Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “seismic monitoring applications”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

PickerXL, A Large Deep Learning Model to Measure Arrival Times from Noisy Seismic Signals

Precisely measuring seismic arrival times is a labor-intensive task but is critical for both earthquake monitoring and subsurface imaging. Recently published deep learning models have demonstrated superior performance compared to traditional automatic approaches for picking arrival times. Although existing deep learning models have shown promising results, further advancements are necessary as their performance is not yet satisfactory especially when applied to new regions and station networks. Increasing model size has led to improved performance in other machine learning applications. Here, we aimed to investigate whether enlarging deep learning models can increase performance on accepted benchmarks. We trained three models of varying sizes, small (1X), medium (4X), and large (16X), using globally distributed local and regional earthquake signals and background noise waveforms from a benchmark dataset, Stanford Earthquake Dataset. Our results indicate that the largest model (PickerXL) outperforms both the smaller models and Seisbench implementation of the PhaseNet model, which has the same number of parameters as our small model. The PickerXL model’s enhanced capacity to extract complex patterns from seismograms contributes to its superior arrival picking abilities compared to the smaller model.

Chai, Chengping [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (OR↗
DOE OSTI2025

Findings on subtask 1.6 – basin electric carbon storage research project: novel monitoring techniques

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) led a study to validate novel and emerging technologies as commercial monitoring techniques for application in carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) injection operations. This applied research was conducted at Basin Electric Power Cooperative’s (Basin Electric’s) active CO 2 -injection operations in Beulah, North Dakota, in two phases. The EERC previously completed a set of baseline (preinjection) activities in Phase 1, which included 1) design of an automated, integrated, modular (AIM) monitoring station; 2) time-lapse electromagnetic (EM) field surveys; 3) drone-based surveillance studies; 4) time-lapse monitoring with seismic methods; and 5) advanced wellbore-monitoring methods.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Toward improved urban earthquake monitoring through deep-learning-based noise suppression

Earthquake monitoring in urban settings is essential but challenging, due to the strong anthropogenic noise inherent to urban seismic recordings. Here, we develop a deep-learning-based denoising algorithm, UrbanDenoiser, to filter out urban seismological noise. UrbanDenoiser strongly suppresses noise relative to the signals, because it was trained using waveform datasets containing rich noise sources from the urban Long Beach dense array and high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) earthquake signals from the rural San Jacinto dense array. Application to the dense array data and an earthquake sequence in an urban area shows that UrbanDenoiser can increase signal quality and recover signals at an SNR level down to ~0 dB. Earthquake location using our denoised Long Beach data does not support the presence of mantle seismicity beneath Los Angeles but suggests a fault model featuring shallow creep, intermediate locking, and localized stress concentration at the base of the seismogenic zone.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
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↗
NASA NTRS2015

Lunar Impact Flash Locations from NASA's Lunar Impact Monitoring Program

Meteoroids are small, natural bodies traveling through space, fragments from comets, asteroids, and impact debris from planets. Unlike the Earth, which has an atmosphere that slows, ablates, and disintegrates most meteoroids before they reach the ground, the Moon has little-to-no atmosphere to prevent meteoroids from impacting the lunar surface. Upon impact, the meteoroid's kinetic energy is partitioned into crater excavation, seismic wave production, and the generation of a debris plume. A flash of light associated with the plume is detectable by instruments on Earth. Following the initial observation of a probable Taurid impact flash on the Moon in November 2005,1 the NASA Meteoroid Environment Office (MEO) began a routine monitoring program to observe the Moon for meteoroid impact flashes in early 2006, resulting in the observation of over 330 impacts to date. The main objective of the MEO is to characterize the meteoroid environment for application to spacecraft engineering and operations. The Lunar Impact Monitoring Program provides information about the meteoroid flux in near-Earth space in a size range-tens of grams to a few kilograms-difficult to measure with statistical significance by other means. A bright impact flash detected by the program in March 2013 brought into focus the importance of determining the impact flash location. Prior to this time, the location was estimated to the nearest half-degree by visually comparing the impact imagery to maps of the Moon. Better accuracy was not needed because meteoroid flux calculations did not require high-accuracy impact locations. But such a bright event was thought to have produced a fresh crater detectable from lunar orbit by the NASA spacecraft Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). The idea of linking the observation of an impact flash with its crater was an appealing one, as it would validate NASA photometric calculations and crater scaling laws developed from hypervelocity gun testing. This idea was dependent upon LRO finding a fresh impact crater associated with one of the impact flashes recorded by Earth-based instruments, either the bright event of March 2013 or any other in the database of impact observations. To find the crater, LRO needed an accurate area to search. This Technical Memorandum (TM) describes the geolocation technique developed to accurately determine the impact flash location, and by association, the location of the crater, thought to lie directly beneath the brightest portion of the flash. The workflow and software tools used to geolocate the impact flashes are described in detail, along with sources of error and uncertainty and a case study applying the workflow to the bright impact flash in March 2013. Following the successful geolocation of the March 2013 flash, the technique was applied to all impact flashes detected by the MEO between November 7, 2005, and January 3, 2014.

