Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2021) 14: 224

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06429-w

ORIGINAL PAPER

Finite difference modeling of shear wave propagation

in multilayered fractured porous structures
Shishir Gupta1 · Soumik Das1 · Rachaita Dutta1

Received: 27 July 2019 / Accepted: 25 December 2020 / Published online: 2 February 2021
© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2021

Abstract
This study aimed to investigate shear wave (SH-wave) propagation through a multilayered cracked porous model with
exponential heterogeneity. Moreover, the stability criterion of SH-wave propagation was analyzed by determining phase and
group velocities of SH-wave. Haskell’s matrix method was used to determine complex dispersion relation for n − 1 media
overlying an inhomogeneous porous half-space with fractures. Stability analysis was performed through the finite difference
method. Moreover, the phase and group velocities were determined using the Courant number. Dispersion and damping
equations were derived for n = 2 and 3. Classical Love wave equation was attained in each case using certain conditions.
This equation validated the developed mathematical model. Stability analysis was conducted for reducing the errors and
determining the conditions of convergence. The effects of the heterogeneity parameter, porosity, attenuation coefficient,
Courant number, and discretization ratio on phase and group velocities were graphically observed. A two-dimensional plot
was used to perform comparative analysis between the fractured porosity and isotropy. Cracked porous material, which has
various applications in real world, was analyzed in this study. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, wave propagation in
a multilayered system consisting of heterogeneous cracked porous material has not been examined previously. Thus, this
study explores a new research area. The developed model can be successfully used to interpret seismic behavior during
earthquakes. More complex structures can be developed on the basis of the considered model.

Keywords Heterogeneity · Cracked porous system · Haskell’s matrix method · Finite difference method ·
Phase and group velocities · Courant number

Introduction research and investigations have indicated that the Earth

The scientific analysis of earthquakes and seismic wave
propagation contributes considerably to the study of the
Earth’s internal layers and the prediction of seismic
behavior at various regions of the Earth. Initially, the
Earth was assumed to comprise isotropic material. Intense
Responsible Editor: Narasimman Sundararajan
 Soumik Das
soumikdas1993@gmail.com
Shishir Gupta
shishir ism@yahoo.com
Rachaita Dutta
rachaita.dutta18@gmail.com
1 sufficient level. During this natural phenomenon, porous
Dept. of Mathematics and Computing, Indian Institute
of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad,
Jharkhand 826004, India
is composed of anisotropic, heterogeneous, viscoelastic,
porous, and imperfectly elastic materials. Heterogeneity
is a common material property that causes variations in
the rigidity and density of materials with the depth of
crustal layers. Many researchers (Ke et al. 2005; 2006;
Kakar and Kakar 2012) have correlated different types of
heterogeneity, such as linear, exponential, and quadratic
heterogeneity, with the different types of layers present in
the Earth’s crust.
Seismology involves the study of the mechanics of
different layers of Earth and various types of surface wave
propagation in layered microsystems. Porous materials,
such as sandstone, limestone, and volcanic rocks, are often
found in areas like mountains and basins. Rivers and
waterfalls carry eroded rock materials and deposit them
on the surface when the flow velocity decreases to a
rocks inherit fractures. A network is generated in which
matrix blocks comprising primary or matrix or storage
224 Page 2 of 19
pores become disjointed by cracks. Thus, a double-porous
system has both matrix porosity and fracture porosity.
High permeability is the main characteristic of cracked
porous rocks, and matrix blocks occupy a considerable
percentage of the total volume of such rocks. The concept
of fractured poroelasticity is used in many practical aspects,
such as carbon sequestration, gas and energy production,
nuclear waste treatment, and oil recovery. The proposed
theory of Biot (1956, 1962) provides the fundamentals of
wave propagation in porous media. Biot discovered the
existence of two compressional waves and one rotational
wave in a porous stratum. However, it is not sufficient to
describe the characteristics of fractured porous materials.
Biot’s theory was extended by Barenblatt’s (Barenblatt
et al. 1960) proposition related to fluid flow not only
in pores, but also in cracks. Barenblatt was the first
researcher to consider a natural cracked porous material
for developing a double-porous model. Warren and Root
(1963) made further improvements to the postulates of dual
porosity. The coupling between rock distortion and fluid
flow was included in their study. Wilson and Aifantis (1982,
1984) used mixture theory to examine the propagation
of waves in a fluid-saturated cracked porous medium
and expressed the coefficients in terms of quantifiable
parameters. The aforementioned authors also discovered the
existence of three compressional waves and one rotational
wave. However, their analysis lacked detailed calculations.
Beskos (1989) and Beskos et al. (1989) investigated the
cracked porosity model in further detail. They provided
detailed equations, performed a comparative study between
cracked porosity and single porosity, and illustrated the
effects of porosity and permeability on the behaviors of
four bulk waves. By using the volume averaging technique,
balance equations and constitutive relations for cracked
porous medium were first established by Berryman and
Wang (1995) and Berryman and Wang (2000). They
have simplified macroscopic momentum and stress–strain
relations and have presented the process of determining
relevant parameters.
Thompson (1950) was the first to provide a matrix
formation for analyzing the transmission of plane waves
through a microsystem consisting of multiple solid layers.
Haskell (1953) modified the matrix method of Thompson
to construct a systematic procedure that consumed a small
amount of time. Haskell’s matrix technique is an easy
method for handling multilayered models. A multilayered
transversely isotropic system was solved by Anderson
(1962) by using Haskell’s matrix technique. Chattopadhyay
et al. (2010) extended Haskell’s technique to derive the
dispersion equation of SH-wave propagation in multilayered
magnetoelastic self-reinforced media. The multilayered
model became the primary interest of researchers such
as Gupta and Bhengra (2017), Kalyani et al. (2008),
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224
and Saha et al. (2018). The purpose of mathematical
techniques is to achieve high accuracy and low error. Several
efficient techniques such as the finite element method
(FEM), the extended FEM (XFEM), spectral methods, A∗
Localization method (ALM), Velocity-free location method,
the FastWay method, and kinetic energy metamorphosis
(KEM) can be used for obtaining solutions in various
complex mathematical simulations. Moghaddam et al.
(2016) investigated the crack propagation problem by using
the XFEM. The pattern and mechanism of failures in
temporary faults was studied by Hokmabadi et al. (2016).
Bednarik (2019) applied the KEM to examine the rock
metamorphosis problem. Gollob et al. (2017) suggested
that FastWay is a highly accurate and reliable method
for locating emission sources. Hu and Dong (2019) used
ALM to locate the acoustic emission source for monitoring
crack propagation in irregular complex structures. Dong
et al. (2020) have developed a three-dimensional hole-
containing structures using the velocity-free MS/AE source
location method. The finite difference method has numerous
suitable qualities, such as high computational accuracy,
high stability, and the ability to solve complex models.
No approximation is required in this technique. Thus, the
finite difference method is considerably different from other
simulation methods. This technique is flexible in predicting
the displacement components of propagating waves by
providing precise results. Thus, the finite difference method
has high reliability. Kelly et al. (1976) and Emerman et al.
(1982) have used the finite difference approach for seismic
wave simulation. The solution of the wave equation in the
frequency domain should have high accuracy. However, the
solution in the time domain requires both high accuracy and
stability. Therefore, a numerical technique must be adopted
for achieving stability of mathematical models. Numerous
researchers (Gupta et al. 2017; Pallavika et al. 2008) have
studied stability criterion by using the finite difference
method.
Pallavika et al. (2008) examined SH-wave propagation
through an anisotropic porous multilayered system. The
material considered in their study only possessed matrix
or storage pores. To the best of the authors’ knowledge,
wave propagation in a multilayered heterogeneous cracked
porous media has not been analyzed so far. Therefore, in
this study, the effects of fracture porosity, as well as matrix
porosity, were examined in addition to the heterogeneity.
Haskell’s matrix method was used to explore the dispersion
and attenuation of SH-waves in a multilayered half-space.
Moreover, the finite difference method was used to establish
the expressions for the phase and group velocities and
to determine the stability criterion. Figure 1 represents a
flowchart which describes the research methodology of this
study. The outline of the mathematical model is described in
the formulation of the problem. The multilayered half-space
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224
Fig. 1 Flowchart of the research
methodology
is considered to comprise n − 1 heterogeneous cracked
porous layers resting over an inhomogeneous fluid-saturated
cracked porous half-space. The rigidity and density of each
medium vary exponentially with depth (i.e., G(z) = Ḡeαz ,
ρij (z) = ρ¯ij eαz , ζij (z) = ζ¯ij eαz , and ρ(z) = ρ̄eαz ). In
the solution section, the equation of motion for SH-wave
propagation as well as the displacement component and
traction in the rth layer are determined. Haskell’s matrix
method is used to derive complex frequency relations
Page 3 of 19 224
when n assumes successive values starting from 2. In
the “Dispersion and attenuation equations” section, several
complex quantities are dissociated into real and imaginary
parts. Dispersion and attenuation equations of SH-wave
propagation are obtained for n = 2 and n = 3. In the
“Validation of the problem” section, the developed model is
validated by applying particular conditions. The “Stability
analysis, phase and group velocity” section describes the use
of the finite difference approach for determining the phase
224 Page 4 of 19 Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224

