Rock Acoustics Lecture Notes Explained

Lecture Notes
TPG4170
Rock Acoustics
Rune M. Holt
NTNU, Trondheim, 2004
\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\1\29/01/2004

-2-
Table of Contents:
1. Summary of poroelasticity. ...................................................................................3

2. Bounds for elastic moduli ......................................................................................6
3. Critical porosity model ..........................................................................................9
4. Effective medium theory .....................................................................................12
5. Sound velocities in rocks and other materials. ..................................................17
6. Wave velocities vs. porosity.................................................................................19
7. Sound velocities vs. lithology...............................................................................23
8. Effect of clay on velocities of sandstone .............................................................26
9. Sound velocities vs. fluid saturation. ..................................................................29
10. Temperature dependent wave velocities ............................................................38
11. Sound Velocities vs. Stresses. ..............................................................................39
12. Frequency dependent wave velocities ....................................................................45
References and Suggested Readings ............................................................................46

-3-
1. Summary of poroelasticity.
The elastic behaviour of porous media (such as reservoir rocks) is described by so-
called poro-elastic theory. The prime developer of this theory was Maurice A. Biot, and
it is therefore often referred to as Biot theory.
The main difference between poroelastic and standard solid elastic theory is that
because of the two material phases (solid s; fluid f), one needs to account for
2 stresses: The external stress ij

The pore pressure pf
2 strains: The strain of a volume element attached to the rocks framework;
v=us
The so-called increment of fluid content;
=(us-uf)
Biot introduced the zeta-parameter because it is convenient for describing fluid flow in
a porous medium. The time derivative of is directly related to the flow rate in Darcys
law. is a measure of the ratio of displaced fluid volume to total volume; i.e.
V f V p pf
= = ( ) (1.1)
V Vp Kf
The displaced fluid volume is resulting from the change in pore volume (as indicated by
the subscript p), and the compressibility (1/Kf) of the pore fluid.
The relationship between stress and strain in linear elasticity is linear. The simplest
linear form that includes both stress and strain parameters above is:
= K v C
(1.2)
p f = C v M
This is Biot Hookes law for isotropic stress conditions. Let us now consider two
basic tests as examples:
Example 1: Drained (hydrostatic) loading.
In this case, the pore pressure is kept constant (or zero; or the sample is tested in dry
conditions). Since the stresses in Eq. (1.2) have an absolute meaning, whereas the
strains are only relative, one can write differentials in and pf while keeping v and
; i.e. for the drained test

-4-
p f = 0
C2
= ( K ) v = K fr v (1.3)
M
C
= v
M
In the first equation we define the framework bulk modulus Kfr as the drained bulk
modulus, and relate it to the coefficients K, C & M. The latter equation means that the
ratio C/M controls the relation between pore and bulk volume change in this
experiment:
C
V p = V = V (1.4)
M
The parameter is called the Biot coefficient. If only the pore space deforms and the
solid grains are considered incompressible, then the volume change and the pore
volume changes are equal, and =1. If the grains are also compressible, then V p < V
and <1.
Example 2: Undrained (hydrostatic) loading.
Now the pore fluid is kept within the sample with no possibility to escape; i.e.
=0
= K v (1.5)
C
p f =
K
We see that physically K is the undrained bulk modulus. The pore pressure increase is
given by the ratio C/K.
In general, any situation where external stress and / or pore pressure is changing will
produce the same strain as long as the so-called effective stress change is the same:
C
' = p f = K fr v (1.6)
M
This can be seen by eliminating from Eqs. (1.2). This leads to the effective stress
principle, which states that a rock sample deforms as if it is exposed to an effective
stress
ij' = ij p f ij (1.7)

-5-
ij is the Kronecker- =1 when i=j and 0 when ij. In practice it means that we can use
Hookes law as in elasticity of solids, but the stress changes must be effective stress
changes, and the elastic moduli must the framework moduli. K is the bulk modulus of
the undrained rock (no fluid expelled; =0), while C and M are other poroelastic
coefficients. These parameters can be related to the elastic properties of the ingredients
of the porous medium, plus the porosity. These relationships can be derived from simple
thought experiments, which are presented in textbooks like Fjr et al. (1992). The
results are:
K fr 2
(1 )
Kf Ks
K = K fr +
Kf K fr
1+ (1 )
Ks Ks
K fr
(1 )
Kf Ks
C= (1.8)
K K
1 + f (1 fr )
Ks Ks
1
M =C
K
1 fr
Ks
Thus;
C K
= = 1 fr (1.9)
M Ks
Kf: Bulk modulus of pore fluid

