【摘要】 基于全局搜索与局部寻优微震定位算法，采用数值模拟和现场爆破定位2种方法，对微震定位中的传统目标函数，如有限约束的到时差（FCTD）、波速到时（STT）、波速到时差（STD），以及无需预先测速的目标函数，如到时（TT）、到时差（TD）、到时差商（TDQ）的定位效果进行对比研究，在数值模拟时，将波速随机浮动±1%、±3%、±5%来模拟地层的各向异性。结果表明：（1）无论是在数值模拟还是现场数据中，FCTD、STD、TD的定位精度均较高，STT、TT和TDQ的定位精度均较低。（2）随着监测区域的各向异性增强，FCTD、STD的定位精度会有所下降，TD的定位精度受各向异性影响较小，定位结果较为稳定。（3）目标函数TD的定位精度略低于FCTD、STD，但其不易受波速模型的影响，有利于对未知波速模型的地区实施微震监测。更多还原

【Abstract】 Based on the global search and local optimization microseismic localization algorithm, two methods, numerical simulation and on-site blasting localization, are used to compare the localization effects of traditional objective functions, such as fewerconstraintstime difference(FCTD), speed trigger times(STT), speed time difference(STD), and objective functions that do not need to be pre-speed detectionsuch as trigger times(TT), time difference(TD), and time difference quotient(TDQ), for numerical simulations, the wave speed was randomly floated by ±1%, ±3%, and ±5% to simulate the anisotropy of the formation. The results show that(1) the localization accuracies of FCTD, STD, and TD are higher and the localization accuracies of STT, TT, and TDQ are lower in both numerical simulation and field data.(2) As the anisotropy of the monitoring area increases, the localization accuracy of FCTD and STD decreases, and the localization accuracy of TD is less affected by the anisotropy, and the localization results are more stable.(3) The positioning accuracy of the objective function TD is slightly lower than that of FCTD and STD, but it is not easily affected by the wave velocity model, which is favorable for the implementation of microseismic monitoring in areas with unknown wave velocity models.更多还原