Investigation of internal friction in fused quartz, steel, plexiglass, and westerly granite from 0.01 to 1.00 Hertz at 10⁻⁸ to 10⁻⁷ strain amplitude

Abstract

A detailed evaluation on the method of internal friction measurement by the stress‐strain hysteresis loop method from 0.01 to 1 Hz at 10−8 to 10−7 strain amplitude and 23.9°C is presented. Significant systematic errors in relative phase measurement can result from convex end surfaces of the sample and stress sensor and from end surface irregularities such as nicks and asperities. Preparation of concave end surfaces polished to optical smoothness having a radius of curvature >3.6×104 cm reduces the systematic error in relative phase measurements to <(5.5±2.2)×10−4 radians. The values of QE−1 (internal friction under uniaxial compression) determined from the relative phase measurements are |QE−1–Qs−1|< 2.8×10−3 for the tool steel sample and |QE−1–Qs−1|< 2.2×10−3 for the Westerly granite sample, where Qs−1 is the internal friction of the fused quartz stress sensor under uniaxial compression. These values are consistent with those inferred from the relative modulus dispersion data also presented in this paper. The polymethyl methacrylate (PMM, trade name Plexiglass) sample shows high values of internal friction (QE−1 ≅5×10−2) with strong frequency dependence and with a maximum in QE−1 at ≅0.4 Hz.

An overview of laboratory apparatuses to measure seismic attenuation in reservoir rocks

“…), (ii) resonant bar (∼0.1–50 kHz) (Birch and Bancroft ; Born ; Gardner, Wyllie, and Droschak ; Winkler and Nur ; Tittmann et al . ; O'Hara , ; Yin, Batzle, and Smith ; Cadoret, Marion, and Zinszner ; McCann and Sothcott ), and (iii) forced oscillation (∼10 −4 –2000 Hz) (Bruckshaw and Mahanta ; Usher ; Spencer ; Liu and Peselnick ; Jackson et al . , ; Guéguen et al .…”

“…Laboratory techniques developed to measure attenuation can be grouped into three main categories, depending on their experimental methodology and the frequency range of measurements ( Fig. 1): (i) ultrasonics (ß0.1-2 MHz) (Toksöz, Johnston, and Timur 1979;Winkler 1983;Best et al 1994), (ii) resonant bar (ß0.1-50 kHz) (Birch and Bancroft 1938;Born 1941;Gardner, Wyllie, and Droschak 1964;Tittmann et al 1981;O'Hara 1985O'Hara , 1989Yin, Batzle, and Smith 1992;Cadoret, Marion, and Zinszner 1995;McCann and Sothcott 2009), and (iii) forced oscillation (ß10 −4 -2000 Hz) (Bruckshaw and Mahanta 1954;Usher 1962;Spencer 1981;Liu and Peselnick 1983;Jackson et al 1984Jackson et al , 2011Guéguen et al 1989;Batzle et al 2006;Behura et al 2007;Takei, Fujisawa, and McCarthy 2011;Tisato and Madonna 2012;Madonna and Tisato 2013;Mikhaltsevitch, Lebedev, and Gurevich 2014;Pimienta, Fortin, and Guéguen 2014b). (i) Ultrasonics: Two ultrasonic transducers are employed on either side of the rock sample, one as a source and the other as a receiver.…”

Peak Ground Motions and Site Response at Anza and Imperial Valley, California

“…Most early studies (Thatcher and Hanks 1973;Fletcher et al 1987) use frequency-independent Q, compared to a number of more recent studies that use frequencydependent Q (Singh et al 1982;Boatwright and Seekins 2011). Early lab tests suggested a frequencyindependent Q (Liu and Peselnick 1983), but raises the question of whether these experiments represent actual conditions in the earth at appropriate frequencies. We can address this question in two ways.…”

Absorption and modulus measurements in the seismic frequency and strain range on partially saturated sedimentary rocks

“…As Liu and Peselnick [1983] point out, it is necessary to carefully control the surface interface conditions and tilting of the sample in longitudinal stress-strain measurements in order to meet accuracy requirements. Because the displacement transducer was not aligned with the center axis, tilting of the sample would have contributed to the measured displacement signal.…”