Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Wagoner, J.

Publications and source records attributed to Wagoner, J..

Advanced geophysical underground coal gasification monitoring

Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) produces less surface impact, atmospheric pollutants and greenhouse gas than traditional surface mining and combustion. Therefore, it may be useful in mitigating global change caused by anthropogenic activities. Careful monitoring of the UCG process is essential in minimizing environmental impact. In this paper, we first summarize monitoring methods that have been used in previous UCG field trials. We then discuss in more detail a number of promising advanced geophysical techniques. These methods – seismic, electromagnetic, and remote sensing techniques – may provide improved and cost-effective ways to image both the subsurface cavity growth and surface subsidence effects. Active and passive seismic data have the promise to monitor the burn front, cavity growth, and observe cavity collapse events. Electrical resistance tomography (ERT) produces near real time tomographic images autonomously, monitors the burn front and images the cavity using low-cost sensors, typically running within boreholes. Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) is a remote sensing technique that has the capability to monitor surface subsidence over the wide area of a commercial-scale UCG operation at a low cost. It may be possible to infer cavity geometry from InSAR (or other surface topography) data using geomechanical modeling. The expected signals from these monitoring methods are described along with interpretive modeling for typical UCG cavities. They are illustrated using field results from UCG trials and other relevant subsurface operations.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Monitoring of Underground Coal Gasification

For efficient and responsible UCG operations, a UCG process must be monitored in the following three categories: 1) process parameters such as injection and product gas flow rates, temperature, pressure and syngas content and heating value; 2) geomechanical parameters, e.g., cavity and coal seam pressures, cavity development, subsidence and ground deformation; and 3) environmental parameters, e.g., groundwater chemistry and air quality. This report focuses on UCG monitoring with geophysical techniques that can contribute to monitoring of subsurface temperature, cavity development, burn front, subsidence and deformation.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Pre-Shot Simulations of Near-Field and Far-Field Ground Motion for the Source Physics Experiment (SPE) Explosions at the Climax Stock, Nevada National Security Site: SPE3

The Source Physics Experiment (SPE) is designed to improve ground motion prediction capabilities for underground nuclear testing through the development of new physics-based models together with validation via new chemical explosion data. The SPE shots consist of different size and depth chemical explosions in a granite borehole at the Climax Stock on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). The third shot in the series (SPE3) will be the same size (1000 kg TNT equivalent) and depth (45 m canister centroid) as the previous shot (SPE2). The main purpose of the SPE3 is to investigate the effects of the damage zone caused by the SPE2 chemical explosion on the SPE3 explosion, keeping all other parameters (e.g. size, depth, explosive type) the same. This SPE3 pre-shot report addresses progress made in simulation of the expected wavefield in the both the near- and the far-field. In this report we consider the far-field to be where seismic wave motion can be characterized by elastic or visco-elastic approximations, in contrast to the near-field where other, often non-linear effects, play a major role. The current simulations build on previous work from the SPE1 and SPE2 shots. The simulations are intended to highlight differences between SPE2 and SPE3 using a variety to approximations intended to mimic the expected effect of the damage zone. The simplest physics of damage zone effects suggest changes in the source region material properties (density, velocity), and in the yield strength (coupling) of the rock, should both impact the far-field signal. We can illustrate this in a simplistic way for P-waves in Figure A using the empirical Mueller-Muphy (1971) far-field explosion model (MM). First if the SPE2 explosion-induced damage reduces velocities and densities without affecting the yield strength or coupling, then by energy conservation the amplitudes for SPE 3 would increase as shown in the top of Figure A. Similarly if the explosion induced damage increased density (say by compacting pore space) the amplitude would decrease. This impedance effect, where the product of the density, wave-velocity, and ground-velocity squared is conserved, is well known. The second and harder effect to quantify, are changes in the energy coupling or yield strength. In the simple MM model this is represented by the coupling factor between cavity radius and yield. If we assume the granite was slightly weakened by SPE2 such that the cavity radius increases slightly then the overall amplitudes of SPE3 decrease relative to SPE2 as shown in the bottom of Figure A. In reality both effects, may exist due to the damage zone, and furthermore we know they are interrelated in complex ways. For S-waves we expect even more complex effects due to motion on joints and faults. For this reason we are developing physics-based near field simulation models coupled to far-field propagation codes to predict the overall effects of changes in the source emplacement region on observed signals. Near-field simulations have been performed using the Eulerian code (GEODYN). An ensemble model, calibrated to match records from past large-scale nuclear events is used. Both 2D axisymmetric (no faults) and fully three-dimensional GEODYN calculations (with /without faults) were conducted in which the damage zones sustained by SPE2 are retained as the initial condition for the SPE3 calculations. The results indicate that the waveform peak amplitudes are slightly decayed since the ensemble model includes no softening mechanism. The pulse widths are reduced, indicating the energy is dissipated more by the damage zone as expected. The dominant motions calculated in all the scenarios are spherically symmetric and non-spherical components are small as seen for the SPE2 calculations. The arrival time of the SPE3 waveform at the boreholes is shorter than SPE2 due to compaction during the previous explosion. As shown in the SPE 1 and 2 observations shear waves are generated, indicating the potential contributions from the induced motion on distributed joints. The effects of joints are evaluated using the Lagrangian hydrocode (GEODYN-L), which was benchmarked against the GEODYN calculations for the ensemble model. A new granite model calibrated for samples from the SPE site is used. The new model includes effects of poroelasticity and water saturation and may be scaled allowing application to both small and large scales. Parametric tests were performed to evaluate the effect of joints within the granite and the results demonstrate that in situ joints introduce anisotropy and significant tangential motions.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Pre-shot simulations of far-field ground motion for the Source Physics Experiment (SPE) Explosions at the Climax Stock, Nevada National Security Site: SPE2