Ks: Bulk modulus of solid grains
: Porosity
Kfr: Bulk modulus of the drained rock
(dry rock framework)
Gfr: Shear modulus of the rock framework
The upper of the equations above is known as the Biot-Gassmann equation. It can also
be written as
K K fr Kf
= + (1.10)
K s K K s K fr ( K s K f )
Biot hypothesised that the shear modulus is not influenced by the presence of the pore
fluid; i.e.:
G(undrained) = G(drained) (1.11)
Notice that the framework moduli Kfr and Gfr depend on the microstructure of the rock,
in particular on the porosity. Various models exist for these relationships, from

-6-
empirical to theoretical effective medium approaches. We will discuss such models in

Chapters 2 and 3.
Wave velocities:
The velocities of P- and S-waves in a poroelastic material (in the low frequency limit)
are also expressed in the same way as for a solid material, except that the bulk modulus
now is the undrained bulk modulus K as given by Eqs. (1.8) or (1.10):
4
K + G fr
vP = 3
(1.12)
G fr
vS =

The bulk density is found by adding the fluid and the solid contributions:
= f + (1 ) s (1.13)
If the material is air saturated at room conditions, then K Kfr in the Biot-Gassmann
equation (since the bulk modulus of air is negligible compared to that of the rock
framework). The density is also reduced, because the gas density is negligible compared
to the solid density. As a result of this, the S-wave velocity decreases slightly when a
dry sample is saturated with fluid, while the P-wave velocity normally (but not
necessarily!) increases.
2. Bounds for elastic moduli
For a composite material consisting of N components, the elastic moduli M (M = K or

G) are limited by the upper and lower bounds represented by the so called Voigts and
Reussmodels:
The Reuss model assumes a uniform state of stress, so that the strains of each
component are added, i.e.
1 N
i
= (2.1)
M R i =1 M i
where i is the volume concentration and Mi is the elastic (bulk or shear) modulus of
component i. A well-known example where the Reuss model gives a correct prediction

-7-
is a suspension of particles (solid; s) in a fluid (f). The undrained bulk modulus of the
suspension is given by
1 1
= + (2.2)
KR K f Ks
where is the porosity (fluid volume divided by total volume). This is also known as
Woods equation.
In general, the Reuss modulus MR gives a lower bound for the elastic moduli of the
composite. The Reuss bound for the shear modulus GR=0 because the fluid does not
have any shear modulus. Likewise, the drained (frame) Reuss bulk modulus is zero,
since Kf=0 for evacuated pores.
The Voigt model assumes a uniform state of strain, so that the associated stresses are
additive. Thus,
N
M V = M i i (2.3)
i =1
where M again can be K or G. The Voigt modulus represents an upper bound for the
elastic moduli of a composite. It is used to describe the elastic properties of e.g. a
polycrystalline material. The drained (frame) Voigt bulk modulus is
KV = (1 ) K s (2.4)
Hashin and Shtrikman calculated bounds based on elastic energy considerations,

assuming the composite medium is a mechanical mixture of isotropic and homogeneous
elastic phases. One may visualise their model as packing of spheres of one material
coated by spheres of the second phase. The lower limit for the elastic moduli is found
when the softer material is coating the stiff one, while the upper limit represents a
coating of stiff material on the softer. For a two-phase (solid and fluid) medium, their
results are for the upper (K+) and lower (K-) bounds on the bulk modulus:
4
K s + Gs ( K s K f )
+
K HS = Ks 3 (2.5)
4
K s + Gs (1 ) ( K s K f )
3

-8-
Ks K f

K HS = ( KR ) (2.6)
K s + (1 ) K f
For the shear modulus, they found:
4
5 K s + Gs Gs
+
GHS = Gs 3
; GHS =0 (2.7)
4
5 K s + Gs 2 (1 )( K s + 2Gs )
3
The potential use of the bounds is to find the permitted intervals for elastic properties of
the composite. Adding more information about the structure of the medium, bounds
may be found which are sufficiently close together that one may use them to actually
predict properties of the effective medium. One assumption which has been made
without actually incorporating microstructural knowledge, is the so-called Hills
average e.g. that elastic moduli may be estimated in a rough way as the average value
between the upper (e.g. Voigt) and lower (e.g. Reuss) bounds.
One model for wave velocity vs. porosity which has been (and still is) used quite often
by the oil industry is the time-average equation. It relates the P-wave velocity vp to
porosity and P-wave velocities of the solid (vp,s) and fluid (vf) phases is an empirical
equation:
1 1
= + (2.8)
Vp Vp,s V f
The theoretical basis for this equation is to assume that the sound wave shares its time
passing through the rock in volumetric proportion in the solid and pore fluid. This is
strictly valid only if the wavelength is much shorter than the grain and pore size, i.e. in
the limit of very high frequency. The fact that dispersion has been found normally to be
quite low in porous rocks may explain the success of this empirically based approach.