and group velocities by using the Courant number. This where ws2 , wm2 , and wf 2 define displacement components
section also describes the analysis of the stability condition. of solid, fluid in matrix pore, and in fracture pore, respec-
In the “Numerical calculations and graphical discussions” tively. The mass coefficients ρij and coupling viscosity
section, the effects of several parameters associated with coefficients ζij , which are considered as functions of z.
the developed model are illustrated on the basis of various ρ23 and ζ23 are nullified as short-term wave propagation
two-dimensional plots. The conclusions are presented in the has been considered in this model. ρl and ρs represent den-
“Conclusions” section. sity of the fluid and the solid material, respectively. As
fracture porosity is assumed to be 1 (Berryman and Wang
2000), relations between macroscopic fluid pressures Mp
Formulation and solution of the problem and Fp and the fluid pressures mp and fp acting in the
interior of matrix and fracture pores are defined as below
The considered mathematical model comprises n − 1
Mp = Vm m mp , Fp = Vf fp (2)
inhomogeneous layers with matrix and fracture pores
overlying a heterogeneous fractured porous half-space. The where Vm + Vf = 1 and t = Vm m + Vf . m , t , Vm ,
layers are enumerated in top-down manner. The thickness of and Vf symbolize matrix porosity, total porosity, fractions
each layer from top to bottom is denoted as h1 , h2 , ..., hr , ..., of matrix pore volume, and fracture volume, respectively.
and hn−1 , respectively, as displayed in Fig. 2. The x-axis τt , τm , and τf refer to overall, primary, and secondary
represents the direction of SH-wave propagation, and the tortuosity vectors, respectively. The shear viscosity of the
positive z-axis is in the downward direction. In general, viscous liquid is denoted by ηl . Only matrix permeability
w1 = w3 = 0, w2 = w2 (x, z, t), and ∂y ∂
= 0 for the coefficient κ11 and fracture permeability coefficient κ22
propagation of SH-waves, where w1 , w2 , and w3 are the have impact on short-term wave propagation in cracked
components of the displacement vector in the x-, y-, and porous medium.
z-directions, respectively. The constitutive relations for cracked porous layer can be
By following Berryman and Wang (2000), the equations expressed as below by following Berryman and Wang (2000)
of motion for fluid-saturated fractured porous layer are ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞
written as below τxx N11 N12 N13 n14 n15 0 0 0 υxx
⎜ τyy ⎟ ⎜N21 N22 N23 n24 n25 0 0 0 ⎟ ⎜ υyy ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
ρ11 ẅs2 + ρ12 ẅm2 + ρ13 ẅf 2 + (ζ12 + ζ13 )ẇs2 ⎜ τzz ⎟ ⎜N31 N32 N33 n34 n35 0 0 0 ⎟ ⎜ υzz ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
− ζ12 ẇm2 − ζ13 ẇf 2 = τyj,j , ⎜−mp ⎟ ⎜ n41 n42 n43 n44 n45 0 0 0 ⎟ ⎜−mw ⎟
⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎜−fp ⎟ ⎜ n51 n52 n53 n54 n55 0 0 0 ⎟ ⎜ −fw ⎟
ρ12 ẅs2 + ρ22 ẅm2 + ρ23 ẅf 2 − ζ12 ẇs2 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
(1) ⎜ τyz ⎟ ⎜ 0 0 0 0 0 2G 0 0 ⎟ ⎜ υyz ⎟
+ (ζ12 + ζ23 )ẇm2 − ζ23 ẇf 2 = −Mp,y , ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ τzx ⎠ ⎝ 0 0 0 0 0 0 2G 0 ⎠ ⎝ υzx ⎠
ρ13 ẅs2 + ρ23 ẅm2 + ρ33 ẅf 2 − ζ13 ẇs2 − ζ23 ẇm2 τxy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2G υxy
+ (ζ13 + ζ23 )ẇf 2 = −Fp,y (3)

Fig. 2 Diagram of the model

consisting of multilayered
fluid-saturated inhomogeneous
fractured porous half-space
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224 Page 5 of 19 224
⎧ 
where Nij s are the elastic moduli of drainage system, nij s ⎪
⎨ −Ḡ(r) α (r) i Ḡ(r) 4γ (r) − α (r)
2
(r) (r)
are the material parameters, G is the shear modulus. Nij , s (r−1) = (E1 + E2 ) +
⎪
⎩ 2 2
nij , and G are considered as functions of z. The stress and ⎫
strain components are denoted by τij s and υij s, respectively. ⎪
⎬
mw and fw define the increment of fluid in matrix blocks (E1(r) − E2(r) ) ei(kx−ωt) (10)
⎪
⎭
and fracture pores, respectively. By following Berryman and
Wang (2000), the expressions are given by
Similarly at rth interface (i.e., at z = hr ), the dimensionless
mw = −Vm m ∇ · (wm − ws ) , fw = −Vf ∇ · (wf − ws ) phase velocity and the traction component are determined as
⎡
(4)  (r)  (r−1)
ẇs2 (r)
− α 2 hr ⎢ ẇs2
=e ⎣
Displacement components of solid, matrix pore fluid, and c c
crack pore fluid are indicated by the following expression ⎧ ⎫ ⎤
⎪
⎨ (r) α (r) ⎬
⎪ (r) s (r−1)
{ws2 , wm2 , wf 2 } = {Ws2 (z) , Wm2 (z) , Wf 2 (z)}e i(kx−ωt) sin ψ 2iω sin ψ ⎥
cos ψ (r) +  −  ⎦ (11)
⎪
⎩ ⎪
4γ (r) − α (r) ⎭ cḠ(r) 4γ (r) − α (r)
2 2
(5)
By applying the exponential variations in G(z), ρij (z), and ⎡ ⎧
 (r−1) ⎪
⎨ icḠ(r) 
ζij (z) and with the help of Eqs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, we obtain s (r) = e
α (r) hr ⎢ ẇs2
− (α (r) cos ψ (r) + 4γ (r) − α (r) sin ψ (r) )+
2
2 ⎣
c ⎪
⎩ 2ω
ws2 = (E1 e η1 z
+ E2 e η2 z
)e i(kx−ωt)
(6) ⎫
 ⎪
⎬
icḠ(r) α (r)
where  ( 4γ (r) − α (r) cos ψ (r) − α (r) sin ψ (r) )
2

  ⎪
⎭
2ω 4γ − α
(r) (r)2

−α + i 4γ − α 2 −α − i 4γ − α 2 ⎤
η1 = , η2 = , s (r−1)

2 2 (r) ⎥
+ ( 4γ − α cos ψ − α sin ψ )⎦
(r) (r)
(r) (r)2

ρ̄ω2 4γ (r) − α (r)

2

γ = − k2, (12)
Ḡ

i
ρ¯12 − ωi ζ12¯ 2 ¯ 2
ρ¯13 − ωi ζ13 
ρ̄ = ρ¯11 + ¯ ¯
ζ12 + ζ13 − − . where = 4γ (r) − α (r) .
ψ (r) hr 2
ω ¯
ρ¯22 + ωi ζ12 ¯
ρ¯33 + ωi ζ13 2
By using Eqs. 11 and 12, the following matrix is formed
Here E1 and E2 are arbitrary constants and α is the  (r)   (r−1) 
ẇs2 ẇs2
heterogeneityparameter. Without loss of generality, let us c = lr c (13)
assume Re[ 4γ − α 2 ] > 0. Equation 6 represents the s (r) s (r−1)
displacement component of the fractured porous medium.
By following Eq. 6, the displacement component in rth where
⎛  ⎞
layer of multilayered heterogeneous fractured porous model α (r) hr (r) (r) (r) −
α (r) hr
⎜e − sin ψ α − 2iω sinψ e
2
2 cos ψ (r) + ⎟
is represented as ⎜ 4γ (r) −α (r)
2 (r)2 ⎟
 cḠ 4γ −α
(r) (r)
lr = ⎜
⎜ α (r) hr
⎟
⎟
(r) (r) ⎝ 2icḠ(r) γ (r) sin ψ (r) e 2 α (r) hr (r) (r)
sin ψ α
⎠
(r) (r) (r) −  e cos ψ (r) −
ws2 = (E1 eη1 z
+ E2 eη2 z )ei(kx−ωt)
2
(7) ω 4γ (r) −α (r)
2
4γ (r) −α (r)
2

 
(r) −α (r) +i 4γ (r) −α (r)
2
(r) −α (r) −i 4γ (r) −α (r)
2 By following the repeating technique in Eq. 13, we obtain
where η1 = 2 , η2 = 2 ,  (n−1)   (0) 
ρ̄ (r) ω2 ẇs2 ẇs2
γ = Ḡ(r) − k .
(r) 2
c =L c (14)
By using Eq. 3, the traction at the boundary of rth layer is s (n−1) s (0)
defined as 
(r) L11 L12
α (r) z ∂ws2 (r) (r) (r) (r) where L = ln−1 ln−2 ...l2 l1 = is a 2 × 2 matrix.
s (r) = τyz
(r)
= Ḡ(r) e = Ḡ(r) eα z (E1 η1 eη1 z L21 L22
∂z Replacing r by n in Eqs. 9 and 10, using Eq. 14, and
(r) (n)
(r) (r)
+E2 η2 eη2 z )ei(kx−ωt) (8) applying restrictions s (0) = 0 and E1 = 0 , we get

