possible solutions, with decreasing maximum probability. However, the orientation remains similar for the double-couple case, and the full moment tensor solutions show a wider range of possible solutions.
The Bayesian evidence for the solutions varied, with very low double-couple posteriors for the polarity and amplitude ratio examples with SNR≦10, with posterior values pDC≦0.02, despite the solutions appearing to be good double-couple solutions from a visual inspection. Similarly to the solutions in
The noise has a larger overall effect on the workflow than that explored above, as it also affects the ability to make the arrival pick and to determine the location precisely. To investigate this, the synthetic event was manually reprocessed at different noise levels, and then inverted for the source using the likelihood in eq. (17) with no additional location samples (M=1). The noise levels were not uniform across each waveform, but the noise was added so that the average SNR was consistent with the desired SNR values. Adding noise reduces the number of confident picks, increasing the range of possible solutions, partially due to the network distribution (Section 6.2).
As with the solution with only increased uncertainty in the inversion data (
The distribution from the full moment tensor inversion shows that adding noise increases the range of possible non-double-couple solutions, as well as moving the maximum probability full moment tensor source away from the double-couple point. This may be a possible explanation for some reported non-double-couple type sources. The effect of the noise on the solutions using amplitude ratios is much stronger than that of the station distribution, although increasing the noise level does change the station distribution as well because some arrivals cannot be seen above the background noise, leading to an often strong effect on polarity-only inversions. Consequently, at higher noise levels, the network distribution has an even greater effect, leading to more deviation from the true source as the number of stations is reduced.
A few examples show multi-modal PDFs in the full moment tensor case, especially when including amplitude ratios. Although it can be expected that the source PDF does not have to be mono-modal, some of the multi-modality may arise from the amplitude ratio distributions, shown in
The posterior model probabilities (Section 6) for these solutions are more consistent with the expected values. Although, again, the SNR=∞ case using both polarity and amplitude-ratio observations has a very low likelihood for the double-couple model, the PDF is dominated by a few very high probability samples, which can lead to uncertainties in the Monte Carlo integration approach used to calculate the Bayesian evidence. However, the remaining solutions have values more consistent with a visual interpretation of the source PDFs, and all suggest that the double-couple model cannot be discarded.
To investigate the location dependency of the recovered source PDF (using eq. 17), the synthetic source from Section 6.2 was used to generate synthetic seismograms for different source depths. These synthetics were then inverted for a randomly generated network geometry of 39 stations at an SNR of 20, while including the location uncertainty as described in Section 4.1. The effect of this uncertainty on the station angles can be seen in
The double-couple constrained solutions mainly show a small range of possible orientations, although there is also an effect on the network distribution, with the ray paths moving from being equatorial on the focal sphere for shallow depths to more vertical paths as the depth increases. This leads to additional uncertainties arising from clustering of stations on the focal sphere in the 7.0 km depth example, especially for the polarity-only inversion, which is very poorly constrained. The full moment tensor solutions show a similar small range of solutions, and most are close to double-couple. The sources at 0.5 and 7.0 km depths have the largest range of solutions, linked to the specific network geometries. As in previous cases, including amplitude ratios in the inversion greatly improves the source constraint.
The posterior model probabilities are all consistent with the double-couple source, apart from the solution using both polarities and amplitude ratios at 1.0 km depth: This again is not well constrained due to the domination of the full moment tensor PDF by a few very-high-probability samples.
It is clear that the location uncertainty for well-constrained events with low noise has a small effect, although, as the noise level increases, so will the location uncertainty and its effects, as can be seen in the examples shown in Section 7.
The results shown here are consistent with studies of the effects of location uncertainty on source inversion, especially for full-waveform based inversions, such as Duputel et al. (2012a) and {hacek over (S)}ilený (2009), who show that in some cases, location uncertainty can cause large variations in the solution.
The synthetic event from Section 6.4 at a source depth of 1.5 km was inverted for a range of velocity models, randomly perturbed from the true model (
The posterior model probability for the double-couple source model using only polarity data is 0.86 and 0.76 for the 3 percent and 10 percent perturbations, respectively. Including amplitude ratios leads to pDC=1 in both cases.
For these examples, a simple 1-D velocity model was used, and it was assumed to be consistent for all stations. It is possible using eq. (18) to allow the velocity models to vary independently for each station and to combine these, although this would increase the number of location samples required in the inversion. Extending the velocity model uncertainties to full 3-D heterogeneous models may make the required number of models impossibly large to include using this Monte Carlo approach.
Velocity model uncertainties have been shown in the literature to lead to non-double-couple components ({hacek over (S)}ilený 2004; {hacek over (S)}ilený & Miley 2006; Vavry{hacek over (c)}uk 2007; {hacek over (S)}ilený 2009), so including the velocity model uncertainty can be important when trying to estimate the source type. If the model is well-constrained, the uncertainty on the source PDF is minimal. Topography, site effects and near surface structure can have additional effects on both the source inversion ({hacek over (S)}ilený et al. 2001), as well as the location of the event (Bean et al. 2008; O'Brien et al. 2011).
