New Insights into Fracture Process through In-Situ Acoustic Emission Monitoring During Fatigue Hydraulic Fracture Experiment in Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory

In this study we analyze the nano- and picoseismicity recorded during the Fatigue Hydraulic Fracturing (FHF) in situ experiment performed in Aspo Hard Rock Laboratory, Sweden. The fracturing experiment composed of six fractures driven by three different water injection schemes (continuous, progressive and pulse pressurization) was performed during the year 2015 inside a 28 m long, horizontal borehole located at 410 m depth. The fracturing process was monitored with two different seismic networks covering a wide frequency band between 0.01 Hz and 100000 Hz, including broadband seismometers, geophones, high frequency accelerometers and acoustic emission sensors. The combined seismic network allowed for detection and detailed analysis of nearly 200 seismic events with moment magnitudes MW < -4 that occurred solely during the hydraulic fracturing stages. We relocated the seismic catalog using double-difference technique and calculated the source parameters (seismic moment, source size, stress drop, focal mechanism and seismic moment tensor). The derived physical characteristics of induced seismicity are compared with the stimulation parameters as well as with the geomechanical parameters of the site.

[1]  Peter M. Shearer,et al.  A New Method for Determining First-Motion Focal Mechanisms , 2002 .

[2]  F. Waldhauser,et al.  A Double-Difference Earthquake Location Algorithm: Method and Application to the Northern Hayward Fault, California , 2000 .

[3]  G. Dresen,et al.  Source Parameters of Picoseismicity Recorded at Mponeng Deep Gold Mine, South Africa: Implications for Scaling Relations , 2011 .

[4]  Gerd Manthei,et al.  Characterization of Acoustic Emission Sources in a Rock Salt Specimen under Triaxial Compression , 2005 .

[5]  Grzegorz Kwiatek,et al.  HybridMT: A MATLAB/Shell Environment Package for Seismic Moment Tensor Inversion and Refinement , 2016 .

[6]  Danijel Schorlemmer,et al.  On the probability of detecting picoseismicity , 2011 .

[7]  Grzegorz Kwiatek,et al.  Seismic moment tensor and b value variations over successive seismic cycles in laboratory stick‐slip experiments , 2014 .

[8]  Anthony Lomax,et al.  A Reanalysis of the Hypocentral Location and Related Observations for the Great 1906 California Earthquake , 2005 .

[9]  Yasuo Yabe,et al.  Frequency-Magnitude Characteristics Down to Magnitude -4.4 for Induced Seismicity Recorded at Mponeng Gold Mine, South Africa , 2010 .

[10]  Hiroshi Ogasawara,et al.  Frequency–Magnitude Distribution of −3.7 ≤ MW ≤ 1 Mining-Induced Earthquakes Around a Mining Front and b Value Invariance with Post-Blast Time , 2014, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[11]  Torsten Dahm,et al.  Moment tensor evaluation of acoustic emission sources in salt rock , 2001 .

[12]  Arno Zang,et al.  Hydraulic fracture monitoring in hard rock at 410 m depth with an advanced fluid-injection protocol and extensive sensor array , 2017 .

[13]  H. Kao,et al.  Hypocentre determination offshore of eastern Taiwan using the Maximum Intersection method , 2004 .

[14]  S. Stanchits,et al.  Source analysis of acoustic emissions in Aue granite cores under symmetric and asymmetric compressive loads , 1998 .