With the help of Eqs. 7 and 8, translation of the coordinate 2iω

L11 L = L21 (15)
system from the free surface to (r − 1)th interface with c
respect to z-axis and substitution of z = 0 provides 
where L = Ḡ(n) (α (n) + i 4γ (n) − α (n) ). Equation 15
2

ẇs2 (r−1) iω defines the complex SH-wave dispersion relation in
= − (E1(r) + E2(r) )ei(kx−ωt) (9)
c c heterogeneous cracked porous multilayered model.
224 Page 6 of 19 Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224

α (1) h1 α (2) h2
When n = 2, we have 2i Ḡ(1) e γ (1) sin ψ (1)
e
⎧ ⎫ L3 = − 
2 2

⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬ 4γ (1) − α (1)
(1) (1) (1) 2
α h
− 2 1 sin ψ α
e cos ψ + 
(1)
Ḡ(2) (α (2) ⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎩ 2⎪
⎭ ⎪ ⎪
4γ − α
(1) (1)
⎨ sin ψ (2) α (2) ⎬
cos ψ (2) −  .
 α (1) h1
⎪
⎩ 2⎪
4Ḡ(1) γ (1) sin ψ (1) e 2 4γ (2) − α (2) ⎭
+i 4γ − α ) = 
(2) (2) 2
(16)
4γ (1) − α (1)
2

Equation 17 defines the complex dispersion relation of

Equation 16 reflects the complex dispersion relation of SH-waves for the model comprising two inhomogeneous
SH-waves for the model comprising an inhomogeneous fractured porous layers overlie a fractured porous half-space
fractured porous layer resting over a fractured porous half- with inhomogeneity.
space with inhomogeneity.
When n = 3, we have

2iω Dispersion and attenuation equations
(L0 + L1 )Ḡ(3) (α (3) + i 4γ (3) − α (3) ) = (L2 + L3 )
2

c
(17) Wave number, which is considered as a complex quantity,
 is defined by the relation k = k1 (1 + iδ), where δ(<< 1)
α (1) h1 α (2) h2 (1) (1)
where L0 = e− 2 e− 2 cos ψ (1) + sin ψ α symbolizes attenuation coefficient. Velocity of the SH-wave
2
4γ (1) −α (1) (c) and angular frequency (ω) are related to the real part

(2) (2) of the wave number (k1 ) by the relation ω = k1 c. Several
cos ψ (2) + sin ψ α ,
4γ −α (2)
(2) 2 complex quantities present in Eq. 16 are defined as below

2
α (1) h1
−
α (2) h2 γ (1) = k12 (q¯1 2 − q1 ) + 2ik12 q¯1 q1 , γ (2)
4Ḡ(1) e e 2 2 γ (1) sin ψ (1) sin ψ (2)
L1 = −   , 2 h1 k 1
= k12 (q¯2 2 − q2 ) + 2ik12 q¯2 q2 , ψ (1) = (A1 + iB1 ),
Ḡ(2) 4γ (1) − α (1) 4γ (2) − α (2)
2 2
 2
4γ (1) − α (1) = k1 (A1 + iB1 ),
2
α (1) h1 α (2) h2
2i Ḡ(2) e− e
2 2 γ (2) sin ψ (2) 
L2 = −  i 4γ (2) − α (2) = k1 (A2 + iB2 )
2
(18)
4γ (2) − α (2)
2

⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬ where q¯1 , q1 , q¯2 , and q2 are defined in the Appendix.
sin ψ (1) α (1) A1 , B1 , A2 , and B2 are derived by rigorous mathematical
cos ψ (1)
+ ,
⎪
⎩ 2⎪
4γ (1) − α (1) ⎭ calculations. Complex quantities present in Eq. 17 are
defined as

2 2 2
γ (1) = k12 (q¯1 2 − q1 ) + 2ik12 q¯1 q1 , γ (2) = k12 (q¯2 2 − q2 ) + 2ik12 q¯2 q2 , γ (3) = k12 (q¯3 2 − q3 ) + 2ik12 q¯3 q3 ,
  
4γ (1) − α (1) = k1 (A1 + iB1 ), 4γ (2) − α (2) = k1 (Ā2 + i B¯2 ), i 4γ (3) − α (3) = k1 (A3 + iB3 ),
2 2 2

sin ψ (1) = P1 + iQ1 , cos ψ (1) = P2 + iQ2 , sin ψ (2) = P3 + iQ3 , cos ψ (2) = P4 + iQ4
α (1) h1 α (2) h2 α (1) h1 α (2) h2
e− 2 e− 2 4Ḡ(1) e 2 e− 2
L0 = (L¯0 + iL0 ), L1 = − (L¯1 + iL1 ),
(A21 + B12 )(Ā2 + B¯2 ) Ḡ(2) (A21 + B12 )(Ā2 + B¯2 )
2 2 2 2

α (1) h1 α (2) h2 α (1) h1 α (2) h2

2i Ḡ(2) e− 2 2 (1)
¯2 + iL2 ), L3 = − 2i Ḡ e
e 2 e 2
L2 = − (L (L¯3 + iL3 ) (19)
(A21 + B12 )(Ā2 + B¯2 ) (A21 + B12 )(Ā2 + B¯2 )
2 2 2 2
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224 Page 7 of 19 224

where q¯3 , and q3 are given in the Appendix. Ā2 , B¯2 , A3 , (j )
the conditions α (j ) → 0, δ = 0, δ1 = 0, ρ11 = ρ (j ) ,
(j )

B3 , Pj , Qj , L̄t , and Lt for j = 1(1)4 and t = 0(1)3 are (j ) (j ) (j ) (j )

and ρ12 = ρ22 = ρ13 = ρ33 = 0, j = 1, 2, 3 in Eq. 22
obtained by rigorous mathematical derivation.
Using Eqs. 16 and 18, we get for n = 2 Ḡ(2) Ḡ(3) q¯2 q¯3 − Ḡ(2) Ḡ(1) q¯2 q¯1 tan(q¯1 k1 h1 )
tan(q¯2 k1 h2 ) =
Ḡ(2) q¯2 2 + Ḡ(3) Ḡ(1) q¯3 q¯1 tan(q¯1 k1 h1 )
2

4Ḡ(1) C2 e α (1) h1 (25)

C1 C 3 − D1 D3 = (20) $ $ $
Ḡ(2) (A21 + B12 ) where q¯1 = c2 c2 2
2 − 1, q¯2 =
cs1 2 − 1, q¯3 =
cs2
1 − c2 ,
cs3

Ḡ(j )
4Ḡ(1) D2 eα h1
(1) csj = ρ (j )
, j = 1, 2, 3. Equation 25 represents the
D1 C 3 + C 1 D3 = (21) dispersion equation of Love-type wave propagating in an
Ḡ(2) (A21 + B12 )
isotropic homogeneous layer mediated between an isotropic
homogeneous layer and a isotropic homogeneous half-
where C1 , C2 , C3 , D1 , D2 , and D3 are expressed in the space.
Appendix. Equations 20 and 21 are the respective dispersion (iii) In addition to the aforementioned conditions, when
and attenuation equations of SH-wave propagation in one- the mediated layer is absent (i.e., h2 = 0), we get Eq. 24
layered model. which is the classical Love wave dispersion equation.
Using Eqs. 17 and 19, we get for n = 3

4L¯21 eα
(2) h
2 Stability analysis, phase and group velocity
L¯11 D  − L11 D  = (22)
Ḡ(3)
A finite rectangular region of the developed model is
considered for applying the finite difference approach.
4L21 eα
(2) h
2
L11 D  + L¯11 D  = (23) Discretizing the xz-plane, a grid with equal increment in x
Ḡ(3) and z along x- and z-axis is introduced, respectively. The
time axis is also discretized by considering step length t.
where L¯11 , L11 , L¯21 , L21 , D  , and D  are shown in the Therefore, the space and time grids are defined as
Appendix. Equations 22 and 23 are the respective dispersion xl = lx, zm = mz, tq = qt
and attenuation equations of SH-wave propagation in two-
layered model. By using Eqs. 2, 3, and 4 and applying the inhomogeneity
and the finite difference method in Eq. 1, we get

(q+1) (q) (q−1)

