Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth

, Volume 43, Issue 8, pp 683–690 | Cite as

Amplitude-dependent effects of longitudinal seismic wave propagation in the interhole space

  • E. I. Mashinskii


Field investigations of the amplitude dependence of the P wave velocity in dry and water-saturated rocks are carried out in the space between two shallow boreholes. The seismic wave velocity nonlinearly varies with the strain amplitude in the range ∼(4–50) × 10−8. The pattern of the velocity variation with amplitude depends on the pulse propagation direction. In dry and partially water-saturated rocks, the wave velocity decreases by 1.5% with the amplitude increasing within the range mentioned above and increases by 0.4% in completely water-saturated rocks (with an accuracy of up to 0.1%). Amplitude variations within a closed cycle (A min … → A max … → A min) lead to hysteresis in the V p (A min-max-min) dependence (i.e., the ascending and descending branches of the curve do not coincide). If the hysteretic loop is not closed, the residual velocity component ΔV p (A) is present. This effect is observed in dry and weakly saturated rocks. In a completely saturated rock, hysteresis of the velocity dependence is absent; the ascending and descending amplitude branches coincide. It is suggested that the amplitude characteristics and their hysteresis can be used in the future as an additional criterion for the differentiation of rocks by their fluid saturation.

PACS numbers



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. S. Aleshin and I. Ya. Koval’skaya, “Vibratory Source in Problems of Seismic Microregionalization,” in Problems of Engineering Seismology, Vol. 30: Assessment of the Strong Earthquake Effect (Moscow, 1989), pp. 90–94 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Dvorkin, J. Walls, T. Taner, et al., “Attenuation at Patchy Saturation” in A Model EAGE 65 Conference and Exhibition, Stavanger, Norway, 2–5 June, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. V. Egorov, V. M. Nosov, and V. V. Man’kovskii, “Experimental Estimation of Nonlinear Elastic Parameters in Dry and Fluid-Saturated Porous Media,” Geol. Geofiz. 40(3), 457–464 (1999).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. B. Gordon and L. A. Davis, “Velocity and Attenuation of Seismic Waves in Imperfectly Elastic Rock,” J. Geophys. Res. 73(12), 3917–3935 (1968).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. E. Gusev, W. Lauriks, and J. Thoen, “Dispersion of Nonlinearity, Nonlinear Dispersion, and Absorption of Sound in Micro-Inhomogeneous Materials,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103(6), 3216–3226 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. A. Guyer, K. R. McCall, and G. N. Boitnott, “Hysteresis, Discrete Memory and Nonlinear Wave Propagation in Rock: A New Paradigm,” Phys Rev. Lett. 74(17), 3491–3494 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. O. Hardin and V. P. Drnevich, “Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils: Design Equations and Curves,” Proc. Am. Soc. Civil. Eng., J. Soil. Mech. Found. Div. 98, 667–692 (1972).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. A. Johnson, B. Zinszner, and P. N. J. Rasolofosoan, “Resonance and Elastic Nonlinear Phenomena in Rock,” J. Geophys. Res. 101(B5), 11 533–11 554 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. H. Johnston and M. N. Toksöz, “Thermal Cracking and Amplitude Dependent Attenuation,” J. Geophys. Res. 85 937–942 (1980).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. I. Mashinskii, “Quasi-Microplastic Processes and Nonlinear Seismics,” Fiz. Zemli, No. 2, 3–10 (1994).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. I. Mashinskii, “Nonlinearity of the Quasi-Static Stress-Strain Relation: Dependence on the Mechanical Energy Level,” Geofizika, No. 2, 37–41 (2001).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. I. Mashinskii, “Geophysical Implications of the Natural Gamma Ray Background,” Fiz. Zemli, No. 11, 1–7 (2003) [Izvestiya, Phys. Solid Earth 39, 992–998 (2003)].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. I. Mashinskii, “Variants of the Strain Amplitude Dependence of Elastic Wave Velocities in Rocks under Pressure,” J. Geophys. Eng. 1(4) 295–306 (2004a).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. I. Mashinskii, “Deviations in Stress-Strain Curves and the Amplitude Dependence of Wave Velocities,” Ross. Geofiz. Zh., No. 33–34, 4–11 (2004b).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. I. Mashinskii, “Non-Linear Stress-Strain Relation in Sedimentary Rocks and Its Effect on Seismic Wave Velocity,” Geophysica 41(1), 3–17 (2005a).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. I. Mashinskii, “Experimental Study of the Amplitude Effect on Wave Velocity and Attenuation in Consolidated Rocks under Confining Pressure,” J. Geophys. Eng. 2(3), 199–212 (2005b).