Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Velocity, Porosity, Clay Relations

123
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

What Controls Amplitude over this

North Sea Turbidite?

Courtesy Per Avseth

Lithology, porosity, pore fluids, stresses

… but also sedimentation and diagenesis

124
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

“Life Story” of a Clastic Sediment

Burial

Deposition

L.1

Velocity-porosity relationship in clastic sediments and rocks. Data

from Hamilton (1956), Yin et al. (1988), Han et al. (1986). Compiled
by Marion, D., 1990, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Univ.

125
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Critical Porosity
We observe that the clastic sand-clay system is divided into
two distinct domains, separated by a critical porosity φc.
Above φc, the sediments are suspensions. Below φc , the
sediments are load-bearing.

L.1

126
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Critical Porosity

Traditionally, bounding methods have been considered not

very useful for quantitative predictions of velocity-porosity
relationships, because the upper and lower bounds are so
far apart when the end members are pure quartz and pure
water.
However, the separation into two domains above and below
the critical porosity helps us to recognize that the bounds are
in fact useful for predictive purposes.
• φ > φc, fluid-bearing suspensions. In the suspension
domain the velocities are described quite well by the Reuss
average (iso-stress condition).
• φ < φc, load-bearing frame. Here the situation appears to
be more complicated. But again, there is a relatively simple
pattern, and we will see that the Voigt average is useful.

127
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

L.2

The first thing to note is that the clean (clay free) materials
fall along a remarkably narrow trend. These range from
very low porosity, highly consolidated sandstones, to high
porosity loose sand.
(Data from Yin et al., 1988; Han et al., 1986. Compiled and
plotted by Marion, D., 1990, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford
University.

128
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Critical “Mush”

L.3

Amos Nur discovered that this narrow trend can be

described accurately with a modified Voigt bound. Recall
that bounds give a way to use the properties of the “pure”
end members to predict the properties in between. The trick
here is to recognize that the critical porosity marks the limits
of the domain of consolidated sediments, and redefine the
right end member to be the suspension of solids and fluids at
the critical porosity.

129
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

The Modified Voigt Bound

Velocity in rocks
M
VP =
ρ
ρ = (1− φ ) ρmineral + φρ fluid
The usual Voigt estimate of modulus

M = (1− φ ) Mmineral + φM fluid

Modified Voigt estimate of modulus
M = (1− φ ) Mmineral + φ M critical "mush"

φ
φ=
φc
0 ≤ φ ≤ φc 0≤φ ≤1

130
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Example of critical porosity behavior in sandstones.

L.4

131
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Data from Anselmetti and Eberli, 1997, in Carbonate Seismology, SEG.

132
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

133
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Chalks

L.5

134
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

L.6

135
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Han’s Laboratory Study on Effects of

Porosity and Clay in Sandstones

L.7

Han (1986, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University)

studied the effects of porosity and clay on 80 sandstone
samples represented here.

136
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Han’s Study on Phi-Clay in Sandstones

Clean sand line

Vp = (5.6-2.1C) - 6.9φ
C=.05
.15
.35 .25

Vs = (3.5-1.9C) - 4.9φ
C=.05
.25 .15
.35

L.8

Han (1986) found the usual result: velocities tend to decrease with
porosity, but with a lot of scatter about the regressions when clay
is present (water saturated).
137
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Han’s Relations (40 MPa)

Clean sandstones (10 samples)
VP = 6.08 – 8.06φ R = 0.99 2.1%
VS = 4.06 – 6.28φ R = 0.99 1.6%

Clay-bearing sandstones (70 samples)

Ignoring the clay
VP = 5.02 – 5.63φ R = 0.80 7.0%
VS = 3.03 – 3.78φ R = 0.70 10%
dry water saturated

