1887
Volume 67 Number 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The effect of the amplitude of ultrasonic waves propagating through a sample is not often taken into account in laboratory experiments. However, ultrasonic waves can produce relatively large strain inside the sample, and thus change the properties of the sample. To investigate the effect of strain amplitude on the P‐wave velocity, a series of ultrasonic wave propagation experiments were carried out on three different media. All measurements were performed at 1 MHz central frequency and at the strain levels inside propagating waves of  ∼3.0 × 10−6 to 6.0 × 10−5 without applying confining pressure to the sample. Strains in the waves were measured by a laser Doppler interferometer upon wave arrival on a free surface of the sample. The ultrasonic velocities were measured by a pair of P‐wave transducers located at the same measuring point as the laser beam of the LDI. The effect of strain on P‐wave velocity varied for different material. The P‐wave velocity was calculated using both a first arrival and a first maximum peak at different applied voltage. The P‐wave velocity remained unchanged for a pure elastic medium (aluminium); however, the velocity increased continuously with the increasing of the strain for polymethylmethacrylate and Gosford sandstone. For Gosford sandstone, velocity increases up to 0.8% with strain increase from 7.0 × 10−6 to 2.0 × 10−5. This effect of velocity increase with the strain induced by an ultrasonic wave can be explained by the in‐elasticity of both the polymethylmethacrylate and Gosford sandstone samples.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12674
2018-08-08
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AydinA.2014. Upgraded ISRM suggested method for determining sound velocity by ultrasonic pulse transmission technique. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering47, 255–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. GallotT., MalcolmA., BurnsD., BrownS., FehlerM. and SzaboT. L.2014. Nonlinear interaction of seismic waves in the lab: a potential tool for characterizing pore structure and fluids. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 2743–2748.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. GordonR.B. and DavisL.A.1968. Velocity and attenuation of seismic waves in imperfectly elastic rock. Journal of Geophysics and Research73, 3917–3935.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. JohnsonP.A., ZinsznerB. and RasolofosaonP.N.J.1996. Resonance and elastic nonlinear phenomena in rock. Journal of Geophysics and Research101, 11553–11564.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. KaufmanS. and RoeverW.L.1951. Laboratory studies of transient elastic waves. Proceedings of the Third World Petroleum Congress13, 537–545.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. LandauL.D. and LifshitzE.M.1986. Theory of Elasticity, 3rd edn. Elsevier.
  7. LebedevM., BonaA., PevznerR. and GurevichB.2011. Elastic anisotropy estimation from laboratory measurements of velocity and polarization of quasi‐P‐waves using laser interferometry. Geophysics76, WA83–WA89.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. MashinskiiE.I.2004. Variants of the strain‐amplitude dependence of elastic wave velocities in rocks under pressure. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering1, 295–306.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. MashinskiiE.I.2005. Experimental study of the amplitude effect on wave velocity and attenuation in consolidated rocks under confining pressure. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering2, 199–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. MavkoG.M.1979. Frictional attenuation: an inherent amplitude dependence. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering84, 4769–4775.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. MavkoG.M., MukerjiT. and DvorkinJ.2009. The Rock Physics Handbook, 2nd edn. Cambridge.
  12. NakagawaS., KneafseyT.J., DaleyTh.M., FreifeldB.M. and ReesE.V.2013. Laboratory seismic monitoring of supercritical CO2 flooding in sandstone cores using the Split Hopkinson Resonant Bar technique with concurrent x‐ray computed tomography imaging. Geophysical Prospecting61, 254–269.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. O'BrienP.N.S. and SymesM.P.1971. Model seismology. Reports on Progress in Physics34, 697–764.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. OstrovskyL.A. and JohnsonP.A.2001. Dynamic nonlinear elasticity in geomaterials. Rivista Del Nuovo Cimento24, 1–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. RiznichenkoY.V.1966. Seismic modelling, development and outlook. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica10, 243–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ten CateJ.A. and ShanklandT.J.1996. Slow dynamics in the nonlinear elastic response. Geophysical Research Letters23, 3019–3022.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. WinklerK.W., and NurA.1979. Pore fluids and seismic attenuation in rocks. Geophysical Research Letters6, 1–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. WinklerK.W., and NurA.1982. Seismic attenuation: effects of pore fluids and frictional sliding. Geophysics47, 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. ZaitsevV.Y., NazarovV.E. and TalanovV.I.1999. Experimental study of the self‐action of seismoacoustic waves. Acoustical Physics45, 720–726.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. ZinsznerB., JohnsonP.A. and RasolofosoanP.N.J.1997. Influence of change in physical state on elastic nonlinear response in rock: significance of effective pressure and water Saturation. Journal of Geophysical Research102, 8105–8120.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12674
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12674
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Rock physics; Strain amplitude; Velocity analysis

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error