Moser, D. E.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Aftershock Identification Using a Paired Neural Network Applied to Constructed Data

This report is intended to detail the findings of our investigation of the applicability of machine learning to the task of aftershock identification. The ability to automatically identify nuisance aftershock events to reduce analyst workload when searching for events of interest is an important step in improving nuclear monitoring capabilities and while waveform cross - correlation methods have proven successful, they have limitations (e.g., difficulties with spike artifacts, multiple aftershocks in the same window) that machine learning may be able to overcome. Here we apply a Paired Neural Network (PNN) to a dataset consisting of real, high quality signals added to real seismic noises in order to work with controlled, labeled data and establish a baseline of the PNN's capability to identify aftershocks. We compare to waveform cross - correlation and find that the PNN performs well, outperforming waveform cross - correlation when classifying similar waveform pairs, i.e., aftershocks.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2020

New Architecture to Support Integration and Processing of Seismic Data from Heterogeneous Sources

The Geophysical Monitoring Program (GMP) at Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) maintains a database and supporting infrastructure for geophysical data used in support of the Nuclear Detonation Detection mission. This database includes data from multiple sources, many of which do not distribute data to the public or for which there is no automated means of access. For example, Figure 1 shows (left) the distribution of waveform data in our database by source. The Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Data Management Center (IRISDMC) is our major source of waveform data and those data may be retrieved at will using the Federated Digital Seismograph Networks FDSN web Application Programming Interface (API). However, the next 6 most important sources of waveform data have no or only limited automated access to waveforms. As Figure 1 (right) shows, it is very common for waveform records associate with an event in our database to come from two or more sources, and in some cases data come from 10 sources. This diversity of data sources drives our need for efficient and correct integration of metadata, parametric data, and waveform data.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Seismic signal augmentation to improve generalization of deep neural networks

Deep learning has emerged as an effective approach for seismic data processing in general, and for earthquake monitoring in particular. The ability of deep learning models to generalize beyond the training and validation data is important for comprehensive earthquake monitoring; this ability furthermore depends on the availability of a sufficiently large and complete training dataset. However, this requirement can prove challenging to meet due to significant effort and time for data collection and labeling. Data augmentation provides an efficient and effective approach for increasing the dimension of training samples and improving generalization to unseen samples. In this paper, we present augmentation methods appropriate for seismic waveforms and demonstrate their ability to reduce bias and increase performance. Furthermore, these augmentation methods can be applied to a wide range of deep learning applications designed for seismic data.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

The Imperial Valley Dark Fiber Project: Toward Seismic Studies Using DAS and Telecom Infrastructure for Geothermal Applications