Validation of the problem ws2(l,m) − 2ws2(l,m) + ws2(l,m)
ρ¯11
(t)2
(i) For n = 2, when the two media (i.e., one heterogeneous (q+1) (q) (q−1)
double porous layer and an inhomogeneous double porous wm2(l,m) − 2wm2(l,m) + wm2(l,m)
+ ρ¯12
half-space) become isotropic homogeneous, we get the (t)2
following equation by applying the conditions α (j ) → (q+1)
wf 2(l,m)
(q) (q−1)
− 2wf 2(l,m) + wf 2(l,m)
(j ) (j ) (j ) (j ) (j )
0, δ = 0, δ1 = 0, ρ11 = ρ (j ) , and ρ12 = ρ22 = ρ13 = + ρ¯13
(j ) (t)2
ρ33 = 0, j = 1, 2 in Eq. 20 (q+1) (q−1)
ws2(l,m) − ws2(l,m)
$ ¯ + ζ13
+ (ζ12 ¯ )
2t
!" # Ḡ(2) 1 − c2
2
(q+1) (q−1) (q+1) (q−1)
c2 cs2 wm2(l,m) − wm2(l,m) wf 2(l,m) − wf 2(l,m)
tan − 1 k 1 h1 = $ (24) ¯
− ζ12 ¯
− ζ13
2
cs1 2 2t 2t
Ḡ(1) c2 − 1
cs1 (q) (q) (q)
ws2(l+1,m) − 2ws2(l,m) + ws2(l−1,m)
= Ḡ
Equation 24 represents the classical Love wave dispersion (x)2
(q) (q) (q)
equation. ws2(l,m+1) − 2ws2(l,m) + ws2(l,m−1)
+ Ḡ (26)
(ii) For n = 3, when the three media (i.e., two het- (z)2
erogeneous double porous layers and a lowermost inho- (q) (q)
ws2(l,m+1) − ws2(l,m−1)
mogeneous double porous half-space) become isotropic + Ḡ sinh(αz) ,
homogeneous, we get the following equation by applying 2(z)2
224 Page 8 of 19 Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224

(q+1) (q) (q−1)

ws2(l,m) − 2ws2(l,m) + ws2(l,m) By substituting λ = 2π
k1 and p = cs0 x , where p refers to
t
ρ¯12 the Courant number, in Eq. 30 and using Eq. 31, we get
(t)2
(q+1) (q) (q−1) 
wm2(l,m) − 2wm2(l,m) + wm2(l,m) c pπ x
+ρ¯22 sin [I1∗ + I3∗ + I5∗ ]
(t)2 cs0 λ
(q+1) (q−1) (q+1) (q−1) ⎛ ⎞2
ws2(l,m) −ws2(l,m) wm2(l,m) −wm2(l,m) ! #
¯
−ζ12 ¯
+ ζ12 = 0, (27) ⎜ p ⎟ 2F2∗ F3∗
2t 2t = Ḡ ⎜
⎝$
⎟
⎠ 2F1∗ + − (32)
Ḡ[2(1−δ 2 )+ kα δ] d12 d12
1
(q+1) (q) (q−1) ρ¯11
ws2(l,m) − 2ws2(l,m) + ws2(l,m)
ρ¯13
(t)2 Ij∗ , j = 1(2)5 and Fj∗ , j = 1(1)3 are defined in the
(q+1) (q) (q−1) (q+1) (q−1) Appendix. Equation 32 determines the phase velocity of
wf 2(l,m) −2wf 2(l,m) +wf 2(l,m) ws2(l,m) −ws2(l,m)
+ρ¯33 ¯
− ζ13 SH-waves for x = z.
(t)2 2t Differentiating Eq. 30 with respect to k1 provides
(q+1) (q−1)
wf 2(l,m) − wf 2(l,m)
¯
+ζ13 =0 % 
(I1∗ +I3∗ +I5∗ )
(28) ∂ω
2t ∂k1 c pπ x (I I I ) (I V )
cos +(I1 +I3
cs0 2 cs0 λ
The initial errors in ws2 , wm2 , and wf 2 are considered at  &
c pπ x Ḡp
t = 0 to evaluate the stability criterion of this considered +I5(I V ) ) sin =
cs0 λ Ḡ[2(1−δ 2 )+ kα δ]
1
model. By considering the wave number as a complex ρ¯11
quantity (i.e., k = k1 (1 + iδ)), the expressions of errors at ⎡  ⎤
(I I I ) (I I I ) 2παd1 x
2F2 F3 sinh k1 λ
(l, m, q) are given by ⎣2F (I I I ) + − ⎦ (33)
1 d1 d1
(q)
E(ws2(l,m) ) = M1 exp[−k1 δ(lx + mz)] exp[−iω(qt)
(I I I ) (I V ) (I V ) (I I I )
+ik1 (lx) + ik1 (mz)] where I1 , I3 , I5 , and Fj , j = 1(1)3 are
(q) derived by rigorous mathematical calculations. Equation 33
E(wm2(l,m) ) = M2 exp[−k1 δ(lx + mz)] exp[−iω(qt)
represents the group velocity of SH-waves for x = z.
+ik1 (lx) + ik1 (mz)] By considering x = z and comparing real compo-
(q)
E(wf 2(l,m) ) = M3 exp[−k1 δ(lx + mz)] exp[−iω(qt) nents of both sides in Eq. 30, we get
+ik1 (lx) + ik1 (mz)] (29)  
ωt t 2
sin [I1 + I3 + I5 ] = Ḡ
Corresponding to fixed k1 , the dispersion relation ω(k1 ), 2 x
which will indicate that the error is dependent on time, [4{cos(k1 x) cosh(k1 δx) − 1}
should be determined. As these errors satisfy the solution of − sinh(αx) cos(k1 x) sinh(k1 δx)] (34)
the system, substituting Eq. 29 in Eqs. 26, 27, and 28 and
ωt

equating real components from both sides, we get For the stability of the model, | sin 2 | must not exceed
 1. Therefore, we get from Eq. 34
ωt
sin [I1 + I3 + I5 ] 
2 t 2
!    # Ḡ [4{cos(k1 x) cosh(k1 δx) − 1}
t 2 t 2 t 2 x
= Ḡ 2F1 +2F2 −F3 (30) − sinh(αx) cos(k1 x) sinh(k1 δx)] ≤ I1 +I3 +I5 (35)
x d1 x d1 x
' (
where I1 + I3 + I5 ≤ 4 −ρ¯11 + ρρ¯12¯22 + ρρ¯13¯33 .
2 2

where d1 = z
x .
F1 , F2 , F3 , I1 , I3 , and I5 are defined in
the Appendix. Equation 35 indicates the stability criterion of the het-
By assuming the approximation sin δ = δ, cos δ = erogeneous fractured porous multilayered model. Conse-
2 2 quently, ω becomes real and the error becomes time inde-
1 − δ2 , sinh δ = δ, and cosh δ = 1 + δ2 up to second order
pendent. For a small value of δ, let us consider sin(δ) =
in Eq. 30, we get 2 2
δ, cos(δ) = 1 − δ2 , sinh(δ) = δ, and cosh(δ) = 1 + δ2 .
" Using these approximations in Eq. 34 in case of small x
ω Ḡ[2(1 − δ 2 ) + α
k1 δ] and t, the local phase velocity of SH-waves for x = z
cs0 = = (31)
k1 ρ¯11 is obtained which exactly matches with Eq. 31.
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224 Page 9 of 19 224

By considering λ = 2π
k1 and ω = k1 c, we get 1.8

⎛ ⎞2 1. δ = 0.010
 2. δ = 0.035
c pπ x ⎜ p ⎟
sin [I1∗ + I3∗ + I5∗ ] = Ḡ ⎜
⎝$
⎟
⎠ 3. δ = 0.060
cs0 λ Ḡ[2(1−δ 2 )+ kα δ]
1 1.6 4. δ = 0.085
ρ¯11
% )   *
2π x 2π δx
× 4 cos cosh − 1 − sinh(αx)
λ λ
  &
2π x 2π δx

c cs1
cos sinh (36) 1.4
λ λ

%


(I1∗ + I3∗ + I5∗ )
∂ω
∂k1 c pπ x 4
cos 1.2 3
cs0 2 cs0 λ


& 2
(I I I ) (I V ) (I V ) c pπ x 1
+(I1 + I3 + I5 ) sin
cs0 λ
%
Ḡp 1.0
= 2 α 4{δ cos(k1 x) sinh(k1 δx)
Ḡ[2(1−δ )+ k δ] 0 2 4 6 8
1
ρ¯11 k 1 h1
− sin(k1 x) cosh(k1 δx) }

