1887
Volume 10 Number 6
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Estimates of porosity and permeability in saturated soils are important in various disciplines. In this research, a recently proposed concept for quantitative integration of dispersive seismic velocity and attenuation in soft soils, based on the underlying physics, is tested on a realistic synthetic shear‐wave (S‐wave) vertical seismic profiling (VSP) dataset. The effects of error in the determination of layer‐specific dispersive velocity and attenuation from VSP data without and with noise, as well as those of error in the used poroelasticity model, on the estimated values of porosity and permeability are investigated. A methodology involving extraction of layer‐specific intrinsic dispersion from VSP data and enhancement of robustness and reliability through use of multiple receivers within the thickness of a given layer, in combination with source stacking, is presented. For the assumed frequency band (50–140 Hz) for S‐wave data, stable values of both porosity and permeability can be obtained for all but a very low‐permeability clayey layer. The results show that if the model error is not large, then both porosity and permeability can be estimated quite accurately even when the data are rather noisy. However, when the model used is grossly inaccurate and there is large noise in the data and hence a large error in the estimated dispersion, then though the absolute error in porosity is still within 2–3%, the permeability can be off by an order of magnitude. In general, in this approach, if the poroelasticity model is so chosen that it explains reasonably well the observed dispersion, then the estimates of porosity and permeability should both be quite accurate.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012016
2012-05-01
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ArroyoM., FerreiraC. and SukorlatJ.2007. Dynamic measurements and porosity in saturated triaxial specimens. Soil Mechanics and Its Applications146, 537–546.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BaronL. and HolligerK.2011. Constraints on the permeability structure of alluvial aquifers from the poroelastic inversion of multifrequency P‐wave sonic velocity logs. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing49, 1937–1948.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BerryP.L. and ReidD.1987. Introduction to Soil Mechanics.McGraw‐Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BuchananJ.L.2006. A comparison of broadband models for sand sediments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America120, 3584–3598.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BuckinghamM.J.1997. Theory of acoustic attenuation, dispersion, and pulse propagation in unconsolidated granular materials including marine sediments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America102, 2579–2596.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BuckinghamM.J.1998. Theory of compressional and shear waves in fluidlike marine sediments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America103, 288–299.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BuckinghamM.J.2000. Wave propagation, stress relaxation, and grain‐to‐grain shearing in saturated, unconsolidated marine sediments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America108, 2796–2815.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BurnsD.R.1990. Acoustic waveform logs and the in‐situ measurement of permeability ‐ A review. Geophysical Applications for Geotechnical Investigations. ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 65‐78.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CarmanP.C.1937. Fluid flow through granular beds. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers15, 150–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ChotirosN.P. and IsaksonM.J.2004. A broadband model of sandy ocean sediments: Biot‐Stoll with contact squirt flow and shear drag. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America116, 2011–2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ChotirosN.P and IsaksonM.J.2008. High‐frequency dispersion from viscous drag at the grain‐grain contact in water‐saturated sand. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America124, EL296‐EL301.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. van DalenK.N., GhoseR., DrijkoningenG.G. and SmeuldersD.M.2010. In‐situ permeability estimation from integrated poroelastic reflection coefficients. Geophysical Research Letters37, L12303. doi:10.1029/2010GL043319
    [Google Scholar]
  13. DeresiewiczH. and SkalakR.1963. On uniqueness in dynamic poroelasticity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America53, 783–788.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GhoseR.2002. High‐frequency shear wave reflections from shallow subsoil layers using a vibrator source; Sweep cross‐correlation versus deconvolution with groundforce derivative. SEG Conference, pp. 1408–1411.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GhoseR.2010a. Possibilities for multidisciplinary, integrated approaches in near‐surface geophysics. 72nd EAGE Conference, WS 4.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GhoseR.2010b. Estimating in‐situ horizontal stress in soil using time‐lapse VS measurements. In: Advances in Near‐Surface Seismology and Ground‐Penetrating Radar (eds R.Miller , J.H.Bradford and K.Holliger ), pp. 131–152. Geophysical Development Series No. 15, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. GhoseR.2012. A microelectromechanical system digital 3‐C array seismic cone penetrometer. Geophysics77, WA99‐WA107. doi: 10.1190/GEO2011‐0266.1
    [Google Scholar]
  18. GhoseR., BrowerJ. and NijhofV.1996. A portable S‐wave vibrator for high‐resolution imaging of the shallow subsurface. 59th EAGE Conference.