We report that the Imperial Valley is a seismically active basin occupying the southern end of the Salton trough, an area of rapid extension, high heat flow, and abundant geothermal resources. This report describes an ongoing large-scale distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) recording study acquiring high-density seismic data on an array between Calipatria and Imperial, California. This 27 km array, operating on dark fiber since 9 November 2020, has recorded a wealth of local seismic events as well as ambient noise. The goal of the broader Imperial Valley Dark Fiber project is to evaluate passive DAS as a tool for geothermal exploration and monitoring. This report is intended to provide installation information, noise characteristics, and metadata for future studies utilizing the data set. Because of the relatively small number of basin-scale DAS studies that have been conducted to date, we also provide a range of lessons learned during the deployment to assist future researchers exploring this acquisition strategy.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Deep compressed seismic learning for fast location and moment tensor inferences with natural and induced seismicity

Fast detection and characterization of seismic sources is crucial for decision-making and warning systems that monitor natural and induced seismicity. However, besides the laying out of ever denser monitoring networks of seismic instruments, the incorporation of new sensor technologies such as Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) further challenges our processing capabilities to deliver short turnaround answers from seismic monitoring. In response, this work describes a methodology for the learning of the seismological parameters: location and moment tensor from compressed seismic records. In this method, data dimensionality is reduced by applying a general encoding protocol derived from the principles of compressive sensing. The data in compressed form is then fed directly to a convolutional neural network that outputs fast predictions of the seismic source parameters. Thus, the proposed methodology can not only expedite data transmission from the field to the processing center, but also remove the decompression overhead that would be required for the application of traditional processing methods. An autoencoder is also explored as an equivalent alternative to perform the same job. We observe that the CS-based compression requires only a fraction of the computing power, time, data and expertise required to design and train an autoencoder to perform the same task. Implementation of the CS-method with a continuous flow of data together with generalization of the principles to other applications such as classification are also discussed.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Steam caps in geothermal reservoirs can be monitored using seismic noise interferometry

Harvesting geothermal energy often leads to a pressure drop in reservoirs, decreasing their profitability and promoting the formation of steam caps. While steam caps are valuable energy resources, they also alter the reservoir thermodynamics. Accurately measuring the steam fraction in reservoirs is essential for both operational and economic perspectives. However, steam content estimations are very limited both in space and time since current methods rely on direct measurements within production wells. Besides, these estimations normally present large uncertainties. Here, we present a pioneering method for indirectly sampling the steam content in the subsurface using the ever-present seismic background noise. We observe a consistent annual velocity drop in the Hengill geothermal field (Iceland) and establish a correlation between the velocity drop and steam buildup using in-situ borehole data. This application opens new avenues to track the evolution of any gas reservoir in the crust with a surface-based and cost-effective method.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Anomaly Detection in Seismic Data with Deep Learning: Application for Instrument Failure Detection and Forecasting

Seismic data quality assessment (QA) is the first and one of the most important steps before conducting any further data analysis. Traditional methods involve checking various metrics, such as spike detection and power spectral density, by setting strict thresholds or comparing data against synthetic benchmarks. However, these approaches often rely on pre-existing knowledge and assumptions about data anomalies, leading to potential misclassification of unusual cases. Here, in this study, we propose a deep autoencoder model, an unsupervised learning approach that evaluates data quality without making assumptions about normal and anomalous data, which can be used to identify deviations in recorded data that may indicate nascent instrument failure. We test the model with the U.S. International Monitoring System (IMS) seismic stations and demonstrate the capability of detecting anomalies on a monthly scale. This could prompt station operators to examine potential problems early, allowing sufficient time for instrument maintenance to prevent data outages. In addition, we use a new manually selected testing dataset to compare our model performance against two supervised machine learning (ML) approaches and a standard QA package, as baseline models. When applied to the dataset containing known data anomalies, performance of the supervised and unsupervised ML approaches is similar, with an accuracy of 88.1% for our model compared to ∼90% for the supervised ML approach and 78.2% for the standard QA package. Our model outperforms the baseline models when applied to new stations, where new types of data anomalies can be station-specific and not included in the training dataset. Finally, we show model transferability by training the model with data from the Global Seismograph Network only and applying it to the IMS network data. The results suggest that our model is generalizable and can be applied to new stations with good accuracy.

