DOI : https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.12.5.13100

Delay Time (δt) and Polarization Direction (φ) Analysis Based on Shear Wave Splitting (SWS) Method

Widya Utama (1), Sherly Ardhya Garini (2), Valda Anggita Kurnia (3), Wien Lestari (4), Dwa Desa Warnana (5)
(1) Geophysical Engineering Department, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, 60111, Indonesia
(2) Geophysical Engineering Department, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, 60111, Indonesia
(3) Geophysical Engineering Department, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, 60111, Indonesia
(4) Geophysical Engineering Department, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, 60111, Indonesia
(5) Geophysical Engineering Department, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, 60111, Indonesia
Fulltext View | Download
How to cite (IJASEIT) :
Utama, Widya, et al. “Delay Time (δt) and Polarization Direction (φ) Analysis Based on Shear Wave Splitting (SWS) Method ”. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, vol. 12, no. 5, Oct. 2022, pp. 2075-82, doi:10.18517/ijaseit.12.5.13100.
Citation Format :
The information of dominant polarization direction and the mapping of fracture intensity are among the most important informations during the monitoring of geothermal field reservoir evaluation, as an effort to develop geothermal energy production. The appearance of geothermal reservoir fractures caused by fluid injection and the production activity resulting in the decreased pore pressure and appearance of open weak zone. The micro-earthquake activity around the area can represent these fractures that appear in the geothermal reservoir. Shear Wave Splitting (SWS) analysis can be done based on the polarization of S wave through the anisotropy medium recorded by seismograph. There are two parameters related to Shear Wave Splitting: the polarization direction (φ) related to the micro fracture direction with its delay time (δt), showing the fractures density and its permeability area. The result of Shear Wave Splitting Analysis of the field X geothermal shows that two dominant polarization directions are NW-SE and NE-SW. It is caused by the fractures around the X field geothermal with similar fractures direction, and it is compatible with the distribution micro-earthquake hypocenter of the previous study. Based on the map of fractures intensity, the value range shows a relatively dense intensity value around 6.6 - 8.0 ms/km. The high value of intensity fractures indicates a high value of anisotropy around the area, and it is also confirming the presumption of the high permeability potential of the X geothermal field.

M. R. Maulana, M. S. Rosid, Farhan, and C. Iskandar, “Identification of Fracture Density and Orientation at ‘ R ’ Geothermal Field Using Shear Wave Splitting Microearthquake Method Identification of Fracture Density and Orientation at " R " Geothermal Field Using Shear Wave Splitting Microearthquake Method,” 2019, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1351/1/012050.

W. I. Sevilla, L. A. Jumawan, C. J. Clarito, M. A. Quintia, A. A. Dominguiano, and R. U. Solidum, “Improved 1D velocity model and deep long-period earthquakes in Kanlaon Volcano, Philippines: Implications for its magmatic system,” J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., vol. 393, no. 106793, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2020.106793.

D. Liotta and A. Brogi, “Pliocene-Quaternary fault kinematics in the Larderello geothermal area (Italy): Insights for the interpretation of the present stress field,” Geothermics, vol. 83, no. September 2019, p. 101714, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.101714.

B. Tauzin, T. S. Pham, and H. TkalÄić, “Receiver functions from seismic interferometry: A practical guide,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 217, no. 1, pp. 1-24, 2019, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggz002.

G. Kaviris, I. Spingos, V. Karakostas, E. Papadimitriou, and T. Tsapanos, “Shear-wave splitting properties of the upper crust, during the 2013-2014 seismic crisis, in the CO2-rich field of Florina Basin, Greece,” Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., vol. 303, no. March, p. 106503, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2020.106503.

I. Spingos, G. Kaviris, C. Millas, P. Papadimitriou, and N. Voulgaris, “Pytheas: An open-source software solution for local shear-wave splitting studies,” Comput. Geosci., vol. 134, no. 104346, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2019.104346.

W. Diningrat, S. R. A. Sugiono, and Y. Daud, “Fault-related fractures characteristic of Kijang fault at Wayang Windu Geothermal field,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 254, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/254/1/012007.

L. M. Kenyon and I. Wada, “Mantle Wedge Seismic Anisotropy and Shear Wave Splitting: Effects of Oblique Subduction,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 1-18, 2022, doi: 10.1029/2021JB022752.

G. Kaviris, I. Spingos, V. Kapetanidis, and C. Millas, “An upper crust shear-wave splitting in Attica ( Central Greece ) based on recordings of the 1999 and 2018 earthquake sequences An upper crust shear-wave splitting in Attica ( Central Greece ) based on recordings of the 1999 and 2018 earthquake sequences,” in 3rd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology, 2022, no. October, pp. 3547-3554.

S. Crampin, “Shear-wave splitting: New geophysics and earthquake stress-forecasting,” Encycl. Earth Sci. Ser., vol. Part 5, pp. 1355-1365, 2011, doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-8702-7_19.

J. M. Dubí©, F. A. Darbyshire, M. V. Liddell, R. Stephenson, and G. Oakey, “Seismic anisotropy of the Canadian High Arctic: Evidence from shear-wave splitting,” Tectonophysics, vol. 789, no. November 2019, p. 228524, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2020.228524.

Y. Gao, A. Chen, Y. Shi, Z. Zhang, and L. Liu, “Preliminary analysis of crustal shear-wave splitting in the Sanjiang lateral collision zone of the southeast margin of the Tibetan Plateau and its tectonic implications,” Geophys. Prospect., vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 2432-2449, 2019, doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12870.

