Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “seismic modeling”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1983

Computational methods for estimation of parameters in hyperbolic systems

Approximation techniques for estimating spatially varying coefficients and unknown boundary parameters in second order hyperbolic systems are discussed. Methods for state approximation (cubic splines, tau-Legendre) and approximation of function space parameters (interpolatory splines) are outlined and numerical findings for use of the resulting schemes in model "one dimensional seismic inversion' problems are summarized.

Banks, H. T.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Satellite Detection of the Convection Generated Stresses in Earth

We review research developments on satellite detection of the convection generated stresses in the Earth for seismic hazard assessment and Earth resource survey. Particular emphasis is laid upon recent progress and results of stress calculations from which the origin and evolution of the tectonic features on Earth's surface can be scientifically addressed. An important aspect of the recent research development in tectonic stresses relative to earthquakes is the implications for earthquake forecasting and prediction. We have demonstrated that earthquakes occur on the ring of fire around the Pacific in response to the tectonic stresses induced by mantle convection. We propose a systematic global assessment of the seismic hazard based on variations of tectonic stresses in the Earth as observed by satellites. This space geodynamic approach for assessing the seismic hazard is unique in that it can pinpoint the triggering stresses for large earthquakes without ambiguities of geological structures, fault geometries, and other tectonic properties. Also, it is distinct from the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment models in the literature, which are based only on extrapolations of available earthquake data.

Liu, Han-Shou↗
NASA NTRS2004

The Seismic Effect of Impacts on Asteroid Surface Morphology: Early Modeling Results

In recent years, spacecraft observations of asteroids 951 Gaspra, 243 Ida, 253 Mathilde, and 433 Eros have shown the overriding dominance of impact processes with regard to the structure and appearance of these small, irregular bodies. One currently unanswered question is: to what degree does seismic shaking from impacts affect the surface morphology of these bodies? Through detailed modeling, we begin to address this question.

Richardson, J. E.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Modeling and simulation of earthquake soil structure interaction excited by inclined seismic waves

Presented is an application of wave potential formulation (WPF) together with domain reduction method (DRM) to modeling earthquake soil structure interaction (ESSI) behavior in horizontally layered ground under inclined incident seismic waves. Wave potential formulation is used to develop a spatially varying, inclined seismic wave field from incident Primary (P) and Secondary (S) waves that propagate through layered ground. Developed seismic wave field is then used to develop effective forces for Domain Reduction Method that are then used for analyzing ESSI response of a soil structure system. Developed methodology, called WPF-DRM, is verified using analytic solution for a free field response of layered ground subjected to inclined incident waves. Developed WPF-DRM methodology is illustrated through analysis of an ESSI response of a deeply embedded structure, a small modular reactor (SMR) subjected to incident S wave polarized in vertical plane (SV) with variation in inclinations and frequencies. Presented example highlights the influences of incident wave inclination and frequency on ESSI response of analyzed SMR.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Adjoint Waveform Tomography for Crustal and Upper Mantle Structure of the Middle East and Southwest Asia for Improved Waveform Simulations Using Openly Available Broadband Data

Here we present a new model of radially anisotropic seismic wavespeeds for the crust and upper mantle of a broad region of the Middle East and Southwest Asia (MESWA) derived from adjoint waveform tomography. The new model enables fully 3D simulations of complete three-component waveforms and provides improved fits that were not possible with previous models. We inverted over 32,000 waveforms from 192 earthquakes recorded by over 1000 openly available broadband seismic stations from permanent and temporary networks in the region with highly uneven coverage. Inversion iterations proceeded from the period band 50–100 s in six stages and 54 total iterations reducing the minimum period to 30 s. Our final model, MESWA, improves waveform fits compared to the starting and other models for both the data used in the inversion and an independent validation set of 66 events. Restitution tests indicate that the model resolves features in the central part of the model to depths of about 150 km. The new model reveals tectonic features imaged by other studies and methods but in a new holistic model of anisotropic shear and compressional wavespeeds (V S and V P , respectively) covering a larger domain with smaller scale length and amplified features. Examples include low crustal V S in the Tethyan belt and low mantle VS following divergent (Gulf of Aden, Red Sea) and transform (Dead Sea fault) margins of the Arabian plate. Low V S is imaged below Cenozoic volcanic centers of the Mecca–Madina–Nafud Line, Arabian Peninsula, and the Türkiye–Iran border region. Elevated V S tracks Makran subduction under southeast Iran with near vertical dip. MESWA could be used as a starting model for further improvements, say, using waveforms from in-country seismic networks that are not currently openly available and/or smaller-scale studies targeting a shorter period. The model could be used to improve earthquake hazard studies and nuclear explosion monitoring.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Real-time deep-learning inversion of seismic full waveform data for CO 2 saturation and uncertainty in geological carbon storage monitoring