Fig. 3 Phase velocity (c/cs1 ) vs. wave number (k1 h1 ) for attenuation
2π αx
− sinh {δ cos(k1 x) cosh(k1 δx)
k1 λ
&
− sin(k1 x) sinh(k1 δx)}
Equations 36 and 37 illustrate the expressions for the phase
and group velocities of SH-waves, respectively, when x =
z.
Numerical calculations and graphical
discussions
Using Eqs. 20 and 21, the effects of the attenuation coeffi-
cient, wave velocity, porosity, and heterogeneity parameter
are illustrated in various 2D graphs. Figures 3(1)8 exhibit
the dispersion and attenuation features of SH-wave propaga-
tion in a heterogeneous fractured porous layer overlying an
inhomogeneous cracked poroelastic half-space. In Figs. 3,
5, and 7, the dimensionless phase velocity (c/cs1 ) is plotted
against the dimensionless wave number (k1 h1 ) to highlight
the dispersive nature of SH-wave. The damping proper-
ties are illustrated by plotting the attenuation coefficient
(Log(δ)) against the dimensionless wave number (k1 h1 ) in
Figs. 4, 6, and 8. Variations in the wave velocity (c) and the
attenuation coefficient (Log(δ)) with respect to the width
(h1 ) of heterogeneous fractured porous layer are plotted in
Figs. 9 and 10, respectively, for observing the modal behav-
ior of SH-wave. Moreover, the changes in the phase and
group velocities with respect to the variations in several fac-
tors such as the attenuation coefficient, porosity, Courant
number, discretization ratio, heterogeneity parameter are
coefficient (δ) values of 0.010, 0.035, 0.060, and 0.085
(37) observed through graphical implementations according to
Eqs. 32 and 33. The phase velocity (c/cs0 ) is represented
on the y-axis in Figures 11(2)19, and the group veloc-
ity ((∂ω/∂k1 )/cs0 ) is represented on the y-axis in Fig-
ures 12(2)20. The x-axis represents the dispersion param-
eter (x/λ) in Figures 11(1)20. Figure 21 displays a
comparison of SH-wave dispersion in the fractured porous
layered structure and isotropic layered system. In this figure,
the dimensionless phase velocity (c/cs2 ) is plotted against
the dimensionless wave number (k1 h2 ) for detecting the
difference in SH-wave dispersion in the aforementioned
structures when n = 2 (i.e., one layer resting over a half-
space) and n = 3 (i.e., two layers overlying a half-space).
Numerical values of required parameters related to frac-
tured porous layer and half-space are obtained from Dai and
Kuang (2006);
(1) (2)
G = 3 GPa, G = 12 GPa, ρs = 3000 kg/m3 ,
ρl = 1000 kg/m3 ,
ηl = 10−3 Pa S, κ11 = 10−16 m2 , κ22 = 10−12 m2
For the propagation of SH-waves, the upper and lower
bounds of the wave velocity must be approximately equal
to SH-wave velocity in the lowermost half-space and
overlying layer, respectively. Therefore, it is calculated that
1067.57 m/s < c < 2019.05 m/s in the considered structure
consisting of one heterogeneous fractured porous layer
overlying an inhomogeneous fractured porous half-space.
224 Page 10 of 19
Effects of the variation in the attenuation coefficient
and wave velocity
Figure 3 displays the effect of the variation in the attenuation
coefficient (δ) on the dimensionless phase velocity of SH-
wave. The values of δ in the figure are 0.01, 0.035, 0.06,
and 0.085. As δ increases, the phase velocity decreases.
When the dimensionless wave number (k1 h1 ) lies between
0.6 and 2, no variation is observed in the phase velocity.
However, when k1 h1 is higher than 2, the phase velocity
decreases with increasing δ and the differences between
consecutive curves widens rapidly. When k1 h1 increases
from 0.6 to 2, the phase velocity decreases considerably.
Specifically, the wave velocity suddenly decreases from
1921.63 m/s when k1 h1 = 0.6 to 1314.18 m/s when
k1 h1 = 2. In a large range of the dimensionless wave
number, curve 4 exhibits a less destructive nature than curve
1 due to the descending nature of phase velocity. During
an earthquake, the SH-wave with a low value of δ has high
destruction power in the considered one-layered model.
The variation in the attenuation coefficient with respect to
ascending values of the wave velocity (c) is displayed in
Fig. 4. The lowest value of c is considered as 1300 m/s,
and the value is increased by 200 m/s in each successive
stage. Figure 4 indicates that the attenuation coefficient is
directly proportional to the wave velocity. For higher values
of dimensionless wave number, the distance between the
curves increases. Moreover, as the wave velocity increases,
the damping nature of the SH-wave is enhanced.
1 1.6
2 1
2 3.
3 4.
4
3
Log δ
4
1. c = 1300
2. c = 1500
5
3. c = 1700
4. c = 1900
6 1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
k1 h1
Fig. 4 Attenuation coefficient (Log[δ]) vs. wave number (k1 h1 ) for
wave velocity (c) values of 1300, 1500, 1700, and 1900
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224
Effects of the total porosity and dimensionless
heterogeneity parameter on the dispersion
and attenuation
The effect of the total porosity (t ) is displayed in Figs. 5
and 6. As the total porosity gradually increases, the phase
velocity decreases (Fig. 5). Minimal variation is observed
between dispersion curves 1 and 2 (when t = 0.28432 and
0.48312, respectively), whereas a considerable difference is
observed between curves 3 and 4 (when t = 0.68192 and
0.88072, respectively). The total porosity has a substantial
effect on the phase velocity in the k1 h1 range of 0.3–2.
The variation in the phase velocity with the total porosity
becomes nominal in the k1 h1 range of 2–4. As k1 h1
increases further and reaches 6, curves 1 and 2 overlap.
Moreover, when k1 h1 is 8, curves 1, 2, and 3 overlap.
Thus, as the value of k1 h1 increases, the effect of total
porosity on the phase velocity decreases. Therefore, if the
total porosity of cracked porous material increases, the
destructive power of SH-waves decreases for low values
of k1 h1 , which implies that the aforementioned material is
suitable for geological and engineering purposes. Figure 6
indicates that an inverse proportionality relationship exists
between the attenuation coefficient and total porosity for t
values are considered in Fig. 5. The attenuation curves in
Figure 6 exhibit a similar nature for each value of t . When
the dimensionless wave number increases beyond 2, the
distance between successive curves increases substantially.
Furthermore, the increment in the attenuation coefficient
1
2
1. t = 0.28432
3
1.5 2. t = 0.48312
4
t = 0.68192
t = 0.88072
1.4
c cs1
1.3
1.2
1.1
4.5 0 2 4 6 8
k 1 h1
Fig. 5 Phase velocity (c/cs1 ) vs. wave number (k1 h1 ) for total porosity
(t ) values of 0.28432, 0.48312, 0.68192, and 0.88072
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224 Page 11 of 19 224

1 1.8

1
1. = 0.5
k1
2 1
1.6 2. = 0.6
4 k1
3
2 1
1 3. = 0.7
k1
3
1
4. = 0.8

c cs1
Log δ

k1
1.4

4
1. t = 0.28432 1.2 3
2
5 2. t = 0.48312 1
3. t = 0.68192
4. t = 0.88072

6 1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0 2 4 6 8
k1 h1 k1 h1

Fig. 6 Attenuation coefficient (Log[δ]) vs. wave number (k1 h1 ) for Fig. 7 Phase velocity (c/cs1 ) vs. wave number (k1 h1 ) for heterogene-
(1)
total porosity (t ) values of 0.28432, 0.48312, 0.68192, and 0.88072 ity parameter ( αk1 ) values of 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8

with the total porosity for each curve is higher between the repulsion between the curves is clearly visible. When
k1 h1 = 1.5 and 2.5 than beyond k1 h1 = 2.5. Figure 6 k1 h1 is approximately 2.6, the distance between the curves
indicates that the SH-wave undergoes favorable attenuation begins to decrease. Thus, for a particular range of the
with a decrease in the total porosity. dimensionless wave number, the inhomogeneity factor has
Figures 7 and 8 display the effects of the dimensionless a favorable effect on the attenuation of SH-waves.
heterogeneity parameter on the dispersion and damping of
SH-waves, respectively. Curves 1, 2, 3, and 4 correspond
(1) 1
to αk1 = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8, respectively, in
both graphical representations. Figure 7 indicates that
an inverse proportionality relationship exists between
the dimensionless phase velocity and the heterogeneity 2
parameter, whereas Fig. 8 reveals that the attenuation 1
2
coefficient is directly proportional to the dimensionless 3
heterogeneity parameter. As displayed in Fig. 7, a rapid 3 4
change occurs in the phase velocity within a k1 h1 range
Log δ

of 0.5–2. Moreover, no variation between the curves is 1

1. = 0.5
observed within this k1 h1 range. Beyond a k1 h1 value of 2, 4 k1

the distances between curves 1, 2, and 3 are approximately 2.

1
= 0.6
k1
similar, whereas the distance between curves 3 and 4 varies
(1) 1
with increasing k1 h1 . Specifically, up to αk1 = 0.7, all 3.
k1
= 0.7
5
α (1)
the curves exhibit similar behavior; however, when is k1 4.
1
= 0.8
k1
greater than 0.7, the amount of decrement in the phase
velocity changes. Thus, as the inhomogeneity of cracked
6
porous material increases, SH-waves hit the ground with 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
a decreased velocity. Consequently, surface wave, which
k 1 h1
are less damaging, would be generated. As displayed in
Fig. 8, when k1 h1 increases from 1.2, marginal variation Fig. 8 Attenuation coefficient (Log[δ]) vs. wave number (k1 h1 ) for
(1)
occurs between the curves. Beyond a k1 h1 value of 1.5, heterogeneity parameter ( αk1 ) values of 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8
224 Page 12 of 19 Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224

Modal behavior of SH-wave dispersion 1

and attenuation 2π
1. = 0.08
2π
The wave velocity and attenuation coefficient are plotted 2
2. = 0.06
with respect to the variation in the wavelength in Figs. 9 and 3. =
2π
0.04
10, respectively. In both figures, curves 1–3 correspond to
λ = 0.08
2π 2π
, 0.06 2π
, and 0.04 respectively. The lowest wavelength
3
produces the fundamental mode, and as the wavelength

