AccScience Publishing / JSE / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/JSE026270120
Submit to JSE
Cite this article
13
Download
206
Views
Related Info Links
Google Scholar
More by Authors Links
Quanlong He
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Impact of source models on focal mechanism inversion in hydraulic fracturing distributed acoustic sensing monitoring

Quanlong He1,2* ,  Shuaihong Liu3 ,  Tao Chen1,2 ,  Shaowei Sun1,2 ,  Yuqi Cheng1,2 ,  Guoquan Liu1,2 ,  Xiaodong Wang1,2 ,  Zhao Han1,2
Show Less
1 Logging Technology Research Institute, China National Logging Corporation, Xi’an, Shaanxi , China
2 Well Logging Key Laboratory, China National Petroleum Corporation, Xi’an, Shaanxi , China
3 Changqing Branch, China National Logging Corporation, Xi’an, Shaanxi , China
JSE, 026270120 https://doi.org/10.36922/JSE026270120
Received: 1 July 2026 | Revised: 15 August 2026 | Accepted: 26 August 2026 | Published online: 21 September 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Download PDF
XML
Cite
Abstract

Distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) has garnered growing attention for microseismic monitoring in hydraulic fracturing (HF) operations within unconventional oil and gas development. Conventional DAS sensors acquire single-component measurements along the optical fiber, which may introduce uncertainties in microseismic focal mechanism inversion—a critical step for HF performance assessment and reservoir stimulation optimization. This study evaluates the performance of double-couple (DC), general dislocation (GD), and moment tensor (MT) source models for microseismic focal mechanism inversion using downhole DAS data. We systematically investigated the effects of DAS array orientation, input focal mechanism, noise level, velocity uncertainty, and source location error on the inversion results. Our findings indicate that DAS-based focal mechanism inversion was strongly controlled by the horizontal source-receiver azimuthal coverage. For a horizontal-vertical DAS acquisition geometry, MT inversion exhibited sensitivity to dip-slip input mechanisms, 5% velocity errors, 10 m source location errors, and 40% noise levels, whereas DC and GD inversions remained comparatively robust. Given that HF-induced microseismic events may involve non-DC components, the GD model-based inversion represents a reliable approach for obtaining stable focal mechanisms in horizontal-vertical DAS monitoring configurations, thereby advancing the application of DAS technology in microseismic monitoring studies.

Keywords
Distributed acoustic sensing monitoring
Focal mechanism inversion
Double-couple model
Moment tensor model
General dislocation model
Funding
This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFF0615101), the Scientific Research and Technology Development Project of China National Petroleum Corporation (2024DQ0536, 2023ZZ28YJ03, and 2026DQ03020) the Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province (2026CY-ZDGG-22), and the Science and Technology Project of China National Logging Corporation (25ZYCJSG010-2503).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Maxwell S. Microseismic: Growth born from success. Lead Edge. 2010;29(3):338-343. doi: 10.1190/1.3353732
  2. Ma Y, Eaton DW, Wang C, Aklilu A. Characterizing hydraulic fracture growth using distributed acoustic sensing-recorded microseismic reflections. Geophysics. 2023;88(6):WC47-WC57. doi: 10.1190/geo2022-0607.1
  3. Gao Y, Tilmann F, Yuan X, et al. Unraveling the Mantle Dynamics in Central Asia With Joint Full Waveform Inversion. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. 2025;130(2):e2024JB030061. doi: 10.1029/2024JB030061
  4. Maxwell S. Microseismic hydraulic fracture imaging: The path toward optimizing shale gas production. Lead Edge. 2011;30(3):340-346. doi: 10.1190/1.3567266
  5. Baig A, Urbancic T. Microseismic moment tensors: A path to understanding frac growth. Lead Edge. 2010;29(3):320-324. doi: 10.1190/1.3353729
  6. Li H, Chang X. A review of the microseismic focal mechanism research. Sci China Earth Sci. 2021;64(3):351-363. doi: 10.1007/s11430-020-9658-7
  7. Wamriew D, Dorhjie DB, Bogoedov D, et al. Microseismic Monitoring and Analysis Using Cutting-Edge Technology: A Key Enabler for Reservoir Characterization. Remote Sens. 2022;14(14):3417. doi: 10.3390/rs14143417