Lin, Jiun-Ting [Lawrence Livermore National Labora↗
NASA NTRS2005

Spinoff 2005

Topics covered include: Lighting the Way for Quicker, Safer Healing; Discovering New Drugs on the Cellular Level; Hydrogen Sensors Boost Hybrids; Today s Models Losing Gas?; 3-D Highway in the Sky; Popping a Hole in High-Speed Pursuits; Monitoring Wake Vortices for More Efficient Airports; From Rockets to Racecars; All-Terrain Intelligent Robot Braves Battlefront to Save Lives; Keeping the Air Clean and Safe--An Anthrax Smoke Detector; Lightning Often Strikes Twice; Technology That's Ready and Able to Inspect Those Cables; Secure Networks for First Responders and Special Forces; Space Suit Spins; Cooking Dinner at Home--From the Office; Nanoscale Materials Make for Large-Scale Applications; NASA s Growing Commitment: The Space Garden; Bringing Thunder and Lightning Indoors; Forty-Year-Old Foam Springs Back With New Benefits; Experiments With Small Animals Rarely Go This Well; NASA, the Fisherman's Friend; Crystal-Clear Communication a Sweet-Sounding Success; Inertial Motion-Tracking Technology for Virtual 3-D; Then Why Do They Call Earth the Blue Planet?; Valiant 'Zero-Valent' Effort Restores Contaminated Grounds; Harnessing the Power of the Sun; Water and Air Measures That Make 'PureSense'; Remote Sensing for Farmers and Flood Watching; Pesticide-Free Device a Fatal Attraction for Mosquitoes Making the Most of Waste Energy Washing Away the Worries About Germs Celestial Software Scratches More Than the Surface A Search Engine That's Aware of Your Needs Fault-Detection Tool Has Companies 'Mining' Own Business; Software to Manage the Unmanageable; Tracking Electromagnetic Energy With SQUIDs; Taking the Risk Out of Risk Assessment; Satellite and Ground System Solutions at Your Fingertips; Structural Analysis Made 'NESSUSary'; Software of Seismic Proportions Promotes Enjoyable Learning; Making a Reliable Actuator Faster and More Affordable; Cost-Cutting Powdered Lubricant NASA s Radio Frequency Bolt Monitor: A Lifetime of Spinoffs Going End to End to Deliver High-Speed Data; Advanced Joining Technology: Simple, Strong, and Secure; Big Results From a Smaller Gearbox; Low-Pressure Generator Makes Cleanrooms Cleaner; and The Space Laser Business Model.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1988

Probabilistic system identification in the time domain

The objective of system identification is to determine reliable dynamical models of a structure by systematically using its measured excitation and response. It brings together in an integrated fashion, experimental, analytical, and computational techniques in structural dynamics. Areas of application for system identification include the following: (1) Model Evaluation--assessing assumptions (linearity and equivalent viscous damping) and techniques (finite-element modeling) used to construct theoretical models of a structure; (2) Model Improvement--updating of a theoretical model to enable more accurate response predictions for possible future loads on the structure, or for control of the structure; (3) Empirical Modelling--developing empirical relationships (nonlinear models) or empirical parameter values (modal damping) because the present state of the art does not provide theoretical results; and (4) Damage Detection and Assessment--continual or episodic updating of a structural model through vibration monitoring to detect and locate any structural damage. It can be argued that since the construction or modification of models using test data is subject to inherent uncertainties, the above problems should be properly treated within a Bayesian probabilistic framework. Such a methodology is presented which allows the precision of the estimates of the model parameters to be computed. It also leads to a guiding principle in applications. Namely, when selecting a single model from a given class of models, one should take the most probable model in the class based on the experimental data. Practical applications of this principle are given which are based on the utilization of measured seismic motions in large civil structures. Examples include the application of a computer program MODE-ID to identify modal properties directly from seismic excitation and response time histories from a nine-story steel-frame building at JPL and from a freeway overpass bridge.