Log δ
increases, higher modes are generated gradually. According
to Fig. 9, the wave velocity and wavelength are directly
proportional, whereas Fig. 10 indicates that the attenuation 4 3.2nd Higher

coefficient and wavelength are inversely proportional. In

both the Figs. 9 and 10, the fundamental mode is obtained 2.1st Higher

for λ = 0.08 2π
, first higher mode is obtained for λ = 5
2π
0.06 , and second higher mode is obtained for λ = 0.04 2π
. 1.Fundamental
The wavelength affects the wave velocity and attenuation
coefficient favorably for a wide range of h. 6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Effects of the attenuation coefficient, total porosity h1
and dimensionless heterogeneity parameter
Fig. 10 Attenuation coefficient (Log[δ]) vs. width of layer (h1 ) for
on the phase and group velocities 2π
wavelength (λ) values of 0.08 2π
, 0.06 2π
, and 0.04

The attenuation coefficient δ influences the phase and group

velocities, as displayed in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. As
the attenuation coefficient increases from 0.008, the phase
velocity decreases (Fig. 11). Within a dispersion parameter
( x
λ ) range of 0.1–0.6, the variation in δ has no effect on
the phase velocity. After x λ attains a value of 0.6, the
different curves in Fig. 11 proceed with different phase
velocities. When x λ is 1.3, the differences between the
curves gradually decreases. A similar effect is observed on
the group velocity up to a certain value of the dispersion
parameter (Fig. 12). The group velocity begins to decrease
beyond x λ = 0.5, and a noticeable change is observed
within all four curves up to a x
λ value of 1.1. The curves
intersect at x
λ = 1.1, and a reverse feature is observed
beyond this value.

2000
2π 1.2
1. = 0.08
3.2nd Higher
2π
2. = 0.06
1800 2π
3. = 0.04
1.0
Phase velocity c cs0

2.1st Higher 1
1600 2
3
c

0.8 4

1400
1. Fundamental
1. δ = 0.008
0.6 2. δ = 0.040
1200 3. δ = 0.080
4. δ = 0.100

0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
h1 Dispersion parameter x

Fig. 9 Wave velocity (c) vs. width of layer (h1 ) for wavelength (λ) Fig. 11 Phase velocity (c/cs0 ) vs. dispersion parameter (x/λ) for
2π 2π 2π
values of 0.08 , 0.06 , and 0.04 attenuation coefficient (δ) values of 0.008, 0.040, 0.080, and 0.100
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224 Page 13 of 19 224

4
3
1.2 2
1. δ = 0.008 1.5 1 1. t = 0.36384
2. δ = 0.040 2. t = 0.41184
3. δ = 0.080 3. t = 0.45984
1.0
4. δ = 0.100 4. t = 0.50784
k1 cs0

k1 cs0
0.8 1.0
Group velocity

Group velocity
0.6
1
2 0.5
0.4 3
4

0.2

0.0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Dispersion parameter x Dispersion parameter x

Fig. 12 Group velocity ((∂ω/∂k1 )/cs0 ) vs. dispersion parameter Fig. 14 Group velocity ((∂ω/∂k1 )/cs0 ) vs. dispersion parameter
(x/λ) for attenuation coefficient (δ) values of 0.008, 0.040, 0.080, (x/λ) for total porosity (t ) values of 0.36384, 0.41184, 0.45984,
and 0.100 and 0.50784

the curves come close to each other and converge at a par-

The effects of the total porosity (t ) on the phase and
ticular point. Figure 14 indicates that the group velocity is
group velocities are displayed in Figs. 13 and 14, respec-
direct proportional to the total porosity for a low range of
tively. According to Fig. 13, the phase velocity decreases
as t increases from 0.36384 to 0.41184, 0.45984, and
the dispersion parameter (i.e., from x λ = 0.1 to 0.4). As
x
0.50784. Differences between the curves are clearly noticed λ exceeds this range, all the curves coincide with each
other. In a xλ range of 0.4–1.3, the group velocity of every
throughout the considered domain. Beyond x λ = 1.3, all
curve changes simultaneously. Up to a x λ value of 0.9, the
group velocity decreases, and between x λ values of 0.9 and
1 1.1, all the curves have a constant group velocity. Beyond
2
λ = 1.1, all the curves move downwards and converge
x
3
1.0 4 at a certain point. Moreover, a comparison of Figs. 13 and
14 indicates that the point of convergence for the phase
velocity has higher value than that for the group veloc-
0.8 ity. Specifically, the phase velocity curves converge to 0 at
λ = 2, whereas the group velocity curves converge to 0 at
x
Phase velocity c cs0

λ = 1.3.
x

0.6 Figures 15 and 16 illustrate the influence of the dimen-

sionless heterogeneity parameter ( kα1 ) on the phase and
group velocities, respectively. The values of kα1 in the two
0.4 figures are 0.05, 0.35, 0.65, and 0.95. According to the
1. t = 0.36384 figures, the phase and group velocities decrease with an
2. t = 0.41184 increase in kα1 . According to Fig. 15, when x λ has contin-
3. t = 0.45984 uous values between 0.1 and 0.7, the phase velocity is not
0.2
affected by the variation in kα1 . Beyond x λ = 0.7, the varia-
4. t = 0.50784
tion in kα1 value has a substantial effect on the phase velocity.
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 However, all the curves are not equally spaced. The distance
Dispersion parameter x between curves 1 and 2 is very small, whereas the distances
between curves 2 and 3 and between curves 3 and 4 are
Fig. 13 Phase velocity (c/cs0 ) vs. dispersion parameter (x/λ) for
total porosity (t ) values of 0.36384, 0.41184, 0.45984, and 0.50784 relatively large. Therefore, when kα1 has a value close to 1,
224 Page 14 of 19 Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224

1.2 α
1.2 1. = 0.05
k1
α
2. = 0.35
k1
1.0 α
3. = 0.65

k1 cs0
k1
1.0 α
4. = 0.95
Phase velocity c cs0

k1
0.8

Group velocity
1
0.8 2
3 0.6
4
1. = 0.05
k1

2. = 0.35
k1
0.4
0.6 1 2
3. = 0.65 3 4
k1

4. = 0.95
k1 0.2

0.4
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Dispersion parameter x Dispersion parameter x

Fig. 15 Phase velocity (c/cs0 ) vs. dispersion parameter (x/λ) for Fig. 16 Group velocity ((∂ω/∂k1 )/cs0 ) vs. dispersion parameter
(1) (1)
heterogeneity parameter ( αk1 ) values of 0.05, 0.35, 0.65, and 0.95 (x/λ) for heterogeneity parameter ( αk1 ) values of 0.05, 0.35, 0.65,
and 0.95

the variation in the phase velocity is effectively observed.
In Fig. 16, all the group velocity curves possess equal val-
ues up to xλ = 0.6 as k1 increases. Beyond this value, the
α
curves differ from each other visibly; however, the distance
between curves 1 and 2 is negligible. The group velocity
varies significantly when the values of kα1 are close to 1.
Moreover, each curve displays a constant group velocity
within the xλ range of 0.85–1.
Effects of the discretization ratio and Courant
number on the phase and group velocities
Figures 17 and 18 display the variation in the phase and
z
group velocities with the discretization ratio ( x ), respec-
z
tively. The parameter x has the values of 0.4, 0.42, 0.44,
and 0.46 in both the figures, and its effects on the phase
and group velocities are approximately similar. Figures 17
and 18 indicate that both the phase and group velocities
are inversely proportional to the discretization ratio. When
x
λ varies from 0.1 to 0.4, the discretization ratio has a
minor effect on the phase velocity (Fig. 17); however,
values. By contrast, the discretization ratio has major effect
on the group velocity throughout the considered domain.
When the dispersion parameter is between 0.4 and 0.75, a
sudden decrease in the group velocity is observed for each
curve. Beyond this range, moderate changes occur in curves
1, 2, and 3 up to a xλ value of 0.85 and in curve 4 up to
x
a λ value of 0.9. Finally, all the curves begin to descend
with increasing values of xλ .
The Courant number (p) moderately affects the phase
and group velocities, as displayed in Figs. 19 and 20. As
p varies from 0.2 to 0.32, curves 1, 2, 3, and 4 are
successively generated. Figures 19 and 20 indicate that
the phase and group velocities are directly proportional to
the Courant number. As displayed in Fig. 19, each curve
significantly differs from its adjacent curve throughout
the entire dispersion parameter range. The phase velocity
changes gradually with the dispersion parameter (i.e., no
sudden change is observed). All the curves converge to 0 at
λ = 2. Figure 20 displays the considerable decrease in the
x
group velocity within a very short range of the dispersion
parameter (i.e., up to x λ = 0.8). Beyond λ = 0.8,
x

beyond x λ = 0.4, the discretization ratio has a consid-
erable effect on the phase velocity. As x
λ increases, the
distances between all the successive curves increase rapidly.
In other words, the discretization ratio has major effect on
the phase velocity for a high range of dispersion parameter
approximately constant group velocity is observed up to
λ = 0.95. Beyond a dispersion parameter value of 0.95,
x
all the curves proceed downwards and converges to 0 at
λ = 1.3. Thus, the group velocity converges faster than
x
the phase velocity.
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224 Page 15 of 19 224

1.2
1.2

1.0
4
1.0 3
Phase velocity c cs0

Phase velocity c cs0

2
0.8
1 1
2
0.8 3
4 0.6
z
1. = 0.40
x
z 1. p = 0.20
2. = 0.42 0.4
0.6 x 2. p = 0.24
z
3. = 0.44 3. p = 0.28
x
z 4. p = 0.32
4. = 0.46 0.2
x
0.4
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Dispersion parameter x Dispersion parameter x

Fig. 17 Phase velocity (c/cs0 ) vs. dispersion parameter (x/λ) for Fig. 19 Phase velocity (c/cs0 ) vs. dispersion parameter (x/λ) for
z
discretization ratio ( x ) values of 0.40, 0.42, 0.44, and 0.46 Courant number (p) values of 0.20, 0.24, 0.28, and 0.32

Comparative analysis of the SH-wave dispersion dashed curves represent an isotropic homogeneous layered
in the fractured porous and isotropic layered model structure. According to Eq. 25, curve 1 is plotted to
determine the phase velocity of SH-waves when n = 3.
In Fig. 21, the smooth curves represent a fractured porous After removing the uppermost layer, curve 2 is obtained,
layered structure consisting of inhomogeneity and the which reflects the phase velocity of SH-waves for n =

1.2 z
1. = 0.40
x 1.2
z 1. p = 0.20
2. = 0.42
x 2. p = 0.24
1.0 z
3. = 0.44 1.0 3. p = 0.28
k1 cs0

x
4. p = 0.32
k1 cs0

z
4. = 0.46
x
0.8 0.8
Group velocity

Group velocity

0.6 1 0.6
2
3
4
0.4 0.4 4 3
2
1

0.2
0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0

Dispersion parameter x 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Dispersion parameter x
Fig. 18 Group velocity ((∂ω/∂k1 )/cs0 ) vs. dispersion parameter
z
(x/λ) for discretization ratio ( x ) values of 0.40, 0.42, 0.44, and Fig. 20 Group velocity ((∂ω/∂k1 )/cs0 ) vs. dispersion parameter
0.46 (x/λ) for Courant number (p) values of 0.20, 0.24, 0.28, and 0.32
224 Page 16 of 19
1.5
Double porous system
2. n=2 Isotropic system
1.4 4. n=2
1.3
c cs2
1.2
1.1
3. n=3
1. n=3
1.0
0.5 1.0 1.5
k1 h2
Fig. 21 Phase velocity (c/cs2 ) vs. wave number (k1 h2 ) in fractured
porous and isotropic systems for n = 2 (one layer) and 3 (two layers)
2. Moreover, curve 3 is obtained when applying certain
conditions. This curve indicates the dispersion feature of
SH-waves propagating in an isotropic homogeneous layer
located between an isotropic homogeneous layer and a
half-space. By eliminating the topmost medium, curve 4
is attained. Figure 21 indicates that the phase velocity
is greater when n = 2 than when n = 3 for both
systems, whereas a comparative study of the two systems
exhibits that the phase velocity has both an ascending and
a descending nature for n = 2 as well as 3. When n =
2, the phase velocity for the isotropic system is less than
that for the cracked porous system up to a k1 h2 value of
approximately 0.34. Within a k1 h2 range of 0.34–1.02, the
phase velocity for the isotropic system is larger than that of
the cracked porous system. Beyond a k1 h2 value of 1.02,
the aforementioned trend begins to reverse. When n = 3,
the phase velocity for the isotropic system is considerably
higher than that for the fractured porous model within a
k1 h2 range of approximately 0.21–0.48. Over the rest of
the domain, SH-waves propagate with higher velocity in the
two-layered fractured porous model than in the isotropic
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224
model. In the presence of an additional layer, the phase
velocity decreases considerably, which implies that the two-
layered model has a higher stability than the one-layered
model. This finding is the most significant one obtained
from Fig. 21.
Conclusions
The major outcomes of this study are as follows:
• The dispersion and attenuation of SH-waves are unaf-
fected by the matrix and fracture pore fluid pressures.
• When the value of the Courant number increases,
the accuracy of the finite difference technique also
increases. Therefore, the multilayer model becomes
considerably more stabilized.
2.0 • If the material becomes highly porous and inhomoge-
neous, the phase velocity of SH-waves decreases effec-
tively, which leads to the stability of the one-layered
model.
• The attenuation coefficient has a favourable effect on
the dimensionless phase and group velocities. The total
porosity and inhomogeneity parameter have adverse
effects on the group velocity. By contrast, the porosity
and heterogeneity factor have significant effects on the
phase velocity.
• Variation in the discretization ratio causes significant
changes in the phase and group velocities. By contrast,
the dimensionless phase and group velocities are
affected minimally by the Courant number.
• In case of both heterogeneous cracked porous system
and isotropic homogeneous structure, the two-layered
model exhibits considerably increased stability than
one-layered model as the phase velocity of SH-waves
decreases. Consequently, when propagating through
a multilayered structure, reduced damage will occur
during an earthquake.
• The use of the finite difference scheme in the space
and time domains ensures the precision and stability
of the considered model. For x = z and x =
z, the same expression for the local phase velocity is
obtained. This fact indicates the validity and stability of
the considered model.
• Second-order approximation is used to perform the
stability analysis and determine the phase and group
velocities which provides high-accuracy results.
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224 Page 17 of 19 224

Appendix

(j ) (j )2 (j )2 (j ) (j )2 (j )2
s1 = ζ̄12 + ω2 ρ̄22 , s2 = ζ̄13 + ω2 ρ̄33 ,
⎡ ⎤1
2

⎢ Ḡ(j ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
csj = ⎢ ⎥ ,
⎣ (j )
(j )2 (j ) (j )2 (j )
2ζ̄12 ρ̄12 +ζ̄12 ρ̄22 −ω2 ρ̄12 ρ̄22
(j )2 (j ) 2
(j ) (j ) 2
(j ) (j ) 2
(j ) (j )
2ζ̄13 ρ̄13 +ζ̄13 ρ̄33 −ω2 ρ̄13 ρ̄33 ⎦
ρ̄11 + (j ) + (j )
s1 s2
2
! (j ) (j ) (j ) (j ) (j ) (j )
#  2 ! #
ωcsj ζ̄12 (ρ̄12 + ρ̄22 )2 ζ̄13 (ρ̄13 + ρ̄33 )2 c δj c2
δj = (j )
+ (j )
, a1j = − (1 − δ ), b1j = 2
2
2
−δ ,
2Ḡ(j ) s1 s2 csj csj
+ +
, ,
, a 2 + b2 + a , a 2 + b2 − a
- 1j 1j 1j - 1j 1j 1j
q̄j = , qj = , j = 1, 2, 3,
2 2
α (1)
(A1 P1 + B1 Q1 ), C2 = (q¯1 2 − q1 )(A1 P1 + B1 Q1 ) − 2q¯1 q1 (A1 Q1 − B1 P1 ),
2
C 1 = P2 +
k1 (A21 + B12 )
α (1)
(A1 Q1 − B1 P1 ), D2 = (q¯1 2 − q1 )(A1 Q1 − B1 P1 ) + 2q¯1 q1 (A1 P1 + B1 Q1 ),
2
D 1 = Q2 +
k1 (A21 + B12 )
4Ḡ(1) eα h1 L¯1 4Ḡ(1) eα h1 L1 
(1) (1)
α (2)
C3 = + A2 , D3 = B2 , L¯11 = L¯0 − (2)
, L11 = L0 − (2)
,
k1 Ḡ Ḡ
2
L¯22 = P3 (q¯2 2 − q2 ) − 2q¯2 q2 Q3 , L22 = 2q¯2 q2 P3 + Q3 (q¯2 2 − q2 ),
2

   
¯ ¯ ¯ α (1) ¯ ¯ α (1)
L32 = (A1 A2 − B1 B2 ) A1 P2 − B1 Q2 + P1 + (A1 B2 + B1 A2 ) A1 Q2 + B1 P2 + Q1 ,
k1 k1
   
α (1) α (1)
L32 = (A1 A¯2 − B1 B¯2 ) A1 Q2 + B1 P2 + Q1 − (A1 B¯2 + B1 A¯2 ) A1 P2 − B1 Q2 + P1 ,
k1 k1

L¯23 = P1 (q¯1 2 − q1 ) − 2q¯1 q1 Q1 , L23 = Q1 (q¯1 2 − q1 ) + 2q¯1 q1 P1 ,
2 2

   
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ α (2) ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ α (2)
L33 = (A1 A2 − B1 B2 ) P4 A2 − Q4 B2 − P3 + (A1 B2 + B1 A2 ) P4 B2 + Q4 A2 − Q3 ,
k1 k1
   
α (2) α (2)
L33 = (A1 A¯2 − B1 B¯2 ) P4 B¯2 + Q4 A¯2 −

Q3 − (A1 B¯2 + B1 A¯2 ) P4 A¯2 − Q4 B¯2 − P3 ,
k1 k1
α (3)
L¯21 = Ḡ(2) L¯2 + Ḡ(1) eα h1 L¯3 , L21 = Ḡ(2) L2 + Ḡ(1) eα h1 L3 , D  = + A3 , D  = B3 ,
(1) (1)

k1
F1 = cos(k1 x) cosh(k1 δx) − 1, F2 = cos(k1 z) cosh(k1 δz) − 1, F3 = sinh(αz) cos(k1 z) sinh(k1 δz),




ωt ωt ωt
I1 = −4ρ¯11 sin , Rs = 16ρ¯jj 2 sin2 + 4ζ1j ¯ 2 (t)2 cos2 ,
2 2 2
%) 

* 


&
1 ωt ωt ωt ωt ωt
Ig = −4ζ1j¯ 2 (t)2 cos2 + 16ρ¯1j 2 sin2 × 4ρ¯jj sin − 32ζ1j¯ 2 (t)2 ρ¯1j sin cos2 ,
Rs 2 2 2 2 2



2 

πpcx πpcx px πpcx
I1∗ = −4ρ¯11 sin , Rs∗ = 16ρ¯jj sin2 ¯ 2
+ 4ζ1j cos2 ,
cs0 λ cs0 λ cs0 cs0 λ
%) 

*
1 px 2 πpcx πpcx
Ig∗ = ∗ −4ζ1j¯ 2( ) cos2 + 16ρ¯1j 2 sin2
Rs cs0 cs0 λ cs0 λ



&
πpcx px 2 πpcx πpcx
×4ρ¯jj sin − 32ζ1j ¯ (
2
) ρ¯1j sin cos2 , s = 1, 2, g = 3, 5, j = 2, 3
cs0 λ cs0 cs0 λ cs0 λ





2πx 2πδx 2πd1 x 2πd1 δx
F1∗ = cos cosh − 1, F2∗ = cos cosh − 1,
λ λ λ λ



2πd1 x 2πd1 δx
F3∗ = sinh(αd1 x) cos sinh .
λ λ
224 Page 18 of 19
Acknowledgments The authors are sincerely grateful to Indian
Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, India for
providing great opportunity, guidance, best facilities and equipments.
(r)
Notations G(r) , shear modulus of the rth layer; ρij , coupling mass
coefficient of the rth layer; ζij(r) ,
coupling viscosity coefficient of the
rth layer; α (r) , inhomogeneity parameter of rth layer; hr , width of
rth layer, r = 1, 2, ..., n − 1; ρs , density of the solid; ws2 , wm2 , wf 2 ,
displacement components of the solid, matrix pore fluid, and fracture
pore fluid along y-direction, respectively; ρl , ηl , density and shear
viscosity of the fluid in pores; Mp , Fp , macroscopic fluid pressures
in the matrix and fracture pores, respectively; mp , fp , fluid pressures
acting in the interior of matrix and fracture pores, respectively; Vm , Vf ,
volume fraction of the matrix and fracture pores; m , porosity of
the matrix pore; t , total porosity of the layer; τt , τm , τf , overall,
primary, and, secondary tortuosity vector, respectively; κ11 , κ22 ,
matrix and fracture permeability coefficients; mw , fw , increment of
the fluid in the matrix blocks and fracture pore, respectively; τij , υij ,
stress and strain components of the layer; Nij , elastic moduli of the
drainage system; nij , material parameters; ω, angular frequency; k,
wave number; c, phase velocity; p, Courant number
References
Anderson DL (1962) Love wave dispersion in heterogeneous
anisotropic media. Geophysics 27:445–454. https://doi.org/10.
1190/1.1439042
Barenblatt GI, Zheltow IP, Kochina TN (1960) Basic concepts in
the theory of seepage homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks.
J Appl Math Mech 24:1286–1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-
8928(60)90107-6
Bednarik RG (2019) Rock metamorphosis by kinetic energy. Emerg
Sci J 3:293–302. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2019-01192
Berryman JG, Wang HF (1995) The elastic coefficients of double-
porosity models for fluid transport in jointed rock. J Geophys
Res 100:34611–34627. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1029/
95JB02161
Berryman JG, Wang HF (2000) Elastic wave propagation and
attenuation in a double-porosity dual-permeability media. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 37:63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-
1609(99)00092-1
Beskos DE (1989) Dynamics of saturated rocks. I: Equations of
motion. J Eng Mech 115(5):982–995. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9399(1989)115:5(982)
Beskos DE, Vgenopoulou I, Providakis CP (1989) Dynamics of
saturated rocks, II: body waves. J Eng Mech 115(5):996–1016.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1989)115:5(996)
Biot MA (1956) Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a
fluid-saturated porous solid. I. Low frequency range. II. Higher
frequency range. J Acoust Soc Am 28(2):179–191. https://doi.org/
10.1121/1.1908241
Biot MA (1962) Mechanics of deformation and acoustic propagation
in porous media. J Appl Phys 33:1482–1498. https://doi.org/10.
1063/1.1728759
Chattopadhyay A, Gupta S, Singh AK (2010) The dispersion of shear
wave in multilayered magnetoelastic self-reinforced media. Int
J Solids Struct 47(9):1317–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.
2010.01.019
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224
Dai ZJ, Kuang ZB (2006) Love waves in double porosity media. J
sound vib 296(4-5):1000–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2006.
03.029
Dong LJ, Hu QC, Tong XJ, Liu YF (2020) Velocity-free MS/AE
source location method for three-dimensional hole-containing
structures. Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.12.016
Emerman SH, Schmidt W, Stephen RA (1982) An implicit finite-
difference formulation of the elastic wave equation. Geophysics
47:1521–1526. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441302
Gollob S, Kocur GK, Schumacher T, Mhamdi L, Vogel T (2017)
A novel multi-segment path analysis based on a heteroge-
neous velocity model for the localization of acoustic emission
sources in complex propagation media. Ultrasonics 74:48–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2016.09.024
Gupta S, Bhengra N (2017) Implementation of finite difference
approximation on the SH-wave propagation in a multilay-
ered magnetoelastic orthotropic composite medium. Acta Mech
228(10):3421–3444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00707-017-1884-6
Gupta S, Smita, Pramanik S (2017) SH-wave in a multilayered
orthotropic crust under initial stress: a finite difference approach.
Cogent Mathematics 4(1):1284294. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23311835.2017.1284294
Haskell NA (1953) The dispersion of surface waves in multilayered
media. Bull Seismol Soc Am 43:17–34. https://doi.org/10.1029/
SP030p0086
Hokmabadi NN, Sarfarazi V, Moshrefifar M (2016) Investiga-
tion of separation non-persistent faults in fracture mecha-
nism of rock bridge. Civil Engineering Journal 2(7):348–357.
https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2016-00000039
Hu Q, Dong L (2019) Acoustic emission source location and exper-
imental verification for two-dimensional irregular complex struc-
tures. IEEE Sens J, https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2019.2954200
Kakar R, Kakar S (2012) Propagation of Love waves in a non-
homogeneous elastic media. J Acad Ind Res 1(6):323–8
Kalyani VK, Sinha A, Chakraborty SK, Mahanti NC (2008) Finite
difference modeling of seismic wave propagation in monoclinic
media. Acta Geophys 56(4):1074. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11600-
008-0049-3
Ke LL, Wang YS, Zhang ZM (2005) Propagation of Love waves in
an inhomogeneous fluid saturated porous layered half-space with
properties varying exponentially. J Eng Mech 131(12):1322–1328.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:12(1322)
Ke LL, Wang YS, Zhang ZM (2006) Love waves in an inho-
mogeneous fluid saturated porous layered half-space with lin-
early varying properties. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(6-7):574–581.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.01.010
Kelly KR, Ward RW, Treitel S, Alford RM (1976) Synthetic
seismograms, a finite-difference approach. Geophysics 41:2–27.
https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440605
Moghaddam HN, Keyhani A, Aghayan I (2016) Modelling of
crack propagation in layered structures using extended finite
element method. Civil Engineering Journal 2(5):180–188.
https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2016-00000024
Pallavika VK, Chakraborty SK, Sinha A (2008) Finite dif-
ference modeling of SH-wave propagation in multilayered
porous crust. Journal of Indian Geophysical Union 12(4):165–
172
Saha S, Chattopadhyay A, Singh AK (2018) Numerical modelling of
SH-wave propagation in initially-stressed multilayered compos-
ite structures. Eng Computation, https://doi.org/10.1108/EC-05-
2018-0207
Arab J Geosci (2021) 14: 224
Thompson WT (1950) Transmission of elastic waves through a strati-
fied solid medium. J Appl Phys 21:89–93. https://doi.org/10.1063/
1.1699629
Warren JE, Root PJ (1963) The behavior of naturally fractured reser-
voirs. Soc Pet Eng J 3:245–255. https://doi.org/10.2118/426-PA
Wilson RK, Aifantis EC (1982) On the theory of consolidation with
double porosity. Int J Eng Sci 20:1009–1035. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0020-7225(82)90036-2
Page 19 of 19 224
Wilson RK, Aifantis EC (1984) A double porosity model for acoustic
wave propagation in fractured-porous rock. Int J Eng Sci 22:1209–
1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7225(84)90124-1
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.