  8. Aki K, Richards PG. Quantitative Seismology. 2nd ed. Sausalito, CA: University Science Books; 2002.
  9. Šílený J, Horálek J. Shear-tensile crack as a tool for reliable estimates of the non-double-couple mechanism: West Bohemia-Vogtland earthquake 1997 swarm. Phys Chem Earth. 2016;95:113-124. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2016.06.007
  10. Eaton DW, Forouhideh F. Solid angles and the impact of receiver-array geometry on microseismic moment-tensor inversion. Geophysics. 2011;76(6):WC77-WC85. doi: 10.1190/geo2011-0077.1
  11. Eyre TS, van der Baan M. The reliability of microseismic moment-tensor solutions: Surface versus borehole monitoring. Geophysics. 2017;82(6):KS113-KS125. doi: 10.1190/GEO2017-0056.1
  12. Šílený J. Resolution of non-double-couple mechanisms: Simulation of hypocenter mislocation and velocity structure mismodeling. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 2009;99(4):2265-2272. doi: 10.1785/0120080335
  13. Li H, Chang X, Hao J, Wang Y. Comparison of Single-Well Microseismic Focal Mechanism Inversions with Different Source Models. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 2021;111(6):3103-3117. doi: 10.1785/0120210070
  14. Staněk F, Jin G, Simmons J. Fracture Imaging Using DAS-Recorded Microseismic Events. Front Earth Sci. 2022;10:907749. doi: 10.3389/feart.2022.907749
  15. Wu S, Wang Y, Liang X. Time-Delay Estimation of Microseismic DAS Data Using Band-Limited Phase-Only Correlation. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2023;61:1-9. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2022.3229685
  16. Wu S, Wang Y, Liang X. Hydraulic fracturing distributed acoustic sensing monitoring data source mechanism inversion: A Hessian-based method. Geophysics. 2023;88(6):WC133-WC143. doi: 10.1190/geo2023-0073.1
  17. Rodriguez IV, Podrasky D, Coleman T, Maldaner C, Ma Y, Ajo-franklin J. DAS Moment Magnitude Calculation in the Time Domain for General Dislocations: Application at Utah FORGE. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 2025;115(6):2592-2607. doi: 10.1785/0120250084
  18. Luo W, Drijkoningen G, Eltayieb M, Amann F, Vardon PJ. Feasibility Study of Single-Well Dual-Cable DAS for Micro-seismic Monitoring of Geothermal Operations. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2025;59:2811-2837. doi: 10.1007/s00603-025-04942-6
  19. Karrenbach M, Ridge A, Cole S, et al. DAS Microseismic Monitoring and Integration With Strain Measurements in Hydraulic Fracture Profiling. In: Proceedings of the 5th Unconventional Resources Technology Conference. Tulsa, OK: American Association of Petroleum Geologists; 2017. doi: 10.15530/urtec-2017-2670716
  20. Karrenbach M, Cole S, Ridge A, et al. Fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing of microseismicity, strain and temperature during hydraulic fracturing. Geophysics. 2018;84(1):D11-D23. doi: 10.1190/geo2017-0396.1
  21. Daley TM, Freifeld BM, Ajo-Franklin J, et al. Field testing of fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) for subsurface seismic monitoring. Lead Edge. 2013;32(6):699-706. doi: 10.1190/tle32060699.1
  22. Zhang Z, White MCA, Bai T, Qiu H, Nakata N. Characterizing Microearthquakes Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing With Hybrid Borehole DAS and Three-Component Geophone Data. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2023;61:1-15. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2023.3264931
  23. Rashid A, Tackie-Otoo BN, Abdul Latiff AH, Otchere DA, Jamaludin SNF, Asfha DT. Research Advances on Distributed Acoustic Sensing Technology for Seismology. Photonics. 2025;12(3):196. doi: 10.3390/photonics12030196
  24. Becker MW, Ciervo C, Cole M, Coleman T, Mondanos M. Fracture hydromechanical response measured by fiber optic distributed acoustic sensing at milliHertz frequencies. Geophys Res Lett. 2017;44(14):7295-7302. doi: 10.1002/2017GL073931
  25. Mad Zahir MH, Abdul Aziz KM, Ghazali AR, Abdul Latiff AH. Effectiveness of Fiber Optic Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) in Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) Field Survey. Appl Sci. 2023;13(8):5002. doi: 10.3390/app13085002
  26. Baird AF, Stork AL, Horne SA, et al. Characteristics of microseismic data recorded by distributed acoustic sensing systems in anisotropic media. Geophysics. 2020;85(4):KS139-KS147. doi: 10.1190/geo2019-0776.1