Including a clay term

VP = 5.59 – 6.93φ – 2.18C R = 0.98 2.1%

VS = 3.52 – 4.91φ – 1.89C R = 0.95 4.3%

VP = 5.41 – 6.35φ – 2.87C R = 0.90

VS = 3.57 – 4.57φ – 1.83C R = 0.90

R = correlation coefficient; % = RMS

138
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Han’s empirical relations between ultrasonic Vp and Vs in km/s with porosity and clay
volume fractions.
Clean Sandstones (determined from 10 samples)
Water saturated
40 MPa Vp = 6.08 - 8.06φ Vs = 4.06 - 6.28φ
Shaly Sandstones (determined from 70 samples)
Water saturated
40 MPa Vp = 5.59 - 6.93φ - 2.18C Vs = 3.52 - 4.91φ - 1.89C
30 MPa Vp = 5.55 - 6.96φ - 2.18C Vs = 3.47 - 4.84φ - 1.87C
20 MPa Vp = 5.49 - 6.94φ - 2.17C Vs = 3.39 - 4.73φ - 1.81C
10 MPa Vp = 5.39 - 7.08φ - 2.13C Vs = 3.29 - 4.73φ - 1.74C
5 MPa Vp = 5.26 - 7.08φ - 2.02C Vs = 3.16 - 4.77φ - 1.64C
Dry
40 MPa Vp = 5.41 - 6.35φ - 2.87C Vs = 3.57 - 4.57φ - 1.83C

L.9

Han’s water-saturated ultrasonic velocity data at

40 MPa compared with his empirical relations
evaluated at four different clay fractions.

139
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

L.12

The critical porosity, modified Voigt bound

incorporating Han's clay correction.
140
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Unconsolidated Sand, shaley sand Shale, sandy shale

mixes of sand
and kaolinite

Mixtures have a minimum in porosity that is

less than either the sand or clay

observed

modeled

L.13

Porosity vs. clay weight fraction at various confining pressures. From

Dominique Marion, 1990, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Data
are from Yin, et al., 1988.

141
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Unconsolidated Sand, shaley sand Shale, sandy shale

mixes of sand
and kaolinite

Mixtures have a maximum in velocity

observed

modeled

L.14

Velocity vs. clay weight fraction at various confining pressures. From

Dominique Marion, 1990, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Data
are from Yin, et al., 1988.

142
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Dispersed sand-clay mixes tend to
form “V”-shape in various domains

L.15

Influence of clay content on velocity-porosity relationship at a

constant confining pressure (50 MPa). Distinct trends for shaly sand
and for shale are schematically superposed on experimental data on
sand-clay mixture. From Dominique Marion, 1990, Ph.D.
dissertation, Stanford University. Data are from Yin, et al., 1988, and
Han, 1986.

143
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Dispersed
Amoco's Well in clay “V”-shape
the Hastings in nphi-rhob
Field (On-Shore Gulf Coast)
domain
Density vs. Neutron Porosity Poorly
Consolidated Shaly Sands

2.00

Laminar Clay
2.10 Model

2.20
rhob (g/cm 3)

2.30

2.40 Dispersed ClayModel

Marion Model

2.50 Increasing Clay Content

2.60

2.70
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
L.18

nphi

144
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Example for fluvial sands

Statoil B, Brine Substituted
6000

5500 Each color represents a

5000
different fining-upward
sequence
4500

4000

sandy leg
Vp

3500

3000

2500
shaley leg
2000

1500

1000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Porosity

145
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Density Porosity vs. Neutron

Porosity in Shaly Sands

int
0.5 r po
e
at
w
To
0.4

nt
oi
rp
te
0.3

wa
G as Sd
φD

To
Sand

d s
an
0.2 A
e rS C
at
W
0.1 n
ea
Cl B Cl
Sh
t

Q Sh o
in
po

Q ua rtz 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

ay

Po in t
Cl
y

L.19
φN
Dr
To

Schlumberger, 1989

146
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Yin’s laboratory measurements on sand-clay

mixtures

L.20

147
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Yin’s laboratory measurements on

sand-clay mixtures
Permeability (Gas) vs. Porosity
4
10

0%
10 3
5%
Permeability (mD)

10 2 10%

20%
15% 30%
10 1 65%
25% 40% 100%
50%
0 85%
10
0 MPa
10 MPa
-1
10 20 MPa
30 MPa
50 MPa 40 MPa % clay content by weight
10 - 2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
L.21

Porosity

148
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

L.22

Permeability vs. porosity data in Gulf-Coast sandstones reflect the

primary influence of clay content on both permeability and porosity.
Kozeny-Carman relations for pure sand and pure shale are also shown
(dashed lines) to illustrate the effect of porosity on permeability. From
Dominique Marion, 1990, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

149
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Yin's laboratory measurements on

sand-clay mixtures.

L.23

150
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Velocity-porosity trend is non-unique and is determined
by the geologic process that controls porosity
Varied Velocity-Porosity Trends
6000
Gulf of Mexico (Han)

5000
Cementing
Trend
4000
Oseberg
Vp

3000
Troll

2000

1000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5L.36

Porosity
Han’s large data set spans a large range of depths and
clearly shows the steep cementing trend, which would be
favorable for mapping velocity (or impedance) to porosity.
Other data sets from the Troll and Oseberg indicate much
shallower trends.

151
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Cementing vs. Sorting Trends
6000
Gulf of Mexico (Han)

5000
Cementing
Trend
4000
Oseberg
Vp

3000
Troll
Sorting
2000 Trend

1000 Reuss Bound

(Deposition)

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Porosity
The slope of the velocity-porosity trend is controlled by the
geologic process that controls variations in porosity. If
porosity is controlled by diagenesis and cementing, we
expect a steep slope – described well by a modified upper
bound. If it is controlled by sorting and clay content
(depositional) then we expect a shallower trend – described
well by a modified lower bound.

152
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Generalized Sandstone Model

Cementing vs. Sorting Trends
6
Mineral point

4 clean
cementing
trend
Vp

3
sorting
2 trend

Suspension Line New Deposition

1 (Reuss Bound)

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Porosity

L.36

153
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

North Sea Clean sands

6
shallow oil sand
deeper water sand
5

4 increasing
cement
Vp

3
poor sorting
Suspension
2 Line

1
• all zones converted to brine
• only clean sand, Vsh <.05
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Total Porosity
L.37

154
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

North Sea
Clean vs. Shaly Sands
6
2508-2545 m, vsh<.05
2508-2545 m, Vsh>.3
5 2701-2750 m, vsh<.05
2701-2750 m, Vsh>.3

4 increasing
cement
Vp

3
more clay
poor sorting
Suspension
2 Line

1
all zones
converted to brine
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Total Porosity

L.37

155
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Decrease porosity 5% by Cementing

L39

Data Before (blue) and After (red) Cementing Data Before (blue) and After (red) Cementing
6000 6000

5000 5000

4000 4000
Vp
Vp

3000 Cementing Trend 3000

Cementing Trend
2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Porosity Vs

156
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Decrease porosity 5% by Sorting

L39
Data Before (blue) and After (red) Sorting Data Before (blue) and After (red) Sorting
6000 6000

5000 5000

4000 4000
Vp

Sorting Trend
Vp

3000 3000

Sorting Trend
2000 2000

1000
1000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Porosity Vs

157
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Sand, Shale Depth Trends

What about intermediate facies?

3000
P – Velocity

Clean Sand Compaction

2000
Shale Compaction

20 40 60

Porosity (%)
L.37

158
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Sand-Clay “V” Mixing Law

Statoil B, Brine Substituted
6000

5500

5000

4500

4000

sandy leg
Vp

3500

3000 Sand
point
2500
shaley leg
2000 Sand
point
1500

1000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Porosity

159
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Sand, Shale Depth Trends

3000
P – Velocity

Shaley 50 MPa
Sand
Shale Clean Sand

2000

5 MPa
0 MPa
20 40 60

Porosity (%)

160
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Depth Progression in a Fluvial Sequence

Shaly Sands

Clean SST

Clayey Shale

161
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

GR
Reservoir quality
Diagenetic
Diagenetic Trend
Trend

Vp
Vp

Depositional
Depositional
Trend
Trend

Porosity
Porosity ( Density)

Florez, Stanford University, 2002

162
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Dvorkin’s Cement Model
Jack Dvorkin introduced a cement model that predicts the
bulk and shear moduli of dry sand when cement is deposited
at grain contacts. The model assumes that the cement is
elastic and its properties may differ from those of the grains.
It assumes that the starting framework of cemented sand is
a dense random pack of identical spherical grains with
porosity φ0 ≈ 0.36 , and the average number of contacts per
grain C = 9. Adding cement reduces porosity and increases
the effective elastic moduli of the aggregate. The effective
dry-rock bulk and shear moduli are (Dvorkin and Nur, 1996)
1 ) 3 3 )
K eff = C (1− φ 0 ) M c Sn µeff = K eff + C (1− φ 0 )µc Sτ
6 5 20
where
2
M c = ρ cVPc µC = ρ cVSc2
ρ c is the cement's density; and V and V are its P- and S-
Pc Sc
€
wave velocities. Parameters S n and S τ are proportional to
the normal and shear stiffness, respectively, of a cemented
two-grain combination.
€ They depend on the amount of the
contact cement and on the properties of the cement and the
grains. (see next page)
A Grain
B C
Contact
cement
R a a

Non-contact
cement Scheme 1 Scheme 2

163
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Dvorkin’s Cement Model

Constants in the cement model:
)
Sn = An (Λ n )α 2 + Bn (Λ n )α + Cn (Λ n )
−1.3646
An (Λ n ) = −0.024153⋅ Λ n ,
−0.89008
Bn (Λ n ) = 0.20405 ⋅ Λ n
−1.9864
Cn (Λ n ) = 0.00024649 ⋅ Λ n
€
€ Λ n = 2µc (1− ν )(1− ν c ) /[πµ(1− 2ν c )]
€ )
Sτ = Aτ (Λτ ,ν )α 2 + Bτ (Λτ ,ν )α + Cτ (Λτ ,ν ),
€ −2 2 0.079ν 2
+0.1754 ν −1.342
Aτ (Λτ ,ν ) = −10 ⋅ (2.26ν + 2.07ν + 2.3) ⋅ Λτ ,
€ Bτ (Λτ ,ν ) = (0.0573ν 2 + 0.0937ν + 0.202) ⋅ Λτ
0.0274 ν 2
+0.0529ν −0.8765
,
2
€ 2
Cτ (Λτ ,ν ) = 10−4 ⋅ (9.654ν + 4.945ν + 3.1) ⋅ Λτ
0.01867ν +0.4011ν −1.8186
;
€ Λτ = µc /(πµ )
€
€ α = a /R
where µ and ν are the shear modulus and the Poisson's
€ ratio of the grains, respectively; µc and ν c are the shear
modulus and the Poisson's ratio of the cement; a is the
€ radius of the contact cement layer; R is the grain radius.

€
€

164
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
A Grain
B C
Contact
Dvorkin’s cement
R a a

cement model
Non-contact
cement Scheme 1 Scheme 2

The amount of the contact cement can be expressed

through the ratio α of the radius of the cement layer a to
the grain radius R:
α = a/R
The radius of the contact cement layer a is not necessarily
directly related to the total amount of cement: part of the
cement may be deposited away from the intergranular
contacts. However by assuming that porosity reduction in
sands is due to cementation only, and by adopting certain
schemes of cement deposition we can relate parameter α
to the current porosity of cemented sand φ . For example,
we can use Scheme 1 (see figure above) where all cement
is deposited at grain contacts:
φ0 – φ 0.25 Sφ 0 0.25
α=2 =2
3C 1 – φ 0 3C 1 – φ 0
or we can use Scheme 2 where cement is evenly
deposited on the grain surface:
2 φ 0 – φ 0.5 2Sφ 0 0.5
α= =
3 1 – φ0 3 1 – φ0
In these formulas S is the cement saturation of the pore
space - the fraction of the pore space occupied by cement.

