1887

Abstract

Summary

In applications such as geothermal energy, underground storage, mining, hydraulic fracturing, it becomes current practice to implement local seismic networks to monitor induced seismicity and to help mitigating the associated risks. In such contexts, it is crucial to guarantee that the network is able to detect a seismic event of predefined magnitude in a specific area. We propose a method to estimate this detection capability for existing kilometric-scale seismic networks which did not record any seismicity in the target zone yet.

However, the network should be running for a time period long enough to record several local events listed in a reference catalogue. These earthquakes are used to calibrate an amplitude-magnitude relationship, knowing that the amplitudes are at the basis of the detection of seismic event candidates. This observation-based approach can take into account uncertainties in the magnitude estimate.

The procedure was applied on the seismic network deployed over Bruchsal (Germany) geothermal field. Since mid-2010, no seismicity in the reservoir has been recorded by the network despite its good working order. The proposed technique suggests that there is 95% probability that no seismic event with ML ≥ 0.7 occurred below the network down to the reservoir depth at 2400 m.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20140008
2014-03-14
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bormann, P.
    2012. DS3.1: Magnitude calibration formulas and tables, comments on their use and complementary data. In: New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice (NMSOP-2), IASPEI (ed. P.Bormann), pp. 19. GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bungum, H. & Husebye, E.S.
    1974. Analysis of the operational capabilities for detection and location of seismic events at NORSAR. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America64, 637–656.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Freudenreich, Y., Oates, S.J. & Berlang, W.
    2012. Microseismic feasibility studies - assessing the probability of success of monitoring projects. Geophysical Prospecting60, 1043–1053.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Meixner, J.
    2010. Diplomarbeit: Konzeptionelle hydrogeologische Modellansätze als Vorstudie für ein integriertes Standortmodell. pp. 178. KIT Institut für Angewandte Geowissenschaften Abteilung Hydrogeologie.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Richter, C.F.
    1935. An instrumental earthquake magnitude scale. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America25, 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ringdal, F. & Kværna, T.
    1989. A multi-channel processing approach to real time network detection, phase association, and threshold monitoring. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America79, 1927–1940.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1992. Continuous seismic threshold monitoring. Geophysical Journal International111, 505–514.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Stange, S.
    2006. ML Determination for Local and Regional Events Using a Sparse Network in Southwestern Germany. Journal of Seismology10, 247–257.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20140008
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20140008
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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