1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 65, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 65, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The detection and characterisation of domains of intersecting fractures are important goals in several disciplines of current interest, including exploration and production of unconventional reservoirs, nuclear waste storage, CO sequestration, and groundwater hydrology, among others. The objective of this study is to propose a theoretical framework for quantifying the effects of fracture intersections on the frequency‐dependent elastic properties of fluid‐saturated porous and fractured rocks. Three characteristic frequency regimes for fluid pressure communication are identified. In the low‐frequency limit, fractures are in full pressure communication with the embedding porous matrix and with other fractures. Conversely, in the high‐frequency limit, fractures are hydraulically isolated from the matrix and from other fractures. At intermediate frequencies, fractures are hydraulically isolated from the matrix porosity but can be in hydraulic communication with each other, depending on whether fracture sets are intersecting. For each frequency regime, the effective stiffness coefficients are derived using the linear‐slip theory and anisotropic Gassmann equations. Explicit mathematical expressions for the two characteristic frequencies that separate the three frequency regimes are also determined. Theoretical predictions are then applied to two synthetic 2D samples, each containing two orthogonal fracture sets: one with and another without intersections. The resulting stiffness coefficients, Thomsen‐style anisotropy parameters, and the transition frequencies show good agreement with corresponding numerical simulations. The theoretical results are applicable not only to 2D but also to 3D fracture systems and are amenable to being employed in inversion schemes designed to characterise fracture systems.

© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2016 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12474
2016-11-11
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12474
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BiotM.A.1941. General theory of three‐dimensional consolidation. Journal of Applied Physics12, 155–164.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BiotM.A.1962. Mechanics of deformation and acoustic propagation in porous media. Journal of Applied Physics33, 1482–1498.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ChapmanM., ZatsepinS.V. and CrampinS.2002. Derivation of a microstructural poroelastic model. Geophysical Journal International151, 427–451.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ChapmanM.2003. Frequency‐dependent anisotropy due to meso‐scale fractures in the presence of equant porosity. Geophysical Prospecting51, 369–379.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. ColletO., GurevichB., MadadiM. and PervukhinaM.2014. Modeling elastic anisotropy resulting from the application of triaxial stress. Geophysics79(5), C135–C145.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DuttaN.C. and OdéH.1979. Attenuation and dispersion of compressional waves in fluid‐filled porous rocks with partial gas saturation (White model)—Part I: Biot theory. Geophysics44(11), 1777–1788.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. EndresA.L. and KnightR.J.1997. Incorporating pore geometry and fluid pressure communication into modeling the elastic behavior of porous rocks. Geophysics62(1), 106–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. FarM.E., ThomsenL. and SayersC.M.2013. Seismic characterization of reservoirs with asymmetric fractures. Geophysics78(2), N1–N10.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. GalvinR.J. and GurevichB.2006. Interaction of an elastic wave with a circular crack in a fluid‐saturated porous medium. Applied Physics Letters88, 061918.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GalvinR.J. and GurevichB.2007. Scattering of a longitudinal wave by a circular crack in a fluid‐saturated porous medium. International Journal of Solids and Structures44, 7389–7398.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. GassmannF.1951. Elastic waves through a packing of spheres. Geophysics16(4), 673–685.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. GrechkaV. and KachanovM.2006. Effective elasticity of rocks with closely spaced and intersecting cracks. Geophysics71, D85–D91.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. GrenonM. and HadjigeorgiouJ.2012. Application of fracture system models (FSM) in mining and civil rock engineering design. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment26(1), 55–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. GuéguenY. and SaroutJ.2009. Crack‐induced anisotropy in crustal rocks: predicted dry and fluid‐saturated Thomsen's parameters. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors172, 116–124.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. GurevichB.2003. Elastic properties of saturated porous rocks with aligned fractures. Journal of Applied Geophysics54, 203–218.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. GurevichB., BrajanovskiM., GalvinR.J., MüllerT.M. and Toms‐StewartJ.2009. P‐wave dispersion and attenuation in fractured and porous reservoirs—poroelasticity approach. Geophysical Prospecting57, 225–237.