165
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Dvorkin’s Cement Model

If the cement's properties are identical to those of the grains,
the cementation theory gives results which are very close to
those of the Digby model. The cementation theory allows
one to diagnose a rock by determining what type of cement
prevails. For example, it helps distinguish between quartz
and clay cement. Generally, Vp predictions are much better
than Vs predictions.

Predictions of Vp and Vs using the Scheme 2 model for

quartz and clay cement, compared with data from quartz
and clay cemented rocks from the North Sea.

166
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Sand models can be used to “Diagnose” sands

167
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Dvorkin’s Uncemented Sand Model

This model predicts the bulk and shear moduli of dry sand
when cement is deposited away from grain contacts. The
model assumes that the starting framework of uncemented
sand is a dense random pack of identical spherical grains
with porosity φ 0 = 0.36 , and the average number of contacts
per grain C = 9. The contact Hertz-Mindlin theory gives the
following expressions for the effective bulk ( K HM ) and
shear ( G HM ) moduli of a dry dense random pack of
identical spherical grains subject to a hydrostatic pressure
P:

1/3
C 2 1 – φ0 2 G 2
K HM = 2 2 P
18 π 1– ν
1/3
3C 2 1 – φ 0 2 G 2
G HM = 5 – 4ν 2 P
5 2–ν 2
2π 1 – ν

where ν is the grain Poisson's ratio and G is the grain

shear modulus.

168
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Dvorkin’s Uncemented Sand Model
In order to find the effective moduli at a different porosity,
a heuristic modified Hashin-Strikman lower bound is used:
φ / φ0 1 – φ / φ 0 –1 4
K eff = + – G HM
4
K HM + G HM K + G HM 4 3
3 3
G eff = [G HM + HM
G
φ / φ0
9K HM + 8G HM
6 K HM + 2G HM

+
G
G + HM
1 – φ / φ0
9K HM + 8G HM ] –1

6 K HM + 2G HM
G 9K HM + 8G HM
– HM
6 K HM + 2G HM

Illustration of the modified lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound for various effective

pressures. The pressure dependence follows from the Hertz-Mindlin theory
incorporated into the right end member.

169
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Dvorkin’s Uncemented Sand Model
This model connects two end members: one has zero
porosity and the modulus of the solid phase and the other
has high porosity and a pressure-dependent modulus as
given by the Hertz-Mindlin theory. This contact theory
allows one to describe the noticeable pressure dependence
normally observed in sands.
The high-porosity end member does not necessarily have to
be calculated from the Hertz-Mindlin theory. It can be
measured experimentally on high-porosity sands from a
given reservoir. Then, to estimate the moduli of sands of
different porosities, the modified Hashin-Strikman lower
bound formulas can be used where KHM and GHM are set at
the measured values. This method provides accurate
estimates for velocities in uncemented sands. In the figures
below the curves are from the theory.

Prediction of Vp and Vs using the lower Hashin-Shtrikman

bound, compared with measured velocities from
unconsolidated North Sea samples.

170
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

This method can also be used for estimating

velocities in sands of porosities exceeding 0.36.

171
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

North Sea Example

Well #1 Well #2

2.1
1.7
Depth (km)

Depth (km)
2.2
1.8

2.3
1.9 Marl

Limestone

2 3 40 80 120 2 3 4 40 80 120
A Vp (km/s) B GR C Vp (km/s) D GR

Constant Contact Cement

Cement Fraction (2%) Line Line
3.5
Vp (km/s)

3
Well #2

2.5

Unconsolidated Well #1
Line

0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Porosity

Study by Per Avseth, along with J. Dvorkin, G. Mavko, and J. Rykkje

172
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands

Sorting Analysis of Thin-Sections

0.4mm 0.4mm

0.4mm 0.4mm

173
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

Shaly Sands
Thin-Section and SEM Analyses

Unconsolidated Cemented
(Facies IIb) (Facies IIa)

Well #1 Uncemented Well #2 Cemented

0.25 mm 0.25 mm

Back-scatter light Cathode lum. light

SEM back-scatter image: Well #2 SEM cathode-luminescent image:
Well #2

0.1 mm
0.1 mm

Qz-cement rim Qz-grain

174