-9-
3. Critical porosity model
Sedimentary rocks can be considered as packages of grains which somehow are

cemented together. In between the grains, there is a pore fluid. If the porosity is high, so
that the grains do not touch each other, the undrained bulk modulus K of the porous
medium can be calculated as for a suspension (Reuss average); i.e. according to Eq.(2.2)
. The drained bulk modulus as well as the shear modulus G of a suspension is zero
(since Gf=0). These relationships are valid until the porosity gets below a limiting
critical porosity c. Then the grain skeleton starts to carry load. This limit is given by
the shape and size distribution of grains. The loosest possible packing of spherical,
equally sized grains gives a porosity of 0.476 (simple cubic packing), while for a
random loose packing one finds porosities between 0.4 and 0.45. For typical sands, the
critical porosity seems to be around 0.40. In chalk, where the pores are more like
spherical in shape, the critical porosity is higher (0.60-0.70).
When the porosity is lower than c, there will be a fintite framework bulk modulus and
a finite shear modulus. The actual values will depend on porosity, and on the structural
details of the rock, e.g. on the degree of cementation between the grains. With no
further knowledge, a simple assumption is that the framework stiffnesses will vary
linearly from zero at the critical porosity to the values of the solid constituent at zero
porosity, i.e.

K fr = K s (1 ) <c (3.1)
c

G fr = Gs (1 ) <c (3.2)
c
The undrained modulus K is then

K = K s (1 ) + Kc <c (3.3)
c c
where
1 1 c
= c + (3.4)
Kc K f Ks

- 10 -
The critical porosity model is illustrated in Figure 3.1.
The weaknesses of this model are that the critical porosity is not a universal constant -
not even for a given class of rocks, such as sandstones, and that the linear relationship
between moduli and porosity is a very rough approximation. The strength is that the
model is very simple, and does not require any other assumptions about microstructure
than the knowledge of a critical porosity. We will use it further in the course to gain
insight into e.g. effects of lithology, effects of clay content etc. One should however be
careful to use it uncritically in field data analysis.
A modification that can be made to account for the observed diversity of behaviours is
to modify Kfr and Gfr in Eqs. (3.1) and (3.2) by introducing an exponent :

M fr = M s (1 ) <c (3.5)
c
A low value of will describe behaviour of a well cemented rock, while a higher value
will describe the behaviour of a less cemented rock. This is illustrated in Figure 3.2.
It is possible to employ the critical porosity concept also to other rock properties, like
strength parameters. It turns out, for instance, that the unconfined strength of clean
sandstones is described quite well by an equation of the same form as Eq. (3.5) with an
exponent = 2.

- 11 -
Figure 3.1 Undrained bulk modulus vs. porosity for Reuss, Voigts and Nurs
Critical Porosity model.
40
35
30
Bulk modulus [GPa]
25 =1/2
20
=1
15
10
5
=2
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Porosity
Figure 3.2: Modified critical porosity model using Eq.(3.5)

- 12 -
4. Effective medium theory
Several more microscopically based theories exist in the literature. They can be divided
into two main groups:
Inclusion models, where pores or cracks are treated as voids or inclusions in a

solid matrix (Swiss cheese (or Jarlsberg, if preferred) model).
Grain pack models, where solid particles represent the building elements.
While the inclusion models appear most realistic for hard rocks with low porosity, they
find significant application within sedimentary rock physics. One reason for this is that
they explicitly express elastic moduli as function of porosity, while porosity plays a
more implicit role in the grain pack models.
Figure 4.1 shows the basic idea of an inclusion model: The elastic properties of a sphere
of solid material containing a spherical void are calculated. Then, as a next step, the
effect of adding several inclusions is calculated by simply adding their influence
independently. This impies that the voids are sufficiently far apart from each other not
to interact; i.e. that the inclusion density is small. For spherical pores in a solid host
material, it has been found:
Ks, Gs
Vc
V
Figure 4.1 Sketch of a solid sphere of volume V containing a spherical cavity of

volume Vc.