  19. GhoseR. and GoudswaardJ.2004. Integrating S‐wave seismic reflection data and cone‐penetration‐test data using a multiangle multiscale approach. Geophysics69, 440–459. doi: 10.1190/1.1707064
    [Google Scholar]
  20. GhoseR., NijhofV., BrowerJ., MatsubaraY., KaidaY. and TakahashiT.1998. Shallow to very shallow, high‐resolution reflection seismic using a portable vibrator system. Geophysics63, 1295–1309. doi: 10.1190/1.1444431
    [Google Scholar]
  21. GhoseR. and SlobE.2006. Quantitative integration of seismic and GPR reflections to derive unique estimates for water saturation and porosity in subsoil. Geophysical Research Letters33, L05404. doi:10.1029/2005GL025376
    [Google Scholar]
  22. GurevichB. and SchoenbergM.1999. Interface conditions for Biot's equations of poroelasticity. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America105, 2585–2589.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. HollandC.W. and BrunsonB.A.1988. The Biot‐Stoll sediment model: An experimental assessment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America84, 1437–1443.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. HovemJ.M. and IngramG.D.1979. Viscous attenuation of sound in saturated sand. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America66, 1807–1812.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. JengY., TsaiJ. and ChenS.1999. An improved method of determining near‐surface Q. Geophysics64, 1608‐1617.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. KimuraM.2007. Study on the Biot‐Stoll model for porous marine sediments. Acoustical Science and Technology28, 230–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. KozenyJ.1927. Ueber kapillare leitungdes wassersim boden. Sitzungsberchte Akademie Wisselkoers Wiener136, 271–306.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. KudoK. and ShimaE.1970. Attenuation of shear waves in soil. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute48, 145–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. LinL., PetersonM.L., GreenbergA.R. and McCoolB.A.2009. In situ measurement of permeability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, EL123‐EL128.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. MichaelsP.1998. In‐situ determination of soil stiffness and damping. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 124, 709–719.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. MolyneuxJ.B. and SchmittD.R.2000. Compressional‐wave velocities in attenuating media: A laboratory physical model study. Geophysics65, 1162–1167.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. SchulzH.G. and ZabelM.2006. Marine Geochemistry.Springer, 2nd Edn.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. SmeuldersD.M.J and van DongenM.E.H.1997. Wave propagation in porous media containing a dilute gas‐liquid mixture: Theory and experiments. Journal of Fluid Mechanics343, 351–373.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. StollR.D.1974. Acoustic waves in saturated sediments. Physics of Sound in Marine Sediments. Plenum, New York, pp. 19–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. StollR.D.1977. Acoustic waves in ocean sediments. Geophysics42, 715–725.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. StollR.D.1986. Acoustic waves in marine sediments. Ocean Seismo‐Acoustics, pp. 417–434.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. StollR.D.1989. Sediment Acoustics.Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, Springer‐Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. StollR.D. and BryanG.M.1970. Wave attenuation in saturated sediments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America47, 1440–1447.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. TonnR.1991. The determination of the seismic quality factor Q from‐VSP data: A comparison of different computational methods. Geophysical Prospecting39, 1–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. VogelaarB.B.S.A.2009. Fluid effect on wave propagation in heterogeneous porous media. PhD thesis. Delft University of Technology.
  41. WapenaarC.P.A., DraganovD. and ThorbeckeJ.2003. Relations between codas in reflection and transmission data and their applications in seismic imaging. 6th SEGJ International Symposium on Imaging Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. YamamotoT.2003. Imaging permeability structure within the highly permeable carbonate earth: Inverse theory and experiment. Geophysics68, 1189–1201.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. YamamotoT. and TurgutA.1988. Acoustic wave propagation through porous media with arbitrary pore size distributions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America83, 1744–1751.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. ZhubayevA. and GhoseR.2012. Contrasting behavior between dispersive seismic velocity and attenuation: Advantages in subsoil characterization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America131(2), EL170‐EL176. doi: 10.1121/1.3678692.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012016
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012016
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error