next up previous print clean
Next: Elastic energy and the Up: Berryman: Seismic waves in Previous: INTRODUCTION


Prior work on effective medium theory (Berryman, 1995) and double-porosity dual-permeability modeling (Berryman and Wang, 2000; Berryman and Pride, 2002a; Pride and Berryman, 2003a,b) has most often involved calculation of isotropic properties. In almost all cases, it is much harder to estimate anisotropic properties because the first step in such a calculation requires knowledge of both the effects of an oriented inclusion, and knowledge of a distribution (both in space and in orientation) of such inclusions. Then an additional calculation of the overall properties based on microdistribution information is needed. Unfortunately, we will seldom know the microdistribution of the inclusions, and so we are immediately limited in what we can do scientifically along these lines in most cases. However, there is one exception to this that arises in the case of flat cracks in otherwise elastic media. This problem was originally studied in some detail by O'Connell and Budiansky (1976) and Budiansky and O'Connell (1977). They showed in particular that, in the flat crack limit, a single parameter -- the crack density $\rho$ -- was sufficient to describe the behavior of isotropic systems. This analysis was good for representing the behavior at very low crack densities. In order to arrive at higher crack densities, these authors made use of an older effective medium theory sometimes called ``self-consistent'', and sometimes more accurately described as ``asymmetric self-consistent.'' This approach had the drawback that it overpredicted the effect of cracks on reducing elastic compliance, and therefore gave a relatively low value $\rho_c \simeq 9/16 \simeq 0.56$at which the cracked medium would fail. But it is known that failure does not usually occur at such small crack densities, so these overall predictions are often criticized on this basis. [See Henyey and Pomphrey, 1982; Zimmerman, 1991.] Hudson (1980; 1996) used a different method, the so-called ``method of smoothing'' first introduced in the mathematics literature, for the crack problem. Keeping density corrections just to first order in the Hudson approach gives an improvement over the previously mentioned scheme. Hudson also introduced a second order correction, but Sayers and Kachanov (1991) point out that this approach then violates rigorous Hashin-Shtrikman upper bounds on the moduli for this problem. They recommend instead using a differential scheme [see Zimmerman (1991) for an excellent review of the DS], because the DS tracks Hudson's first order model at low concentration of cracks, but never violates the HS bounds at high concentrations.