4.5 Article

Scattering attenuation of elastic waves due to low-contrast inclusions

期刊

WAVE MOTION
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 290-300

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.wavemoti.2010.11.004

关键词

Scattering attenuation; Elastic waves; Inclusions

资金

  1. KAKENHI [19540438]
  2. Earthquake Research Institute [2006-W-06, 2007-W-07]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19540438] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seismic scattering attenuation due to random lithospheric heterogeneity has been theoretically modeled using two approaches. One approach is the Born approximation theory (BAT), which is primarily used to treat weak continuous heterogeneity, and the other approach is the Foldy approximation theory (FAT), which deals with sparsely distributed discrete inclusions. We apply the BAT to elastic wave scattering due to inclusions having low contrast with the matrix, and compare the results with those predicted by the FAT. We thus investigate the valid wavenumber range of the BAT based on a reasonable assumption that the inclusions are distributed so sparsely that the FAT is effectively correct for any wavenumber. For simplicity, we consider a specific type of round inclusion, which is either two- or three-dimensional and has a two-valued wave velocity and/or mass density. Both theories are confirmed to yield essentially equivalent results below a certain wavenumber limit, depending on the contrast. This is known as the Rayleigh-Gans scattering regime. Beyond the wavenumber limit, the BAT overestimates the attenuation for common-mode scattering due to wave-velocity contrast, but remains valid with respect to the attenuation for scattering due to mass-density contrast and/or conversion scattering. These conclusions are independent of the spatial dimensions of the media as well as the modes of the elastic waves (P or S). Some advantages of the BAT over the FAT for application to low-contrast inclusions are discussed. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据