Deep-learning inversion has recently drawn attention in geological carbon storage research due to its potential of imaging and monitoring carbon storage in real time, significantly improving efficiency and safety of carbon storage operations. We present a deep-learning full waveform inversion method that after the neural network has been trained can image CO 2 saturation and its uncertainty in real time. Our deep-learning inversion method is based on the U-Net architecture with the neural network trained on pairs of synthetic seismic data and CO 2 saturation models. Accordingly, our training establishes a mapping relationship between seismic data and CO 2 saturation models and once fully trained directly estimates CO 2 saturation as a function of subsurface location. We further quantify uncertainties of CO 2 saturation estimates using the Monte Carlo dropout method and a bootstrap aggregating method. For this proof-of-concept study, the CO 2 training models and data are derived from the Kimberlina 1.2 model, a hypothetical 3D geological carbon storage model that is constructed based on various geological and hydrological data from the Southern San Joaquin Basin, California. We perform deep-learning inversion experiments using noise-free and noisy training and test data sets and compare the results. Our modelling experiments show that (1) the deep-learning inversion can estimate 2D distributions of CO 2 fairly well even in the presence of Gaussian random noise and (2) both CO 2 saturation imaging and uncertainty quantification can be done in real time. Our results suggest that the deep-learning inversion method can serve as a robust real-time monitoring tool for geological carbon storage and/or other time-varying reservoir/aquifer properties that result from injection, extraction, and/or other subsurface transport phenomena.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Causal mechanism of injection-induced earthquakes through the M w 5.5 Pohang earthquake case study

Causal mechanisms for fluid injection-induced earthquakes remain a challenge to identify. Past studies largely established spatiotemporal correlations. Here, we propose a multi-process causal mechanism for injection-induced earthquakes through a case study of the 2017 M w 5.5 induced earthquake near Pohang Enhanced Geothermal System, Korea, where detailed hydraulic stimulation and on-site seismicity monitoring data provide an unprecedented opportunity. Pore pressure modeling reveals that pore pressure changes initiate seismicity on critically stressed faults and Coulomb static stress transfer modeling reveals that earthquake interactions promote continued seismicity, leading to larger events. On the basis of these results, we propose the following causal mechanism for induced seismicity: pore pressure increase and earthquake interactions lead to fault weakening and ultimately triggering larger earthquakes later in the process. We suggest that it is prudent that pore pressure change, initial seismicity locations, and Coulomb static stress transfer from seismicity earlier in the sequence are assessed in real-time.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1984

The distribution of earthquakes with depth and stress in subducting slabs

The global variation of Benioff zone seismicity with depth and the orientation of stress axes of deep and intermediate earthquakes is explained using numerical models of subducting slabs. Models that match the seismicity and stress require a barrier to flow at the 670 km seismic discontinuity. The barrier may be a viscosity increase of at least an order of magnitude or a chemical discontinuity. Instantaneous flow is subparallel to the slabs for models with a viscosity increase but contorted for models with a chemical barrier. Log N (number of earthquakes) decreases linearly to 250-300 km depth and increases thereafter. Stress magnitude in the models shows the same pattern, in accord with experiments showing N proportional to e(k-sigma), with k a constant and sigma the stress magnitude. The models predict downdip compression in the slabs at depths below 300-400 km, as observed for earthquake stress axes.

Vassiliou, M. S.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Time-Lapse Integration at FWU: Fluids, Rock Physics, Numerical Model Integration, and Field Data Comparison