  27. Lim Chen Ning I, Sava P. High-resolution multi-component distributed acoustic sensing. Geophys Prospect. 2018;66(6):1111-1122. doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12634
  28. Verdon JP, Horne SA, Clarke A, Stork AL, Baird AF, Kendall JM. Microseismic monitoring using a fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensor array. Geophysics. 2020;85(3):KS89-KS99. doi: 10.1190/geo2019-0752.1
  29. Lellouch A, Lindsey NJ, Ellsworth WL, Biondi BL. Comparison between distributed acoustic sensing and geophones: Downhole microseismic monitoring of the FORGE geothermal experiment. Seismol Res Lett. 2020;91(6):3256-3268. doi: 10.1785/0220200149
  30. Li H, Chang X, Hao J, Wang Y. The general dislocation source model and its application to microseismic focal mechanism inversion. Geophysics. 2021;86(4):KS79-KS93. doi: 10.1190/GEO2020-0844.1
  31. Vavryčuk V. Tensile earthquakes: Theory, modeling, and inversion. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. 2011;116(B12):B12320. doi: 10.1029/2011JB008770
  32. Vavryčuk V. Inversion for parameters of tensile earthquakes. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. 2001;106(B8):16339-16355. doi: 10.1029/2001JB000372
  33. Jost ML, Herrmann RB. A Student's Guide to and Review of Moment Tensors. Seismol Res Lett. 1989;60(2):37-57. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.60.2.37
  34. Julian BR, Miller AD, Foulger GR. Non-double-couple earthquakes (1) theory. Rev Geophys. 1998;36(4):525-549. doi: 10.1029/98RG00716
  35. Miller AD, Foulger GR, Julian BR. Non-double-couple earthquakes (2) observations. Rev Geophys. 1998;36(4):551-568. doi: 10.1029/98RG00717
  36. Tape W, Tape C. A geometric comparison of source-type plots for moment tensors. Geophys J Int. 2012;190(1):499-510. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05490.x
  37. Tape W, Tape C. A uniform parametrization of moment tensors. Geophys J Int. 2015;202(3):2074-2081. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggv262
  38. Langston CA. Source inversion of seismic waveforms: The Koyna, India, earthquakes of 13 September 1967. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1981;71(1):1-24. doi: 10.1785/bssa0710010001
  39. Yao ZX, Harkrider DG. A generalized reflection-transmission coefficient matrix and discrete wavenumber method for synthetic seismograms. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1983;73(6A):1685-1699.
  40. Zhu L, Rivera LA. A note on the dynamic and static displacements from a point source in multilayered media. Geophys J Int. 2002;148(3):619-627. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-246X.2002.01610.x
  41. Ou GB. Seismological studies for tensile faults. Terr Atmos Ocean Sci. 2008;19(5):463-471. doi: 10.3319/TAO.2008.19.5.463(T)
  42. Song F, Toksöz MN. Full-waveform based complete moment tensor inversion and source parameter estimation from downhole microseismic data for hydrofracture monitoring. Geophysics. 2011;76(6):WC103-WC116. doi: 10.1190/geo2011-0027.1
  43. Eisner L, Williams-Stroud S, Hill A, Duncan P, Thornton M. Beyond the dots in the box: Microseismicity-constrained fracture models for reservoir simulation. Lead Edge. 2010;29(3):326-333. doi: 10.1190/1.3353730
  44. Staněk F, Eisner L, Jan Moser T. Stability of source mechanisms inverted from P-wave amplitude microseismic monitoring data acquired at the surface. Geophys Prospect. 2014;62(3):475-490. doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12107
  45. Vavryčuk V. Moment tensor decompositions revisited. J Seismol. 2015;19(1):231-252. doi: 10.1007/s10950-014-9463-y
  46. Zhu L, Zhou X. Seismic moment tensor inversion using 3D velocity model and its application to the 2013 Lushan earthquake sequence. Phys Chem Earth. 2016;95:10-18. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2016.01.002
  47. Stierle E, Vavryčuk V, Šílený J, Bohnhoff M. Resolution of non-double-couple components in the seismic moment tensor using regional networks-i: A synthetic case study. Geophys J Int. 2014;196(3):1869-1877. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggt502
  48. Sileny J. Shear-tensile/Implosion Source Model vs. Moment Tensor - Benefit in Single-azimuth Monitoring, Cotton Valley Setup. In: Proceedings. Houten, Netherlands: EAGE Publications BV; 2012. doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20148211
Share
Back to top
Journal of Seismic Exploration, Print ISSN: 0963-0651, Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept