Stress heterogeneities and failure mechanisms induced by temperature and pore-pressure increase in volcanic regions

2019 ◽  
Vol 525 ◽  
pp. 115765
Author(s):  
M.E. Belardinelli ◽  
M. Bonafede ◽  
M. Nespoli
2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. B. Turuntaev ◽  
E. V. Zenchenko ◽  
A. N. Dmitriev

Geophysics ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. O39-O50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Øyvind Kvam ◽  
Martin Landrø

In an exploration context, pore-pressure prediction from seismic data relies on the fact that seismic velocities depend on pore pressure. Conventional velocity analysis is a tool that may form the basis for obtaining interval velocities for this purpose. However, velocity analysis is inaccurate, and in this paper we focus on the possibilities and limitations of using velocity analysis for pore-pressure prediction. A time-lapse seismic data set from a segment that has undergone a pore-pressure increase of 5 to 7 MPa between the two surveys is analyzed for velocity changes using detailed velocity analysis. A synthetic time-lapse survey is used to test the sensitivity of the velocity analysis with respect to noise. The analysis shows that the pore-pressure increase cannot be detected by conventional velocity analysis because the uncertainty is much greater than the expected velocity change for a reservoir of the given thickness and burial depth. Finally, by applying amplitude-variation-with-offset (AVO) analysis to the same data, we demonstrate that seismic amplitude analysis may yield more precise information about velocity changes than velocity analysis.


2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey B. Turuntaev ◽  
Vasily Y. Riga

Abstract. The influence of fluid injection on tectonic fault sliding and seismic event generations was studied by a multi-degree-of-freedom rate-and-state friction model with a two-parametric friction law. A system of blocks (up to 25 blocks) elastically connected to each other and connected by elastic springs to a constant-velocity moving driver was considered. Variation of the pore pressure due to fluid injection led to variation of effective stress between the first block and the substrate. Initially the block system was in a steady-sliding state; then, its state was changed by the pore pressure increase. The influence of the model parameters (number of blocks, spring stiffness, velocity weakening parameter) on the seismicity variations was considered. Various slip patterns were obtained and analysed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 54 (10) ◽  
pp. 1496-1508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gholamreza Saghaee ◽  
Ahmad A. Mousa ◽  
Mohamed A. Meguid

Earth levees are subject to a wide range of wildlife intrusion patterns that cause mass removal and subsequent serious deformations. Such invasive activities leave the body of an earth embankment with burrow systems too complex to map and model using conventional techniques. This study investigates the impact of different idealized configurations of animal burrows on the geotechnical performance of levees. For this purpose, centrifuge testing was conducted on homogenous scaled-down 1 horizontal : 1 vertical (1H:1V) levee models built from silty sand material. Modeling involved introducing horizontal cylinder-shaped waterside and landside burrows at different elevations within the levee section. The reference (intact) and deteriorated levee models were subject to a centrifugal acceleration of 35g, which was kept constant as the water level behind the levee model was gradually increased. The deformation profile of the model was tracked, and the crest displacements were concurrently measured. Miniature pore pressure transducers (PPTs) embedded within the levee body provided pore pressure measurements. A three-dimensional finite element model was developed to investigate the hydraulic performance and verify the failure patterns of the deteriorated levees. Compared with an intact levee, the presence of animal intrusions was found to increase the exit hydraulic gradient for both waterside and landside intrusions. Lower animal burrows appeared to cause larger exit gradients than higher ones. Similarly, waterside burrows exhibited a notably higher pore pressure and larger hydraulic gradient. Waterside damage resulted in a quicker and more violent failure than landside burrows. The failure mechanisms for both the waterside and landside burrows are dissimilar despite their similarly abrupt nature.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideo Aochi ◽  
Jonny Rutqvist

<p>We consider seismogenic asperities loaded by aseismic slip on a fault, which is induced by fluid circulation, as a simple example of fault reactivation. For this purpose, we combine two methods. The TOUGH2 (Transport Of Unsaturated Ground water and Heat) code is used for modeling the pore pressure evolution within a fault and then a Boundary Integral Equation Method (BIEM) is applied for simulating fault slip, including aseismic slip on the entire fault plane and fast slip on seismogenic asperities. The fault permeability is assumed stress-dependent and therefore is not constant but varies during a simulation. We adopt the Coulomb friction and a cyclic slip-strengthening-then-weakening friction model governing the fault slip, which allows for repeated asperity slip. We were able to demonstrate the entire process from the fluid injection, pore pressure increase, aseismic slip to seismogenic asperity slip. We tested a step-like increase of injection rate with time, which is common for hydraulic fracturing and reservoir stimulation at deep geothermal sites. Under this configuration, the pore pressure increase is not proportional to the injection rate, as the permeability depends on the stress.  Fault slip on seismogenic asperities is triggered repeatedly by surrounding aseismic slip. We find, in a given example, that the reccurence of the fast slip on asperity is approximatively proportional to the injected fluid volume, inferring that the aseismic slip amount increases proporitionally to the fluid volume as well.</p>


2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl T. Montgomery ◽  
Rico Ramos ◽  
Ivan Rene Gil ◽  
Kjetil Ormark ◽  
Carsten Soerensen

2010 ◽  
Vol 126 (3) ◽  
pp. 58-63
Author(s):  
Tsuyoshi ISHIDA ◽  
Daisuke FUKAHORI ◽  
Motoi ISHIDA ◽  
Ryosuke SATO ◽  
Sumihiko MURATA ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document