- 13 -
1 1 3K s
= 1 + 1 + (4.1)
K * K s 4Gs
1 1 15 K s + 20GS
= 1 + (4.2)
G * Gs 9 K S + 8GS
These expressions are strictly valid only for low porosity. One way to make them more
general is to make the effective medium self consistent: this is done by replacing
(mathematically) the solid material surrounding the inclusion with the resulting
effective medium. The solutions can not in general be expressed analytically. They do
however have a form that leads the elastic moduli to 0 at a certain porosity., hence,
not unlike the critical porosity model.
In most cases the spherical porosity model overestimates the elastic stiffness of real
rocks. The main reason for this is that the pore shapes found in natural rocks deviate
strongly from spherical. Rather, a significant amount of low aspect ratio pores normally
exists. Such pores are much more compliant than spherical pores, and play a more
important role in controlling the wave velocities. Although there are models that may
incorporate inclusions of various shapes, we will here only mention the so-called crack
models: A penny-shaped crack is defined as an ellipsoid with a short axis = 2c and a
c
long axis = 2a, so that the crack aspect ratio is = . Cracks affect the elastic moduli
a
through a parameter called crack density ():
N
= < a3 > (4.3)
V
The crack porosity is related to the crack density as
4
C = (4.4)
3
Since the aspect ratio for a crack is small, the crack porosity is usually also small. It
does however, as said above, have a significant impact on the elastic moduli. For non-
interacting cracks with a random spatial and orientational distribution, one finds:

- 14 -
2a
2c
Figure 4.2: A penny shaped crack.
1 16 1 s
2
1
= 1 + (4.5)
K * Ks 9 1 2 s
1 1 32 (1 s )( 5 s )
= 1 + (4.6)
G * Gs 45 ( 2 s )
In the self-consistent approach (Budiansky & OConnell, 1976):
16 1 fr 2
K fr = K s 1 (4.7)
9 1 2 fr
32 (1 fr )( 5 fr )
G fr = Gs 1 (4.8)
45 ( 2 fr )
where
16
fr s 1 (4.9)
9
We see that the elastic moduli 0 as the crack density becomes large enough. For such
large crack densities, one would however not expect the basic assumption behind the
theory to be valid anymore: Cracks tend to coalesce and not be randomly distributed in
space when a material approaches the failure limit.
We may add the effects of pores and cracks in the case of reasonably low porosities and
cracke densities, i.e.
M fr M s (1 a p p bc ) (4.10)
M represents bulk or shear modulus, ap and bc are constants (depending on the solid host
material properties), and p is the spherical (equant) porosity. Since cracks are much
more compliant than spherical pores, the last term gives rise to stress dependency.

- 15 -
When an external stress is applied, the lowest aspect ratio cracks are closed first, and
then subsequently higher aspect ratio cracks are closed as the stress increases. This leads
to a relatively rapid increase in moduli until all cracks are closed. From then on, further
stress increase will give rise to increase in moduli by reduction of porosity.
The second class of effective medium theories for porous media is grain pack
descriptions. The basic element in these models is the elastic contact between two
grains in contact. For two equally sized spheres in contact, the elastic contact law has
been derived by Hertz and Mindlin.
Figure 4.3: Sketch of Hertzian grain contact.
Figure 4.3 shows a sketch of such a grain contact. The two spheres have radius a. The
contact area between the spheres is a circle with radius b. s represents the displacement
as a result of a compressive force F applied to the pair of spheres. Following the
arguments of deGennes (1996) (Note: This is not a mathematical proof, buthandwaving
arguments of a Nobel prize winner in physics), the contact stress is then of the order
(F/b2). The contact strain is of the order (s/b). From geometrical considerations, s/b
b/a. Thus;
F s
;
b2 b
3 1
(4.11)
s 32 2
F sb s a a ( )
2 2
a
The global stress is of the order (F/a2) , and the global strain is of the order (s/a).
Thus;
3
2 (4.12)

- 16 -
We see that this is a nonlinear elastic element, since stress is not directly proportional to
strain. The stiffness is
d 1 1
M 3
2
(4.13)
d
Hence, the wave velocities, which are proportional to the square root of M, should
1
increase with external stress as . For a random packing of equally sized spheres, the
6
bulk modulus for a porosity (given by the packing) can be calculated as
1
(1 ) 2 n 2Gs2 3
K fr = (4.14)
18 (1 s )
2 2
This result is often referred as the Hertz-Mindlin model, or the Walton model. n is the
coordination number, being defined as the average number of spheres in contact with a
given sphere. Typically n decreases with increasing porosity, from around 12 at closest
packing (porosity 26%) to 6 at most open packing (porosity 48%).
The shear modulus depends on wether the spheres are considered rough or smooth. The
results are:
1
1 12(1 ) 2 n 2Gs2 3
G fr ;smooth = (4.15)
10 2 (1 s ) 2
1
5 4 s 3(1 ) 2 n 2Gs2 3
G fr , rough = (4.16)
5(2 s ) 2 2 (1 s ) 2

- 17 -
5. Sound velocities in rocks and other materials.