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. HudsonJ.A.1981. Wave speeds and attenuation of elastic waves in material containing cracks. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society64, 133–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. JakobsenM.2004. The interacting inclusion model of wave‐induced fluid flow. Geophysical Journal International158, 1168–1176.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. JonesT.D.1986. Pore fluids and frequency‐dependent wave propagation in rocks. Geophysics51(10), 1939–1953.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. KachanovM. and SevostianovI.2005. On quantitative characterization of microstructures and effective properties. International Journal of Solids and Structures42, 309–336.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. KarayG. and HajnalG.2015. Modelling of groundwater flow in fractured rocks. Procedia Environmental Sciences25, 142–149.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. LisjakA., FigiD. and GrasselliG.2014. Fracture development around deep underground excavations: insights from FDEM modelling. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering6(6), 493–505.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. LuoZ. and BryantS.2014. Impacts of injection induced fractures propagation in CO2 geological sequestration—Is fracturing good or bad for CO2 sequestration. Energy Procedia63, 5394–5407.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. MavkoG., MukerjiT. and DvorkinJ.2009. The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis of Porous Media. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978‐0‐521‐86136‐6.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. NakagawaS. and SchoenbergM.A.2007. Poroelastic modeling of seismic boundary conditions across a fracture. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America122, 831–847.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. NeuzilC.E.2013. Can shale safely host U.S. nuclear waste? EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union94(30), 261–268.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. O'ConnellR.J. and BudianskyB.1977. Viscoelastic properties of fluid‐saturated cracked solids. Journal of Geophysical Research82(36), 5719–5735.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. RubinoJ.G., GuarracinoL., MüllerT.M. and HolligerK.2013. Do seismic waves sense fracture connectivity? Geophysical Research Letters40, 692–696.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. RubinoJ.G., MüllerT.M., GuarracinoL., MilaniM. and HolligerK.2014. Seismoacoustic signatures of fractures connectivity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth119, 2252–2271.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. RubinoJ.G., CaspariE., MilaniM., MüllerT.M. and HolligerK.2015. Seismic anisotropy in fractured low‐permeability formations: the effects of hydraulic connectivity. 85th SEG annual international meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 3219–3223.
  31. RubinoJ.G., CaspariE., MüllerT.M., MilaniM., BarbosaN.D. and HolligerK.2016. Numerical upscaling in 2D heterogeneous poroelastic rocks: Anisotropic attenuation and dispersion of seismic waves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth121, 6698–6721.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. SaroutJ.2012. Impact of pore space topology on permeability, cut‐off frequencies and validity of wave propagation theories. Geophysical Journal International189, 481–492.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. SchoenbergM. and DoumaJ.1988. Elastic‐wave propagation in media with parallel fractures and aligned cracks. Geophysical Prospecting36, 571–590.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. SchoenbergM. and SayersC.M.1995. Seismic anisotropy of fractured rock. Geophysics60(1), 204–211.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. TsvankinI.1997. Anisotropic parameters and P‐wave velocity for orthorhombic media. Geophysics62(4), 1292–1309.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. VinciC., RennerJ. and SteebH.2014. On attenuation of seismic waves associated with flow in fractures. Geophysical Research Letters41, 7515–7523.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. WitherspoonP.A., WangJ.S.Y., IwaiK. and GaleJ.E.1980. Validity of cubic law for fluid flow in a deformable rock fracture. Water Resources Research16(6), 1016–1024.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. YousefB.M. and AngusD.A.2016. When do fractured media become seismically anisotropic? Some implications on quantifying fracture properties. Earth and Planetary Science Letters444, 150–159.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12474
Loading
Effects of fracture intersections on seismic dispersion: theoretical predictions versus numerical simulations
Geophysical Prospecting 65, 1264 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12474
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12474
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12474
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Fractures; Numerical study; Rock physics; Theory

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