The inversion approach was used on four local seismic earthquakes from the Krafla geothermal region of Iceland. These events were at shallow depths ranging from 0.9 to 1.6 km and were part of a larger group detected on a temporary network between 2009 and 2010 (
Event A is clearly non-double-couple and, although it is possible to fit some double-couple solutions to this source, these have very low probabilities, with very significant misfit from the observed data. The full moment tensor solutions show a small sharp peak near the closing tensile crack point (see
Events C and D appear to have a bimodality in the full moment tensor solutions, but this is partly due to the conversion of the moment tensor into the Hudson u and v coordinates (Tape & Tape 2012b).
The posterior model probabilities for the double-couple source model are consistent with this interpretation with a very low value (0.002) for Event A and values bigger than 0.7 for the others (Table 3). We therefore conclude that Event A is a non-double-couple closing crack source, but Events BD can be described best by a double-couple failure.
DCB- MTB
Table 3 also shows the evaluation of the BIC values (eq. 60) for the double-couple model, which suggest that there is strong evidence for the double-couple model for events BD and very strong evidence for a non-double-couple model for event A. However, the values of the BIC, and the associated differences are not as informative as the posterior values from the Bayesian evidence, which provide more of a quantitative estimate of the support for the different model types.
A method for source inversion based on a Bayesian approach is presented. This approach includes the uncertainties in the inversion in a rigorous framework, allowing for expansion of data types used, along with improved uncertainty determination. The method also allows the inclusion of location and model uncertainties. However, because the effects of these uncertainties on the station propagation coefficients are not independent, methods of generating the appropriate PDFs such as that proposed in Section 3 are explored. The use of prior distributions in the inversion can be extended to determine whether any apparent non-double-couple component is introduced as an artefact due to data uncertainty and the larger number of free parameters available for fitting compared to the double-couple solution.
When tested on synthetic events with a known source, the results are consistent and provide a useful approximation of the source PDF, with the estimate including the effects of the known uncertainties. The inversions of the synthetic events agree closely with the source mechanisms, with greater uncertainty arising as the noise level is increased and the number of stations reduced. Neither the velocity nor location uncertainty preclude the recovery of the source mechanism, although increasing the noise level is likely to increase the effects of these uncertainties.
Full-moment tensor inversion of the synthetic events showed deviations in the PDF maxima from the true double-couple source, which is a possible explanation for deviatoric non-double-couple source observations. Including amplitude ratios improves the constraint of the source PDF, but the systematic deviation of the amplitude measurements due to noise can lead to deviations in the resultant PDF from the true value, so care must be taken when including them in an inversion. Furthermore the low SNR (high noise) cases of
The inversions of four events from the Krafla region of Iceland have double-couple solutions for Events BD and a non-double-couple solution for Event A, supported by the posterior model probabilities from the Bayesian evidence. These values agree with the corresponding BIC values, although the posterior probabilities provide a better qualitative estimate of the support for the different model types. Both the posterior model probabilities and the BIC values support a double-couple source model for Events BD despite the full moment tensor PDF having a strong peak away from the double-couple point, suggesting that these are good estimators of the model type. The posterior model probabilities for the double-couple model have the lowest value for Event B, which is consistent with visual interpretation of the observed source PDFs, unlike the values for the BIC, which has a smaller value for Events B and D. The non-double-couple Event A has a very sharp peak in the closing tensile crack source region, with a very low probability of fitting a double-couple solution.
The solutions generated using this approach suggest that a source inversion should examine the full source PDF, which allows a clear interpretation of the possible source types, and accounts for uncertainties as well as any multi-modality. All the explored uncertainty types affect the source PDF, although the dominant effect is the noise. The noise also affects the other types of uncertainties, amplifying the effects.
The posterior model probabilities provide a useful quantitative estimate of whether the source is non-double-couple, although they can be very uncertain if the source PDF is dominated by a few very-high-probability samples. This is probably due to uncertainties from the small sample size in the Monte Carlo integration approach used to calculate the Bayesian evidence. However, for more realistic PDFs with larger uncertainties, the values correspond well to a visual interpretation of the source PDF, suggesting that it is a good approach for distinguishing between double-couple and non-double-couple sources.
The above description provides preferred exemplary embodiment(s) only, and is not intended to limit the scope, applicability or configuration of the invention. Rather, the above description of the preferred exemplary embodiment(s) will provide those skilled in the art with an enabling description for implementing a preferred exemplary embodiment of the invention. It being understood that various changes may be made in the function and arrangement of elements without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims.
Specific details are given in the above description to provide a thorough understanding of the embodiments. However, it will be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the embodiments may be practiced without these specific details. For example, circuits may be shown in block diagrams in order not to obscure the embodiments in unnecessary detail. In other instances, well-known circuits, processes, algorithms, structures, and techniques may be shown without unnecessary detail in order to avoid obscuring the embodiments.