Table 5.1 shows measured P- and S-wave velocities in rock and rock-like, plus a few
other common materials.
Table 5.1: P- and S-wave velocities in rocks and some common materials.
Material vp (m/s) vs (m/s) (g/cm3) Comments

Dry loose sand 100-500 10-300 1.8-2.1
Saturated loose 1500-2000 10-300 2.0-2.4

sand
Weak sandstone 1000-2500 500-1500 1.8-2.1
Competent 2500-4500 1500-2500 2.0-2.3

sandstone
Berea sandstone 3800-4000 2300-2400 2.2 water sat.,
unloaded
Weak Chalk 2000-2600 1000-1300 1.8-2.3
Limestone 3500-6000 2000-3500 2.4-2.7
High porosity 1700-2500 500-1000 1.8-2.0
shales
Low porosity 2500-5000 1000-2000 2.0-2.6 strongly
shales anisotropic
Coal 2200-2700 1000-1400 1.3-1.8
Gneiss 4400-5200 2700-3200 2.5-2.7
Basalt 5000-6000 2800-3400 2.5-2.7
Dolomite 3500-6500 1900-3600 2.5-2.9
Air 330 - 1.310-3
Water 1470 - 1.0
Ice 3400-3800 1700-1900 0.9
Oil 1100-1300 - 0.6-0.9
Steel 5940 3230 7.9
Plexiglass 2550 1280 1.2
-Quartz 6030 4040 2.65
Geitost (Norw. 1830 ? 1.2
brown cheese)

- 18 -
A main message to be learnt from these numbers is that there are large variations within
each class of rocks. Natural rocks like sandstone, shale or limestone should not be stated
to have a typical P- or S-wave velocity. Rather the velocities depend on a number of
factors, like the the composition and the microstructure of the rock itself (lithology,
porosity, degree of cementation, fluid saturation, saturating fluid, etc.), and the
boundary conditions under which the measurement is performed (w.r.t. stress, pore
pressure, temperature). In the following chapters we will describe observed wave
velocities in different rocks and see how these factors influence on the velocities. The
results will be compared to theoretical models where available. We will use the Biot
Gassmann model as our macroscopic basis, and because of its simplicity, we will use
the critical porosity model to illustrate some of the observed relationships.
The reader is also referred to the more extensive Rock Physics Handbook by Mavko et
al. (1998).

- 19 -
6. Wave velocities vs. porosity.

Lucretius in the 1st century BC wrote that the more vacuum a thing contains, the more
readily it yields. He was followed by Vitrivius (10 AD) who stated that cracks make ..
bricks weak. The contents of these citations (Kendall, 1984) are essential in order to
understand how wave velocities in porous rock behave: In all rocks one finds that
velocities decrease with increasing porosity. This is intuitive if one thinks of a wave
velocity measurement as a stiffness measurement. Vitrivius statement implies that the
geometry of the pore space is also relevant, and the effect of thin cracks is particularly
large not only on the strength of rocks, but also on wave velocities and in particular
their stress sensitivity.
Figure 6.1 shows measured P- and S-wave moduli in dry, clean sandstones (after
Murphy et al., 1993). They show a nice almost linear trend, and were probably
instrumental in guiding the Stanford Rock Physics group led by Amos Nur to suggest
their critical porosity model (see also Chapter 3). Based on such a model, we would
write for the wave velocities in a dry porous medium
4
( K s + Gs )(1 )
3 c
vp = (6.1)
(1 ) s

Gs (1 )
c
vs = (6.2)
(1 ) s
where Ks and Gs are the solid mineral bulk and shear modulus, s is solid mineral
density, is porosity, and c is critical porosity. The exponent inserted here is usually
taken = 1, but there is evidence from laboratory data that weak rocks would have > 1,
and strong rocks have < 1. Critical porosity in sandstone seems to be 0.4, whereas in
chalk it is 0.6 0.7. In shale, nobody knows (yet).
An example of calculated velocities in dry rock for different values of is shown

inFigure 6.2.

- 20 -
Figure 6.1: High pressure laboratory measurements of the bulk and shear frame
moduli (i.e. of dry rock) for clean quartz sandstones (from Murphy et al.,
1993).
7000
6000 vp
5000 =2
Velocities [m/s]
=2 =1/2 =1
4000
=1
3000
vs =1/2
2000
1000
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Porosity
Figure 6.2: P- and S-wave velocities in dry sandstone with a critical porosity of 0.40,
modelled for different values of the exponent .
Clearly, the porosity dependence will change with fluid saturation. We will discuss the
effects of a saturating fluid in a subsequent chapter, but the general effect is to increase
i) the bulk modulus, according to the Biot-Gassmann theory, and ii) the density, by
adding a contribution f. Normally this leads to an increase in P-wave velocity,
because the bulk modulus increases more with fluid saturation than the density. The

- 21 -
result is also a different porosity dependence of vp than would be predicted from Eq.
(6.1). This is seen in Figure 6.3, which also contains traditional empirical relations used
by the industry. The most common of these is the socalled time-average (Wyllie's)
equation, which simply states that the travel time through a rock is a volume weighted
average of the travel times in the solid and in the fluid phase:
1 1
= + (6.3)
vp v f v p,s
Fundamentally, one should not expect this equation to be valid, except maybe at very
high frequencies (since it is a kind of a ray approximation). For shear waves, it is
obviously not valid, since there is no S-wave velocity in the fluid. In addition, let us
briefly mention Raymer's equation, which also may be applied to fluid saturated rocks:
v P = (1 )2 v solid + v fluid (6.4)
Figure 6.4shows wave velocities in water saturated sandstones with different porosities.
The figure has two distinct features: There is a clear trend of decreasing velocity with
increasing porosity. The best fit by Wang & Nur (1992), from whom these data are
taken, was (velocity in [km/s]; porosity as fraction):
v P = 5.54 8.22 (6.5)
There is however also a significant amount of scatter in the data.
7000
6000
5000 Critical porosity

P-wave velocity [m/s]
4000
Time Average
3000 Raymer
2000
1000 Suspension (Reuss' average)
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Porosity
Figure 6.3: P-wave velocity vs. porosity in water saturated sandstone; calculated
using the Biot-Gassmann model with a critical porosity; with the time-
average, and with Raymers equation.

- 22 -
Figure 6.4: Comparison of laboratory measured compressional wave velocities with

the velocities from Eqs. (6.3) - (6.5) (from Wang & Nur.).
We have focussed on sandstones in the examples above, but the models are of course
applicable to other types of rock as well. In Figure 6.5 we show the trend found in North
Sea shales. We notice that in this case, the data lie close to the prediction of the
suspension model.
6000
P-wave velocity (normal) (m/s)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Porosity
Figure 6.5: P-wave velocity normal to bedding vs. porosity (derived from water
content) in shales from the North Sea. The curve is a modified suspension
model, where the P-wave modulus is used for the solid modulus. The data
clouds represent measurements performed during rock mechanical tests
with each sample (from Holt et al., 1997).

- 23 -
7. Sound velocities vs. lithology.

Sound velocities can be used as indicators for lithology, but the range of variation
(seeTable 5.1) is extremely large and depends on the state of the rock (cementation,
porosity, fractures) and the conditions in the Earth (stress, pore pressure, temperature).
Sound velocities alone can therefore generally not be thrusted for lithology
identification.
The vp/vs ratio can in some circumstances be a better lithology indicator than the
velocities themselves. For example vp/vs is normally higher in shale than in sandstone;
thus, it is possible from seismics to distinguish between e.g. cap rock and reservoir rock.
Theoretically, using a critical porosity approach, the vp/vs ratio in a dry rock is governed
by the elastic moduli of the solid minerals, and independent of porosity:
4
vp K s + Gs
( ) dry = 3 (7.1)
vs Gs
Typical bulk and shear modulus values for sand (quartz), chalk (calicite) and shale are
given in Table 7.1. The values for shale are extrapolated to zero porosity from
measurements with shale samples, since isolated clay minerals are hardly available for
measurement. The low values indicate that bound water is included in the values of the
solid material moduli. From these values, Eq. (7.1) predicts
vp/vs ~ 1.5 for dry sands

vp/vs ~ 1.9 for dry chalk
Dry shale does not exist at depth.
Table 7.1: Solid mineral bulk and shear modulus for sand, chalk and shale.
Density [g/cm3] Bulk modulus [GPa] Shear modulus

[GPa]
Sand (quartz) 2.65 37 45
Chalk (calcite) 2.71 65-75 28-32
Clay 2.6 20-25 5-10
If we account for fluid saturation, e.g. by using the Biot-Gassmann equation for the bulk
modulus

- 24 -
Kf 2
K = K fr + (7.2)
Kf
1+ ( )
Ks
K fr
with = (1 ) , then we find that the vp/vs ratio increases slightly with porosity. In
Ks
case of a critical porosity law:
vp 4 Ks K f 1
= + + (7.3)
vs 3 Gs c Gs Kf
[c + (1 c )][1 ]
Ks c
Since Kf is usually significantly smaller than Gs, the 3rd term under the square root is
usually also small; excepth when the porosity is near the critical porosity. Thus; vp/vs
will still be a good lithology indicator. Using brine as pore fluid (Kf=2.7 GPa), we find
for porosities well below c:
vp/vs ~ 1.5 1.6 for water saturated sandstone with moduli as given in Table 2
vp/vs ~ 1.9 2.0 for water saturated chalk with Ks=70; Gs=30 GPa
vp/vs ~ 2.1 2.3 for water saturated shale with Ks=22.5; Gs=7.5 GPa
Figure 7.1: vp/vs vs. porosity for a brine saturated sandstone; calculated using Eq.
(7.3). Critical porosity = 0.40. illustrates the vp/vs behaviour for brine saturated
sandstone.
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
vp/vs
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Porosity
Figure 7.1: vp/vs vs. porosity for a brine saturated sandstone; calculated using Eq.
(7.3). Critical porosity = 0.40.

- 25 -
Data from laboratory core experiments and sonic logs are summarized by Mavko et al.
They report the following typical vp/vs values
Water-saturated sandstone; 0, 0.30: vp/vs 1.5 1.9

Poorly consolidated, water-saturated sandstone; 0.20, 0.40: vp/vs 1.9 2.2
Dry tight gas sandstone; 0, 0.15: vp/vs 1.4 1.7
Chalk; gas-condensate saturated & water-saturated; 0, 0.30: vp/vs 1.6 1.8
Limestone (water-saturated); 0, 0.30: vp/vs 1.7 2.0
In addition:
Shale / Clay (data from log and seismic); vp/vs 2-4
We have here looked at vp/vs as a main parameter for lithology identification. Another
may be linked to anisotropy. In particular, shale at depth is lithologically anisotropic.
We have however assumed in the theoretical predictions that the solid phase is mono-
mineralic. This is of course not true: Most sedimentary rocks contain many minerals,
and thus, the solid bulk and shear moduli need to be refined. A particular example is
given in the next Chapter, where we consider effects of clay on velocities of sandstone.

- 26 -
8. Effect of clay on velocities of sandstone

As we have seen above, clay minerals have quite different elastic properties from say
quartz. When both clay and quartz are present at the same time, as in shaly sand or
sandy shale, one needs to model a situation with more than one solid mineral phase. The
result depends on how the structure of clay and quartz minerals is built. Assume that the
rock consists of quartz (qtz), clay (cl) and fluid filled pore space. The volume fractions
of each phase add to 100%, i.e.
+ Vcl + Vqtz = 1 (8.1)
If clay is part of the load bearing framework, then the clay minerals contribute to the
solid modulus Ks (and to Kfr). This may be modelled e.g. by using a Voigt average for
the solid (bulk and shear) moduli:
M s = vcl M cl + (1 vcl ) M qtz (8.2)
where vcl is the clay fraction of the solid material:
Vcl
vcl = (8.3)
Vcl + Vqtz
Figure 8.1 shows the predicted P-wave velocity vs. porosity for different clay fractions
according to this model. We see that increasing clay content reduces the P-wave
velocity.
On the other hand, if clay occur as pore fill, it can be modelled as part of the pore fluid,
using a suspension model.
1 1 cl
= cl + (8.4)
K f K cl Kw
where cl is the clay fraction of the porosity:
Vcl
cl = (8.5)
+ Vcl
The result is that increase in clay content leads to an increase in P-wave velocity. Thus;
by observing trends in sonic logs for areas where an independent clay indicator exists,
one may be able to distinguish between clay as pore fill (which is detrimental to
permeability) and clay as part of the solid matrix.

- 27 -
6000
vcl = 0.05
vcl = 0.15
vcl = 0.25
vcl = 0.35
5000
4000
3000
2000
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Porosity
Figure 8.1: Calculated P-wave velocity vs. porosity for water saturated sandstone
with different clay contents. The plot was derived using Biot-Gassmann
and a critical porosity model, where the solid modulus is given by a
Voigt average of clay and quartz contributions.
Figure 8.2: Water-saturated ultrasonic velocities measured at 40 MPa confining

pressure for different clay fractions (taken from Mavko et al., 1998).

