The Governing Set of Coupled Seismo‐electromagnetic Equations

Simulation of Seismoelectric Waves Using Time-Domain Finite-Element Method in 2D PSVTM Mode

“…(∇N, ∇A z ) Ω + µσ N, ∂A z ∂t (22) where N = [N 1 , N 2 , N 3 , N 4 ] T are the nodal interpolation basis functions, with 3,4; Ω denotes the whole model domain, while (u, v) Ω = Ω uvdΩ . Expanding (20)- (22), we obtain…”

“…The first type is EM waves directly generated by a seismic source [4,11,12], the second type is coseismic EM waves generated by a seismic wave [7,13], and the third type is EM waves generated by a seismic wave at the interface separating two different media (at least one of which is a fluid-saturated porous medium), sometimes called 'interface responses' [14][15][16][17]. The seismic EM signal generated in the process of seismoelectric conversion is sensitive to changes in the medium and fluid properties (e.g., the porosity, the permeability, or the salinity), and thus, has promising applications in the detection of deep complex structures and hydrocarbon reservoirs [6,8,9,[18][19][20][21][22].…”

Water Table and Permeability Estimation From Multi‐Channel Seismoelectric Spectral Ratios

“…During the past two decades, the SE method has seen significant development through (a) theoretical studies (e.g., Huang, 2002; Jougnot & Solazzi, 2021; Monachesi et al., 2018; Solazzi et al., 2022; Thanh et al., 2022), (b) numerical modeling approaches (e.g., Garambois & Dietrich, 2002; Grobbe & Slob, 2016; Haines & Pride, 2006; Hu & Gao, 2011; Jougnot et al., 2013; Ren et al., 2016a, 2016b; Zheng et al., 2021), (c) physical laboratory experiments (e.g., Bordes et al., 2015; Devis et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020; Zhu & Toksöz, 2013), and (d) field measurements (e.g., Butler et al., 2018; Dupuis & Butler, 2006; Garambois & Dietrich, 2001; Rabbel et al., 2020; Thompson & Gist, 1993). As the understanding of SE signals grows, this method is of increasing interest to researchers in near‐surface geophysics (e.g., Grobbe et al., 2020). The electromagnetic (EM) wave fields originating from seismic excitations are regarded as a superposition of three types of patterns (Figure 1c): (a) localized SE field waves accompanying seismic waves in porous media, which are also commonly referred to as coseismic electric field waves (Bordes et al., 2015; Jougnot et al., 2013; Pride & Garambois, 2002); (b) radiation waves induced on interfaces or directly converted from a seismic source (Dupuis et al., 2007; Garambois & Dietrich, 2002; Haartsen & Pride, 1997; Pride & Haartsen, 1996) and (c) evanescent waves generated on interfaces if the seismic incident angle is larger than the critical angle (Butler et al., 2018; Dzieran et al., 2019; Ren et al., 2016a; Yuan et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2021).…”

Modeling the Frequency‐Dependent Effective Excess Charge Density in Partially Saturated Porous Media

“…The remote characterization of partially saturated geological formations using non‐invasive techniques remains, to date, a challenging task within the field of applied and environmental geophysics. Given its inherent sensitivity to flow dynamics and pore fluid characteristics, the seismoelectric method can provide highly valuable information for studying this type of environments (Grobbe et al., 2020; Revil et al., 2015). The physical principles upon which seismoelectric prospecting is based on have been used in context of groundwater management and remediation (e.g., Dupuis et al., 2007; Han et al., 2004; Monachesi et al., 2018), exploration and production of hydrocarbons (e.g., Revil & Jardani, 2010), and CO 2 geosequestration operations (e.g., Zyserman et al., 2015).…”