Also, it is noted that the embodiments may be described as a process which is depicted as a flowchart, a flow diagram, a data flow diagram, a structure diagram, or a block diagram. Although a flowchart may describe the operations as a sequential process, many of the operations can be performed in parallel or concurrently. In addition, the order of the operations may be re-arranged. A process is terminated when its operations are completed, but could have additional steps not included in the figure. A process may correspond to a method, a function, a procedure, a subroutine, a subprogram, etc. When a process corresponds to a function, its termination corresponds to a return of the function to the calling function or the main function.
Moreover, as disclosed herein, the term “storage medium” may represent one or more devices for storing data, including read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), magnetic RAM, core memory, magnetic disk storage mediums, optical storage mediums, flash memory devices and/or other machine readable mediums for storing information. The term “computer-readable medium” includes, but is not limited to portable or fixed storage devices, optical storage devices, wireless channels and various other mediums capable of storing, containing or carrying instruction(s) and/or data.
Furthermore, embodiments may be implemented by hardware, software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description languages, or any combination thereof. When implemented in software, firmware, middleware or microcode, the program code or code segments to perform the necessary tasks may be stored in a machine readable medium such as storage medium. A processor(s) may perform the necessary tasks. A code segment may represent a procedure, a function, a subprogram, a program, a routine, a subroutine, a module, a software package, a class, or any combination of instructions, data structures, or program statements. A code segment may be coupled to another code segment or a hardware circuit by passing and/or receiving information, data, arguments, parameters, or memory contents. Information, arguments, parameters, data, etc. may be passed, forwarded, or transmitted via any suitable means including memory sharing, message passing, token passing, network transmission, etc.
It is to be understood that the above disclosure provides many different embodiments, or examples, for implementing different features of various embodiments. Specific examples of components and arrangements are described below to simplify the present disclosure. These are, of course, merely examples and are not intended to be limiting. In addition, the present disclosure may repeat reference numerals and/or letters in the various examples. This repetition is for the purpose of simplicity and clarity and does not in itself dictate a relationship between the various embodiments and/or configurations discussed. Moreover, the formation of a first feature over or on a second feature in the description that follows may include embodiments in which the first and second features are formed in direct contact, and may also include embodiments in which additional features may be formed interposing the first and second features, such that the first and second features may not be in direct contact.
In the case of a homogeneous isotopic velocity structure, the Green functions are known for the different components. In other cases, it is necessary to determine the ray angles between the source and the receiver for an appropriate geological structure.
Considering a system of orthogonal basis vectors on the sphere with φ the angle from the x axis and θ the angle from the z axis gives Γ the radial unit vector, Θ the unit vector along lines of longitude, and Φ the equatorial unit vector:
For a point with a take-off angle θ and azimuth φ, the displacement components are (following Aki & Richards 2002):
where is the propagation effect, containing the effects from geometric spreading and the velocity structure.
The radiation components (Chapman 2004, Chapter 4) can be given by
=ΓτMΓ, (A7)
SV=ΘτMΓ, (A8)
SH=ΦτMΓ. (A9)
The radiation components can be used to determine the coefficients of the different moment tensor components. This allows a calculation of the amplitude for the different components at the source, which can be used to help determine the moment tensor. The amplitude of the P component at the source is given by
P
=M
11 sin2θ cos2φ+M22 sin2θ sin2φ+M33 cos2θ+M12 sin2θ sin 2φ+M23 sin 2θ cos φ+M23 sin 2θ sin φ. (A11)
Similarly for the SH and SV components:
These coefficients describe the amplitude of the different components at the source. However, propagation effects need to be accounted for when extending this further to a measurement at a receiver. The coefficients produced here are the same as those reported by Dahm (1996).
These amplitude coefficients can be written in terms of the moment tensor six-vector (eq. 1):
Consequently the station propagation coefficients are given by
Consider a function g(x) with mean μ and variance σ2. The entropy is given by (e.g. Cover & Thomas 2005):
S=∫
−∞
∞
g(x)ln(g(x))dx, (B1)
with the maximum entropy at the stationary point of the functional:
F(x,g(x),g′(x))dx=g(x)ln(g(x)). (B2)
There are two constraints to apply: g(x) is normalized:
∫−∞∞G(x,g(x),g′(x))dx=∫−∞∞g(x)dx=1. (B3)
and the variance is given by
∫−∞∞H(x,g(x),g′(x))dx=∫−∞∞(x−μ)2g(x)dx=σ2. (B4)
The constrained stationary value can be found by maximizing the Euler-Lagrange functional:
where λ and ν at Lagrange undetermined multipliers. The Euler-Lagrange equation for this functional is given by:
ln(g(x))+1+λ+ν(x−μ)2=0. (B7)
because F, G, and H are independent of g′(x). This can be solved to give an expression for g(x):
g(x)=e−v(x-μ)
Applying the constraints on g(x) (eqs. B3 and B4) gives a relationship for λ and ν:
Substituting for these into eq. (B8) gives a Gaussian distribution for the maximum entropy distribution for a mean and variance:
This application claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/219,176, filed Sep. 16, 2015 and titled DETERMINING CHARACTERISTICS OF A FRACTURE/FAULT, the entire disclosure of which is herein incorporated by reference.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62219176 | Sep 2015 | US |