Y. Gao, J. Wu, Y. Fukao, Y. Shi, and A. Zhu, “Shear wave splitting in the crust in North China: Stress, faults and tectonic implications,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 187, no. 2, pp. 642-654, 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05200.x.

A. M. McPherson, D. H. Christensen, G. A. Abers, and C. Tape, “Shear Wave Splitting and Mantle Flow Beneath Alaska,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 1-18, 2020, doi: 10.1029/2019JB018329.

W. Utama, D. Desa, and S. Ardhya, “Identification of Micro-Earthquake Hypocenters using Geiger and Coupled Velocity-Hypocenters Methods,” Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 350-355, 2021.

Z. Zhang, J. A. Fleurisson, and F. L. Pellet, “A case study of site effects on seismic ground motions at Xishan Park ridge in Zigong, Sichuan, China,” Eng. Geol., vol. 243, no. June, pp. 308-319, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.07.004.

I. Hanif, A. Zaenudin, Rustadi, N. Haerudin, and R. C. Wibowo, “Identifikasi Orientasi Rekahan Mikro Area Panas Bumi Monte Amiata Berdasarkan Analisis Studi Shear Wave Splitting,” Indones. Phys. Rev., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 3-5, 2020.

S. M. Mousavi, W. L. Ellsworth, W. Zhu, L. Y. Chuang, and G. C. Beroza, “Earthquake transformer—an attentive deep-learning model for simultaneous earthquake detection and phase picking,” Nat. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-12, 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17591-w.

A. Vizzaccaro, A. Opreni, L. Salles, A. Frangi, and C. Touzí©, “High order direct parametrisation of invariant manifolds for model order reduction of finite element structures: application to large amplitude vibrations and uncovering of a folding point,” Nonlinear Dyn., vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 525-571, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11071-022-07651-9.

A. Mihaylov, H. El Naggar, D. Mihaylov, and S. Dineva, “Approximate analytical HVSR curve using multiple band-pass filters and potential applications,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 127, no. June, p. 105840, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105840.

J. P. Mí©taxian et al., “Migration of seismic activity associated with phreatic eruption at Merapi volcano, Indonesia,” J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., vol. 396, p. 106795, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2020.106795.

A. Scala et al., “Monitoring the Microseismicity through a Dense Seismic Array and a Similarity Search Detection Technique: Application to the Seismic Monitoring of Collalto Gas-Storage, North Italy,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 3504, 2022, doi: 10.3390/en15103504.

C. Yi, H. Wang, L. Ran, L. Zhou, and J. Lin, “Power spectral density-guided variational mode decomposition for the compound fault diagnosis of rolling bearings,” Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed., vol. 199, no. April, p. 111494, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2022.111494.

D. Naidoo and V. M. Srivastava, “Third Order Band Pass Filter With Double-Gate MOSFET: A Simulation Perspective,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 1126, no. 1, p. 012019, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-899x/1126/1/012019.

A. Yadav, M. K. Dutta, and J. Prinosil, “Machine Learning Based Automatic Classification of Respiratory Signals using Wavelet Transform,” 43rd Int. Conf. Telecommun. Signal Process. TSP 2020, pp. 545-549, 2020, doi: 10.1109/TSP49548.2020.9163565.

S. Petrosino and L. De Siena, “Fluid migrations and volcanic earthquakes from depolarized ambient noise,” Nat. Commun., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26954-w.

J. Baron, I. Primofiore, P. Klin, G. Vessia, and G. Laurenzano, Investigation of topographic site effects using 3D waveform modelling: amplification, polarization and torsional motions in the case study of Arquata del Tronto (Italy), vol. 20, no. 2. Springer Netherlands, 2022.

Y. Li, D. Li, L. Huang, Y. Zheng, P. Wannamaker, and J. Moore, “Anisotropic properties in the sedimentary and granite rocks at the Utah FORGE geothermal site revealed by shear-wave splitting of 3-component borehole microseismic data,” in 2nd International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & energy, 2022, pp. 3619-3623, doi: 10.1190/image2022-3750065.1.

J. Asplet, J. Wookey, and M. Kendall, “A potential post-perovskite province in D”³ beneath the Eastern Pacific: Evidence from new analysis of discrepant SKSa-SKKS shear-wave splitting,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 221, no. 3, pp. 2075-2090, 2020, doi: 10.1093/GJI/GGAA114.

B. A. Brooks et al., “Robust Earthquake Early Warning at a Fraction of the Cost: ASTUTI Costa Rica,” AGU Adv., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1-17, 2021, doi: 10.1029/2021av000407.

E. M. Nathan, A. Hariharan, D. Florez, and K. M. Fischer, “Multi-Layer Seismic Anisotropy Beneath Greenland,” Geochemistry, Geophys. Geosystems, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1-17, 2021, doi: 10.1029/2020GC009512.

Z. Wang, X. Li, and X. Shang, “Distribution Characteristics of Mining-Induced Seismicity Revealed by 3-D Ray-Tracing Relocation and the FCM Clustering Method,” Rock Mech. Rock Eng., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 183-197, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00603-018-1585-z.

R. Kumari, P. Kumar, N. Kumar, and Sandeep, “Role of site effect for the evaluation of attenuation characteristics of P, S and coda waves in Kinnaur region, NW Himalaya,” J. Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 129, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s12040-020-01454-5.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
    2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
    3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).