Deep learning phase pickers: how well can existing models detect hydraulic-fracturing induced microseismicity from a borehole array?

SUMMARY Deep learning (DL) phase picking models have proven effective in processing large volumes of seismic data, including successfully detecting earthquakes missed by other standard detection methods. Despite their success, the applicability of existing extensively trained DL models to high-frequency borehole data sets is currently unclear. In this study, we compare four established models [Generalized Seismic Phase Detection (GPD), U-GPD, PhaseNet and EQTransformer] trained on regional earthquakes recorded at surface stations (100 Hz) in terms of their picking performance on high-frequency borehole data (2000 Hz) from the Preston New Road (PNR) unconventional shale gas site, in the United Kingdom (UK). The PNR-1z data set, which we use as a benchmark, consists of continuously recorded waveforms containing over 38 000 seismic events previously catalogued, ranging in magnitudes from −2.8 to 1.1. Remarkably, all four DL models can detect induced seismicity in high-frequency borehole data and two might satisfy the monitoring requirements of some users without any modifications. In particular, PhaseNet and U-GPD demonstrate exceptional recall rates of 95 and 76.6 per cent, respectively, and detect a substantial number of new events (over 15 800 and 8300 events, respectively). PhaseNet’s success might be attributed to its exposure to more extensive and diverse instrument data set during training, as well as its relatively small model size, which might mitigate overfitting to its training set. U-GPD outperforms PhaseNet during periods of high seismic rates due to its smaller window size (400 samples compared to PhaseNet’s 3000-sample window). These models start missing events below $M_w$ −0.5, suggesting that the models could benefit from additional training with microseismic data-sets. Nonetheless, PhaseNet may satisfy some users’ monitoring requirements without further modification, detecting over 52 000 events at PNR. This suggests that DL models can provide efficient solutions to the big data challenge of downhole monitoring of hydraulic-fracturing induced seismicity as well as improved risk mitigation strategies at unconventional exploration sites.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Geophysical Journal International
Published
2024-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggae386
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Seismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.14

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Deep learning phase pickers: how well can existing models detect hydraulic-fracturing induced microseismicity from a borehole array?

Maximilian Jonas Werner, Margarita Segou, Sacha Lapins, C. S. Lim
4 citations
Geophysical Journal International
Seismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
2.14
article

Deep learning phase pickers: how well can existing models detect hydraulic-fracturing induced microseismicity from a borehole array?

Maximilian Jonas Werner, Margarita Segou, Sacha Lapins, C. S. Lim
article en
4 citations

Abstract

SUMMARY Deep learning (DL) phase picking models have proven effective in processing large volumes of seismic data, including successfully detecting earthquakes missed by other standard detection methods. Despite their success, the applicability of existing extensively trained DL models to high-frequency borehole data sets is currently unclear. In this study, we compare four established models [Generalized Seismic Phase Detection (GPD), U-GPD, PhaseNet and EQTransformer] trained on regional earthquakes recorded at surface stations (100 Hz) in terms of their picking performance on high-frequency borehole data (2000 Hz) from the Preston New Road (PNR) unconventional shale gas site, in the United Kingdom (UK). The PNR-1z data set, which we use as a benchmark, consists of continuously recorded waveforms containing over 38 000 seismic events previously catalogued, ranging in magnitudes from −2.8 to 1.1. Remarkably, all four DL models can detect induced seismicity in high-frequency borehole data and two might satisfy the monitoring requirements of some users without any modifications. In particular, PhaseNet and U-GPD demonstrate exceptional recall rates of 95 and 76.6 per cent, respectively, and detect a substantial number of new events (over 15 800 and 8300 events, respectively). PhaseNet’s success might be attributed to its exposure to more extensive and diverse instrument data set during training, as well as its relatively small model size, which might mitigate overfitting to its training set. U-GPD outperforms PhaseNet during periods of high seismic rates due to its smaller window size (400 samples compared to PhaseNet’s 3000-sample window). These models start missing events below $M_w$ −0.5, suggesting that the models could benefit from additional training with microseismic data-sets. Nonetheless, PhaseNet may satisfy some users’ monitoring requirements without further modification, detecting over 52 000 events at PNR. This suggests that DL models can provide efficient solutions to the big data challenge of downhole monitoring of hydraulic-fracturing induced seismicity as well as improved risk mitigation strategies at unconventional exploration sites.

Geophysical Journal InternationalVol. 240(1)
British Geological Survey (GB), University of Bristol (GB), Centre for the Observation and Modelling of Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Tectonics (GB)
Sight Research UK, Natural Environment Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Seismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
2.14
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.