The Source Physics Experiment (SPE) is planning a 1000 kg (TNT equivalent) shot (SPE2) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in a granite borehole at a depth (canister centroid) of 45 meters. This shot follows an earlier shot of 100 kg in the same borehole at a depth 60 m. Surrounding the shotpoint is an extensive array of seismic sensors arrayed in 5 radial lines extending out 2 km to the north and east and approximately 10-15 to the south and west. Prior to SPE1, simulations using a finite difference code and a 3D numerical model based on the geologic setting were conducted, which predicted higher amplitudes to the south and east in the alluvium of Yucca Flat along with significant energy on the transverse components caused by scattering within the 3D volume along with some contribution by topographic scattering. Observations from the SPE1 shot largely confirmed these predictions although the ratio of transverse energy relative to the vertical and radial components was in general larger than predicted. A new set of simulations has been conducted for the upcoming SPE2 shot. These include improvements to the velocity model based on SPE1 observations as well as new capabilities added to the simulation code. The most significant is the addition of a new source model within the finite difference code by using the predicted ground velocities from a hydrodynamic code (GEODYN) as driving condition on the boundaries of a cube embedded within WPP which provides a more sophisticated source modeling capability linked directly to source site materials (e.g. granite) and type and size of source. Two sets of SPE2 simulations are conducted, one with a GEODYN source and 3D complex media (no topography node spacing of 5 m) and one with a standard isotropic pre-defined time function (3D complex media with topography, node spacing of 5 m). Results were provided as time series at specific points corresponding to sensor locations for both translational (x,y,z) and rotational components. Estimates of spectral scaling for SPE2 are provided using a modified version of the Mueller-Murphy model. An estimate of expected aftershock probabilities were also provided, based on the methodology of Ford and Walter , [2010].

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

SPE 1 Data Quicklook report

The SPE 1 shot was recorded by an extensive set of instrumentation and data return was good. Here we review the far-­field data with emphasis on improving data return for the upcoming SPE shots. Initially, the data was checked for instrumentation and metadata problems. Seven sensors appear to malfunctioning, based on data appearance and amplitude. An additional four digitizers may have incorrect channel assignments for the stations. Although not visible on the shot itself, spikes appear periodically in the data and may be related to the solar panel power set-­up, although this has not been confirmed. An assessment of potential clipping for the next shot was carried out with the existing sensor emplacement and rough calculations suggest that clipping appears unlikely. Preliminary comparisons of amplitude versus yield and comparisons with synthetics are shown. A brief discussion of the planned far-field seismic analysis is given.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