Influence of crack distribution of rocks on P‐wave velocity anisotropy – a laboratory and field scale study‡ |
| |
| Authors: | Jan Vilhelm Vladimír Rudajev Roman ?ivor Tomá? Lokají?ek Zdeněk Pros |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Charles University in Prague, Institute of Hydrogeology, Engineering Geology and Applied Geophysics, Albertov 6, 128 43 Prague, Czech Republic;2. Institute of Geology AS CR v.v.i., Rozvojová 269, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic |
| |
| Abstract: | The purpose of this paper is the comparison of P‐wave velocity and velocity anisotropy, measured at different scales under laboratory and field conditions. A shallow seismic refraction survey with shot/receiver spacing of up to 10 m was carried out on a flat outcrop of lhertzolite in the southern part of the Balmuccia massif. Oriented rock samples were also obtained from the locality. The particular advantage of the laboratory method used is the possibility of measuring velocity in any direction under controlled conditions. Laboratory tests were made on spherical peridotite samples, 50 mm in diameter, by ultrasonic velocity measurements in 132 directions (meridian and parallel networks) under confining stress ranging from atmospheric to 400 MPa. The mean P‐wave velocity of the field and laboratory data differed by between 20–30%. In addition, P‐wave velocity anisotropy of 25% was detected in the field data. Whereas the anisotropy in the laboratory samples in the same orientation as the field surveys was less than 2%. This observed scaling factor is related to the different sampling sizes and the difference in frequencies of applied elastic waves. With an ultrasonic wavelength of 10 mm, laboratory samples represent a continuum. The field velocities and velocity anisotropy reflect the presence of cracks, which the laboratory rock samples do not contain. Three sub‐vertical fracture sets with differing strikes were observed in the field outcrop. Estimates of fracture stiffness from the velocity anisotropy data are consistent with other published values. These results highlight the difficulty of using laboratory velocity estimates to interpret field data. |
| |
| Keywords: | Anisotropy Fracture stiffness Seismic velocity Shallow seismic refraction method Ultrasound radiation |
|
|