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. I. Mashinskii, “Nonlinear Amplitude-Frequency Characteristics of Attenuation in Rock under Pressure,” J. Geophys. Eng., No. 3, 291–306 (2006).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. I. Mashinskii and G. N. D’yakov, “Amplitude-Dependent Attenuation of Pulse Signals in Rocks,” Fiz. Zemli, No. 11, 63–67 (1999) [Izvestiya, Phys. Solid Earth 35, 937–940 (1999)].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. I. Mashinskii, V. Z. Koksharov, and Yu. A. Nefedkin, “Amplitude Dependent Effects in a Small Seismic Strain Range,” Geol. Geofiz. 40(4), 611–618 (1999).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. M. Mavko, “Friction Attenuation: An Inherent Amplitude Dependence,” J. Geophys. Res. 84(B9), 4769–4775 (1979).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Mavko and J. Dvorkin, “P-Wave Attenuation in Reservoir and Non-Reservoir Rock,” in EAGE 67 Conference and Exhibition, Madrid, Spain, 13–16 June, 2005.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. R. McCall and R. A. Guyer, “Equation of State and Wave Propagation in Hysteretic Nonlinear Elastic Materials,” J. Geophys. Res. 99(B12), 23887–23897 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. A. Ostrovsky and P.A. Johnson, “Dynamic Nonlinear Elasticity in Geomaterials,” La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento 24(7), Ser. 4 (2001).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    O. V. Pavlenko, “Elastic Nonlinearity of Sedimentary Rocks,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk 389(2), 247–251 (2003).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    O. V. Pavlenko, “Changes in Shear Moduli of Shallow Grounds in the Epicentral Zone of the Kobe 1995 Earthquake (Japan) during the Main Shock and Aftershocks,” Dokl. Ross. Akad. Nauk 398(5), 680–685 (2004a).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    O. V. Pavlenko, “Identification of Nonlinearly Elastic Behavior of Ground in Near-Fault Zones of the Tottori 2002 Earthquake (Japan),” Dokl. Ross. Akad. Nauk 398(6), 803–809 (2004b).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    O. V. Pavlenko, “Soil Behavior during Strong Earthquakes from Records of Vertical Seismic Arrays,” Fiz. Zemli, No. 2, 30–40 (2005) [Izvestiya, Phys. Solid Earth 41, 121–131 (2005).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    O. V. Pavlenko and K. Irikura, “Changes in Shear Moduli of Liquefied and Nonliquefied Soils during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake and Its Aftershocks at PI, SGK, and TKS Vertical Array Sites,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92(5), 1952–1969 (2002a).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O. V. Pavlenko and K. Irikura, “Nonlinearity in the Response of Soils in the 1995 Kobe Earthquake in Vertical Components of Records,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22, 967–975 (2002b).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. R. Stewart, M. N. Toksöz, and A. Timur, “Strain Dependent: Observation and Proposed Mechanism,” J. Geophys. Res. 88(B1) 546–554 (1983).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. N. Tutuncu, A. L. Podio, A. R. Gregory, and M. M. Sharma, “Nonlinear Viscoelastic Behavior of Sedimentary Rocks, Part I: Effect of Frequency and Strain Amplitude,” Geophysics 63(1), 184–194 (1998a).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. N. Tutuncu, A. L. Podio, and M. M. Sharma, “Nonlinear Viscoelastic Behavior of Sedimentary Rocks, Part II: Hysteresis Effect and Influence of Type of Fluid on Elastic Moduli,” Geophysics 63(1), 195–203 (1998b).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yu. I. Vasil’ev, A. A. Gvozdev, A. I. Ivanova, et al. “Mechanical Properties of Soft Ground at Stresses to (5−10) × 105 Pa, or 5–10 kg/cm2, and the Choice of a Model Describing the Ground Behavior during Strong Earthquakes,” in Seismic Microregionalization (Nauka, Moscow, 1977), pp. 121–129 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    K. A. Winkler, A. Nur, and M. Gladwin, “Friction and Seismic Attenuation in Rock,” Nature 274 528–531 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    H. Xu, S. M. Day, and J.-B. H. Minster, “Model for Nonlinear Wave Propagation Derived from Rock Hysteresis Measurements,” J. Geophys. Res. 103(B12), 29 915–29 929 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xu Li and Vernon F. Cormier, “Frequency-Dependent Seismic Attenuation in Inner Core 1. A Viscoelastic Interpretation,” J. Geophys. Res. 107(B12), 2361–2370 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    V. Yu. Zaitsev, V. E. Nazarov, and V. I. Talanov, “Experimental Study of the Self-Action of Seismoacoustic Waves,” Acoust. Phys. 45(6), 720–726 (1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics, Siberian DivisionRussian Academy of SciencesNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations