A laboratory seismoelectric measurement for the permafrost model with a frozen–unfrozen interface

Liu, Zheng­ping; Yuan, Lei; Zhang, Xin; Liu, Zhihui; Wu, Haiyan

doi:10.1029/2008gl035724

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation could be related to increasing bulk conductivity (Block and Harris, 2006) and/or incomplete equilibration of the electric double layer. For silica, the electric double layer may take several days to become stable (Morgan et al, 1989), and it may take hours at soil interfaces (Liu et al, 2008). One could also speculate on the electrodes developing a voltage drop at their surface, thus reducing the measured amplitudes over time.…”

Section: Salinity (M Naclmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismoelectric interface response: Experimental results and forward model

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the seismoelectric interface response is important for developing seismoelectric field methods for oil exploration and environmental/engineering geophysics. The existing seismoelectric theory has never been validated systematically by controlled experiments. We have designed and developed an experimental setup in which acoustic-toelectromagnetic wave conversions at interfaces are measured. An acoustic source emits a pressure wave that impinges upon a porous sample. The reflected electric-wave potential is recorded by a wire electrode. We have also developed a full-waveform electrokinetic theoretical model based on the Sommerfeld approach and have compared it with measurements at positions perpendicular and parallel to the fluid/porous-medium interface.We performed experiments at several salinities. For 10 -3 and 10 -2 M sodium chloride (NaCl) solutions, both waveforms and amplitudes agree. For 10 -4 M NaCl, however, amplitude deviations occur. We found that a single amplitude field scaling factor describes these discrepancies. We also checked the repeatability of experiments. The amplitudes are constant for the duration of an experiment (1-4 hours) but decrease on longer time scales $24 hours ð Þ . However, the waveforms and spatial amplitude pattern of the electric wavefield are preserved over time. Our results validate electrokinetic theory for the seismic-to-electromagnetic-wave conversion at interfaces for subsurface exploration purposes.

show abstract

Section: Salinity (M Naclmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismoelectric interface response: Experimental results and forward model

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The generation of these EM fields has been investigated in detail by Hu [], who demonstrated that they result from the inhomogeneous EM waves that are generated by the corresponding seismic waves at the borehole wall. Such inhomogeneous EM waves have also been theoretically modeled for a solid/porous‐medium configuration [ Ren et al ., ] and observed in laboratory experiment for the permafrost model with a frozen‐unfrozen interface [ Liu et al ., ]. In both studies, EM signals accompanying seismic waves were observed at receivers that are located in the solid region near the interface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismoelectric responses to an explosive source in a fluid above a fluid‐saturated porous medium

Gao

Wang

et al. 2017

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We numerically compute seismoelectric wavefields generated at a fluid/porous medium interface by an explosive source in the fluid. Our numerical experiments show that electromagnetic (EM) signals accompanying the P, S, and interface waves can be observed at receivers located in the fluid regions near the interface. Such accompanying EM signals are produced by the inhomogeneous EM waves that are generated by the seismic waves at the interface and their amplitudes decrease with the distance from interface. Under the excitation of an explosive source whose strength is within the capability of industry air guns, electric and magnetic fields that accompany the Scholte wave are on the order of 1 μV/m and 0.01 nT, respectively. This means that the EM signals arising from the electrokinetic effect at an ocean bottom are detectable and suggest that it is possible to measure the EM signals during marine seismic explorations to study the properties of the seafloor material. EM signals that accompany the P, S, and interface waves are also observed in the porous medium region near the interface. Component analysis shows that they contain contributions from multiple modes of waves, among which the slow compressional wave contributes significantly to the vertical electric field, leading to a much stronger vertical electric field than the horizontal electric field during the passage of a seismic wave along the interface.

show abstract

“…This observation could be related to increasing bulk conductivity (Block & Harris, 2006) and/or incomplete equilibration of the electric double layer. For silica, the electric double layer may take several days to become stable (Morgan et al, 1989), and it may take hours at soil interfaces (Liu et al, 2008). One could also speculate on the electrodes developing a voltage drop at their surface, thus reducing the measured amplitudes over time.…”

Section: Comparison Between Experiments and Forward Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Full-waveform electroseismic simulations were performed by White & Zhou (2006); Hu et al (2007); Guan & Hu (2008) and Zyserman et al (2010). A wide range of field and laboratory measurements of the coseismic and interface response fields was presented (see e.g., Martner & Sparks, 1959;Thompson & Gist, 1993;Butler et al, 1996;Mikhailov et al, 1997;Beamish, 1999;Zhu et al, 1999;Mikhailov et al, 2000;Zhu et al, 2000;Garambois & Dietrich, 2001;Zhu & Toksöz, 2003, 2005Block & Harris, 2006;Bordes et al, 2006;Dupuis & Butler, 2006;Haines et al, 2007;Dupuis et al, 2007;Strahser et al, 2007;Liu et al, 2008;Zhu et al, 2008a,b;Dupuis et al, 2009). Zhu & Toksöz (2005) and Bordes et al (2006Bordes et al ( , 2008 reported on coseismic magnetic field measurements associated with a Stoneley wave and a shear wave, respectively.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coupled seismic and electromagnetic wave propagation

Schakel¹

2012

Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A laboratory seismoelectric measurement for the permafrost model with a frozen–unfrozen interface

Cited by 19 publications

References 7 publications

Seismoelectric interface response: Experimental results and forward model

Seismoelectric interface response: Experimental results and forward model

Seismoelectric responses to an explosive source in a fluid above a fluid‐saturated porous medium

Coupled seismic and electromagnetic wave propagation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About