We present the current status of time-lapse seismic integration at the Farnsworth (FWU) CO2 WAG (water-alternating-gas) EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) project at Ochiltree County, northwest Texas. As a potential carbon sequestration mechanism, CO2 WAG projects will be subject to some degree of monitoring and verification, either as a regulatory requirement or to qualify for economic incentives. In order to evaluate the viability of time-lapse seismic as a monitoring method the Southwest Partnership (SWP) has conducted time-lapse seismic monitoring at FWU using the 3D Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) method. The efficacy of seismic time-lapse depends on a number of key factors, which vary widely from one application to another. Most important among these are the thermophysical properties of the original fluid in place and the displacing fluid, followed by the petrophysical properties of the rock matrix, which together determine the effective elastic properties of the rock fluid system. We present systematic analysis of fluid thermodynamics and resulting thermophysical properties, petrophysics and rock frame elastic properties, and elastic property modeling through fluid substitution using data collected at FWU. These analyses will be framed in realistic scenarios presented by the FWU CO2 WAG development. The resulting fluid/rock physics models will be applied to output from the calibrated FWU compositional reservoir simulation model to forward model the time-lapse seismic response. Modeled results are compared with field time-lapse seismic measurements and strategies for numerical model feedback/update are discussed. While mechanical effects are neglected in the work presented here, complementary parallel studies are underway in which laboratory measurements are introduced to introduce stress dependence of matrix elastic moduli.

4D↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Assessing the Value of Seismic Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) Attributes for CO2 Storage Project Using a Bayesian Network Model for Decision Support

Attributes versus offset (AVO) are a set of measurements to analyze how the characteristics of reflected seismic waves change as a function of the offset. It can be useful for monitoring CO2 storage sites because the presence of leaked CO2 into the overlying aquifer can change the properties of the rocks and pore fluids composition that can alter the way seismic waves reflect and their amplitudes. The time-lapse changes in AVO attributes derived from repeat seismic surveys can help identify anomalies or shifts in the subsurface that could potentially be used as an indicator for CO2 leak detection. Our study leverages multiple seismic attributes derived from synthetic seismic data and Bayesian network model to quantify the probability of leak detection in the overlying aquifer above the storage reservoir. It helps to quantify the value of individual seismic attributes at multiple monitoring periods based upon their sensitivities.

Kumar, Abhash↗
DOE OSTI2020

Numerical Modeling of Anisotropic Elastic-Wave Sensitivity Propagation for Optimal Design of Time-Lapse Seismic Surveys

Reliable subsurface time-lapse seismic monitoring is crucial for many geophysical applications, such as enhanced geothermal system characterization, geologic carbon utilization and storage, and conventional and unconventional oil/gas reservoir characterization, etc. In this work, we develop an elastic-wave sensitivity propagation method for optimal design of cost-effective time-lapse seismic surveys considering the fact that most of subsurface geologic layers and fractured reservoirs are anisotropic instead of isotropic. For anisotropic media, we define monitoring criteria using qP- and qS-wave sensitivity energies after decomposing qP- and qS-wave components from the total elastic-wave sensitivity wavefield using a hybrid time- and frequency-domain approach. Geophones should therefore be placed at locations with significant qP- and qS-wave sensitivity energies for cost-effective time-lapse seismic monitoring in an anisotropic geology setting. Our numerical modeling results for a modified anisotropic Hess model demonstrate that, compared with the isotropic case, subsurface anisotropy changes the spatial distributions of elastic-wave sensitivity energies. Consequently, it is necessary to consider subsurface anisotropies when designing the spatial distribution of geophones for cost-effective time-lapse seismic monitoring. This finding suggests that it is essential to use our new anisotropic elastic-wave sensitivity modeling method for optimal design of time-lapse seismic surveys to reliably monitor the changes in subsurface reservoirs, fracture zones or target monitoring regions.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS1987

Geophysical constraints on lunar bulk composition and structure - A reassessment

Theoretical lunar mantle seismic velocity and density profiles were calculated for a series of specific bulk composition models, thermal models, and evolutionary models. It was found that most of the calculated seismic profiles are in qualitative agreement with the Nakamura (1983) observational mantle seismic velocity model. With respect to the density modeling results, the most interesting finding is that none of the considered models yield mantle density increases that are sufficient to match the adapted upper bound on the lunar moment-of-inertia factor (0.3928). The results suggest that the moon possesses a dense metallic core with a mass in the range of 1 to 4 percent of the lunar mass and that the alumina-rich models of Morgan et al. (1978) and Taylor (1982) are best able to match the middle mantle velocity increase that characterizes the Nakamura model.

Hood, L. L.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Multi-Stage FNO

This is the code developed for paper - Reducing Frequency Bias of Fourier Neural Operators in 3D Seismic Wavefield Simulations Through Multi-Stage Training (https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.02023), it contains training the multi-stage FNO model to generate the seismic forward simulations in 3D medium.

Kong, Qingkai [Lawrence Livermore National Laborat↗