1887
Volume 64, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In applications such as oil and gas production, deep geothermal energy production, underground storage, and mining, it is common practice to implement local seismic networks to monitor and to mitigate induced seismicity. For this purpose, it is crucial to determine the capability of the network to detect a seismic event of predefined magnitude in the target area. The determination of the magnitude of completeness of a network is particularly required to properly interpret seismic monitoring results. We propose a method to compute the detection probability for existing local seismic networks, which (i) strictly follows the applied detection sequence; (ii) estimates the detection capability where seismicity has not yet occurred; and (iii) delivers the results in terms of probabilities. The procedure includes a calibration of a local magnitude scale using regional earthquakes recorded by the network and located outside the monitored area. It involves pre‐processing of the seismograms recorded at each station as performed during the triggering sequence, which is assumed based on amplitude thresholds. Then, the calibrated magnitude–distance–amplitude relations are extrapolated at short distances and combined to reproduce the network detection sequence. This generates a probability to detect a seismic event of a given magnitude at a specified location. This observation‐based approach is an alternative to a fully theoretical detection capability modelling and includes field conditions. Seismic wave attenuation by geometrical spreading and intrinsic attenuation, site effect, and instrumental responses are partly accounted for by the calibration. We apply this procedure on the seismic network deployed in the Bruchsal geothermal field (Germany). Although the system was in good working order, no induced seismicity was identified in the area between June 2010, when monitoring started, and November 2012. The recording of distant seismicity during this time period, however, allowed the application of the proposed procedure. According to the applied network detection parameters, the results indicate that the absence of seismicity can be interpreted as a 95% probability that no seismic event with ≥ 0.7 occurred below the network at 2.4‐km depth, i.e., in the geothermal reservoir.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12270
2015-06-15
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.1980. Quantitative Seismology, Theory and Methods. W.H. Freeman and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AllenR.1982. Automatic phase pickers: Their present use and future prospects. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America72, S225–S242.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BeresnevI.A. and AtkinsonG.M.1997. Modeling finite‐fault radiation from the ωn spectrum. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America87, 67–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BoatwrightJ.1980. A spectral theory for circular seismic sources: simple estimates of source dimension, dynamic stress drop, and radiated seismic energy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America70, 1–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BönnemannC., SchmidtB., RitterJ., GestermannN., PlenefischT., WeglerU.et al. 2010. Das seismische Ereignis bei Landau vom 15. August 2009. In: Abschlussbericht der Expertengruppe Seismisches Risiko bei hydrothermaler Geothermie, pp. 55.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BormannP.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]
  7. BungumH. and HusebyeE.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]
  8. DeichmannN. and GiardiniD.2009. Earthquakes induced by the stimulation of an enhanced geothermal system below Basel (Switzerland). Seismological Research Letters80, 784–798.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Del PezzoE., BiancoF., CastellanoM., CusanoP., GalluzzoD., La Rocca. M.et al. 2013. Detection of seismic signals from background noise in the area of Campi Flegrei: Limits of the present seismic monitoring. Seismological Research Letters84, 190–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. EMSC
    EMSC . 2013. European–Mediterranean Seismological Centre : Earthquake Catalogue. (http://www.emsc‐csem.org/Earthquake).
  11. EvansJ.R. and AllenS.S.1983. A teleseism‐specific detection algorithm for single short‐period traces. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America73, 1173–1186.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. FreudenreichY., OatesS.J. and BerlangW.2012. Microseismic feasibility studies–assessing the probability of success of monitoring projects. Geophysical Prospecting60, 1043–1053.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GhartiH.N., OyeV., RothM. and KuhnD.2010. Automated microearthquake location using envelope stacking and robust global optimization. Geophysics75, MA27–MA46.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GibbonsS.J. and Ringdal. F.2006. The detection of low magnitude seismic events using array‐based waveform correlation. Geophysical Journal International165, 149–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GombergJ.1991. Seismicity and detection/location threshold in the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth96, 16401–16414.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HerzbergerP., MuenchW., KoelbelT., BruchmannU., SchlagermannP., HoetzlH.et al. 2010. The geothermal power plant Bruchsal. In: World Geothermal Congress.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. KværnaT., RingdalF. and BaadshaugU.2007. North Korea's nuclear test: The capability for seismic monitoring of the North Korean test site. Seismological Research Letters78, 487–497.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. KværnaT., RingdalF., SchweitzerJ. and TaylorL.2002. Optimized seismic threshold monitoring – Part 1: Regional processing. Pure and Applied Geophysics159, 969–987.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. LGB‐RLP
    LGB‐RLP . 2013. Rheinland‐Pfalz, Landesamt für Geologie und Bergbau: Erdbebenereignisse lokal. Aktuelle Erdbebenereignisse in Rheinland‐Pfalz, Baden‐Württemberg und bis 1000 km Entfernung . (http://www.lgb‐rlp.de/ereignisse_lokal.html).
  20. MeixnerJ.2010. Diplomarbeit: Konzeptionelle hydrogeologische Modellansätze als Vorstudie für ein integriertes Standortmodell , pp. 178. KIT – Institut für Angewandte Geowissenschaften – Abteilung Hydrogeologie.
  21. MignanA., WernerM.J., WiemerS., ChenC.‐C. and WuY.‐M.2011. Bayesian estimation of the spatially varying completeness magnitude of earthquake catalogs. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101, 1371–1385.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. QGIS
    QGIS . 2013. Quantum GIS Development Team. Quantum GIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. (http://qgis.osgeo.org).
  23. RichterC.F.1935. An instrumental earthquake magnitude scale. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America25, 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. RingdalF.1975. On the estimation of seismic detection thresholds. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America65, 1631–1642.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. RingdalF. and KværnaT.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]
  26. RingdalF. and KværnaT.1992. Continuous seismic threshold monitoring. Geophysical Journal International111, 505–514.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. RyanW.B.F., CarbotteS.M., CoplanJ.O., O'HaraS., MelkonianA., ArkoR.et al. 2009. Global multi‐resolution topography synthesis. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems10, Q03014.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. SchorlemmerD. and WoessnerJ.2008. Probability of detecting an earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America98, 2103–2117.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. SerenoT.J. and BrattS.R.1989. Seismic detection capability at NORESS and implications for the detection threshold of a hypothetical network in the Soviet Union. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth94, 10397–10414.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. StangeS.2006. ML Determination for local and regional events using a sparse network in Southwestern Germany. Journal of Seismology10, 247–257.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. SZGRF‐BGR
    SZGRF‐BGR . 2013. Seismological Central Observatory (BGR): Earthquakes located with GRF‐ and GRSN‐stations. (http://www.szgrf.bgr.de/seisevents.html).
  32. TrifuC.I. and FehlerM.1998. Special Issue – New trends in seismological research: Studies of seismicity induced by mining, petroleum and geothermal activities. Tectonophysics289, vii–ix.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. TukeyJ.W.1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison‐Wesley. ISBN 0201076160.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. von SeggernD.H.2004. Seismic background noise and detection threshold in the Southern Great Basin Digital Seismic Network. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94, 2280–2298.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12270
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12270
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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