Beck, James L.↗
DOE OSTI2021

SPiRaL: a multiresolution global tomography model of seismic wave speeds and radial anisotropy variations in the crust and mantle

SUMMARY SPiRaL is a joint global-scale model of wave speeds (P and S) and anisotropy (vertical transverse isotropy, VTI) variations in the crust and mantle. The model is comprised of >2.1 million nodes with five parameters at each node that capture velocity variations for P- and S-waves travelling at arbitrary directions in transversely isotropic media with a vertical symmetry axis (VTI). The crust (including ice, water, sediments and crystalline layers) is directly incorporated into the model. The default node spacing is approximately 2° in the lower mantle and 1° in the crust and upper mantle. The grid is refined with ∼0.25° minimum node spacing in highly sampled regions of the crust and upper mantle throughout North America and Eurasia. The data considered in the construction of SPiRaL includes millions of body wave traveltimes (crustal, regional and teleseismic phases with multiples) and surface wave (Rayleigh and Love) dispersion. A multiresolution inversion approach is employed to capture long-wavelength heterogeneities commonly depicted in global-scale tomography images as well as more localized details that are typically resolved in more focused regional-scale studies. Our previous work has demonstrated that such global-scale models with regional-scale detail can accurately predict both teleseismic and regional body wave traveltimes, which is necessary for more accurate location of small seismic events that may have limited signal at teleseismic distances. SPiRaL was constructed to predict traveltimes for event location and long-period waveform dispersion for seismic source inversion applications in regions without sufficiently tuned models. SPiRaL may also serve as a starting model for full-waveform inversion (FWI) with the goal of fitting waves with periods 10–50 s over multiple broad regions (thousands of kilometres) and potentially the globe. To gain insight to this possibility, we simulated waveforms for a small set of events using SPiRaL and independent waveform-based models for comparison. For the events tested, the performance of the traveltime-based SPiRaL model is shown to be generally on par with regional 3-D waveform-based models in three regions (western United States, Middle East, Korean Peninsula) suggesting SPiRaL may serve as a starting model for FWI over broad regions.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Application of quantitative risk assessment to address stakeholder questions in geologic carbon storage

Ambitious international greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets demand a rapid transformation to a low-carbon economy. This transformation includes the accelerated adoption of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) technology. However, as with any large-scale engineering enterprise, the widespread commercial-scale deployment of geologic carbon storage (GCS) raises important questions about technology and cost-effectiveness, safety, environmental risk, and long-term liability. Effectively assessing and managing risks and liability associated with GCS projects is a key technical need throughout the project life cycle-from site selection and permitting to monitoring design, operational risk management, and post-operational site closure. This presentation highlights recent advancements in tools for quantitative risk assessment, being developed by the National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP). NRAP is a multi-year, multinational laboratory research collaboration sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Our focus will be on these tools' applications in addressing critical stakeholder questions related to supporting permitting to ensure secure and environmentally protective storage; designing effective and efficient monitoring plans; evaluating the effectiveness of remedial actions and risk management alternatives; and informing liability assessment and investment decisions. This paper will detail the key functionality of NRAP’s Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM), a computational framework for assessing leakage risk and containment assurance. This model features streamlined workflows for calculating leakage risk profiles, delineating risk-based area of review, and assessing contingency plans and post-injection site care requirements. ORION is an open-source, observation-based ensemble forecasting toolkit to help operators assess the seismic hazard at a carbon storage site. The State of Stress Analysis Tool (SOSAT), designed to assess subsurface stress conditions and evaluate geomechanical risk resulting from CO2 injection in an area of interest will also be presented. We will also introduce a prototype model to evaluate storage project costs and liability associated with risk management. The Technoeconomic and Liability Evaluation for Storage (TALES) model uses results from forecasts of leakage and induced seismicity risk to estimate the lifecycle cost of managing risk. Finally, a preliminary example of how the NRAP Risk-based Adaptive Monitoring Plan (RAMP) tool can be used to design efficient and effective site monitoring plans and estimate the detectability of fluid leakage will be provided. The relevance of these tools for addressing key stakeholder questions amidst uncertainty will be emphasized.

decision support↗
DOE OSTI2022

Foam Fracturing Study for Stimulation Development of Enhanced Geothermal Systems

This is a final technical report for the project: Foam Fracturing Study for Stimulation Development of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). The goal is to demonstrate the feasibility of foam fracturing in EGS applications. The project, led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), was conducted in collaboration with Temple University. The report describes the research activities with Task 1 at ORNL: foam fracturing testing system development and experimental study on foam fracturing, and Task 2 at Temple University: foam testing and foam characterization. Main findings are: 1. A foam fracturing test system has been developed at ORNL, which can be used to perform foam fracturing under pressure up to 6,000 psi. The system monitors foam density during fracturing online and is capable of testing materials in both monotonic and cyclic (up to 50 Hz) injections. 2. Foam fracturing tests were carried out on Charcoal black granite specimens with a blind borehole to the middle length. Two diameters of blind borehole were tested; G2 series: 9.53 mm and G3 series: 4.76 mm. N2-in-water foam was used with AOS as a surfactant. 3. There was a hole-size effect on fracture initiation pressure. The effect is smaller in the case of foam, which was influenced by the high penetrability of gas in foam. Breakdown pressure showed a behavior just as that of fracture pressure; namely an increased value for small hole samples, while the effect in water fracture was more impressive than in foam fracture. 4. Water mass was reduced in foam fracturing within similar range of breakdown pressures. In G2 series, it was decreased from 10.44 g for water fracturing to 5.17 g, representing more than 50% water reduction. Therefore, there is the potential to reduce water use in EGS stimulation through foam fracturing. 5. Use of cyclic injection has the potential to reduce the breakdown pressure and seismicity in EGS application. Experiments using 4-s cycle period found that specimens can be fractured with a low number of cycles. The fatigue pressure was approximately 64 - 77% of monotonic breakdown pressure for water fracturing and 58 - 94% of the breakdown pressure for foam fracturing. 6. A foam stability testing system has been developed that can test foam at 220 Deg C to 2,000 psi. Tested components of candidate foams included two gases: N2 and CO2; 4 surfactants: AOS, SDS, NP-40 and CTAC; 5 stabilizing agents: guar, bentonite clay, borate salt, silica NPs, and GO. 7. N2 and AOS provided the most stable performance over the tested ranges. Furthermore, the AOS foam with stabilizing agents of guar and borate salt (crosslinker) offered the highest half-life of 20 minutes at 200 Deg C and 1,000 psi. 8. Arrhenius equation and modified power law have been demonstrated to fit well the half-time vs. temperature and pressure data, respectively. These relations can be useful to provide the suggestion for future foam stability study. This submission contains the supporting data developed during the project: 1) A final technical report 2) Granite fracturing data in monotonic and cyclic injections with water and N2 foam Foam performance data in various temperatures and pressures, including half-time, is submitted separately.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Bayesian Seismoacoustic Source Location: Acoustic Approach

Seismic waves and infrasound are key technologies in the International Monitoring System (IMS) to monitor explosive events in the solid Earth and atmosphere. Energetic man-made or natural events (e.g., chemical/nuclear explosions, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes) near the Earth’s surface produce both ground motion and atmospheric pressure disturbances which propagate as seismic waves and infrasound, respectively. Seismic waves have been generally used to detect and identify underground and near-surface events (Myers, et. al., 2007), and infrasound are sensitive to events near the surface or in the atmosphere (Modrak et. al., 2010). Due to their different sensitivities to events, they can complement to each other to improve the event detection and discrimination. The framework of joint seismoacoustic event location has recently reviewed by theoretical research (Koch and Arrowsmith, 2019). Although the early applications showed promising results to improve the accuracy of event location, their application were still limited to a small set of events selected to prove the concepts, and practical capability of the method for operational purpose is not fully evaluated with data. Our final goal is to apply the method of seismoacoustic event location to a larger set of events and evaluate its applicability for operational event location in practice. To that end, we focus on developing and verifying acoustic source location method in this study.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