- 28 -
Based on experimental results, Han and later Vernik (1994) distinguished between
sandstones according to their clay content C and made empirical fits based on a
classification of siliclastics, representing clean arenites, arenites, wackes, and shales:
v P = 6.07 7.97 (C < 0.02)

v P = 5.52 6.91 (C 0.02 0.15)
(8.6)
v P = 5.19 7.21 (C < 0.15 0.35)
v P = 4.93 9.03 (C = 0.35)
Figure 8.2 shows a presentation of such data reproduced from Hans Thesis by Mavko
et al. (1998). The resemblance with Figure 8.1 is striking.
Han, Nur & Morgan derived empirical fits for water saturated sandstone (at 40 MPa
confining stress) with porosity below 30% and clay content C below 50%:
v P = 5.59 6.93 2.18C

(8.7)
v S = 3.52 4.91 1.89C
Marion, Nur, Yin & Han measured with samples made by mixing sand and clay
(kaolinite) powder, with clay contents ranging from 0 to 100%. They found that there is
a maximum in velocity (associated with a porosity minimum) on the transition between
shaly sand and sandy shale. This is shown in Figure 8.3.
Figure 8.3: P-wave velocity vs. clay content in sand-clay mixtures at different
stresses. From Marion et al., 1992.

- 29 -
9. Sound velocities vs. fluid saturation.

When a dry rock sample is saturated with liquid, the following parameters affect the
change wave velocities:
- The bulk modulus K increases according to the Biot-Gassmann theory (cfr. Eq.
(7.2)) because of the liquid contribution.
- The bulk density increases by f .
In addition, the framework moduli (Kfr and Gfr) are normally assumed unaffected by the
saturating fluid (neglecting possible chemical interactions).
4
K+ G
Thus; P-wave velocity v = 3 may increase or decrease, depending on whether
p

G
the fluid contribution to K or is the larger. S-wave velocity vs = will decrease

upon saturation, since G is assumed unaffected. At high frequencies, fluid induced
dispersion may cause an increase in both velocities.
The Biot Gassmann theory can be used to predict the effect of liquid saturation in the
low frequency limit. Figure 9.1 shows the predicted effect of brine saturation on P- and
S-wave velocities. As above, typical parameters for sandstone have been used, together
with a critical porosity model with c = 0.40. We see that the P-wave velocity increases
upon saturation at high porosities; or when the P-wave velocity is below 3500 m/s. At
higher velocities, the rock stiffness is so high that the fluid contribution to it becomes
less significant than the density increase. The S-wave velocity is seen to decrease as a
result of saturation in all cases, as expected.
7000
6000 vp sat
vs sat
vp dry c-p
Wave Velocities [m/s]
vs dry c-p
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Porosity
Figure 9.1: Wave velocities for dry and saturated sandstone, based on Biot-
Gassmann theory with a critical porosity law.

- 30 -
The effect of partial saturation depends on the distribution of the fluid phases in the pore
space. If mixed at a fine scale, the fluid properties may be estimated through a Reuss
(isostress) average, i.e.
1 S
= i (9.1)
Kf i K f ,i
Si represents the concentrations of fluid phase i. For water containing air bubbles, the
suspension model is appropriate. Since air has a bulk modulus (1.410-4 GPa) which is
negligible compared to that of water (2.2 GPa), the fluid bulk modulus is governed by
the gas modulus, except when the water saturation approaches 1. This is also seen in
laboratory experiments: Only when the water saturation exceeds 95% or more is the P-
wave velocity of the rock found to increase. Acoustic wave measurements are therefore
good indicators of gas (shallow gas, gas zones in reservoirs).
It is worthwhile to notice that for very low water saturation levels, such as when the
rock is ovendried before measurements are performed, a strong increase in P-wave
velocity may also be seen. This observation implies that the water has a certain
softening effect on the grain contact. Since most rocks in the Earth have a certain water
saturation, this means that laboratory experiments for wave velocity measurement
should not be performed with oven dried cores.
The basis for Equation (9.1) is that the various fluid phases feel the same stress; in order
words, that the fluid pressure is in equilibrium between the different phases. This
implies that pressure diffusion may take place during the passage of the wave, say in the
course of one period. Hence, from standard diffusion theory, the size of the patches
should be related to the time scale as
Kf k 1
l Dt (9.2)
f
Here D denotes a diffusion coefficient, which depends on the permeability k and the
fluid viscosity , in addition to the bulk modulus of the pore fluid, and the porosity. For
the seismic frequency range (10 100 Hz) we find that the patches must be smaller than
10 30 cm in order for the Reuss average to be used. If this condition is not fullfileld,
other mixing rules than Eq. (9.1) are required. One obvious alternative is the Voigt
average, which gives an upper bound to the fluid bulk modulus:
K f = S i K f ,i (9.3)
i
More realistic averages require more detailed knowledge about the patchiness. If this is
not available (which is the normal case), one may for instance use the following
approach for the bulk modulus of the rock:

- 31 -
1 1 1
= (9.4)
K 4 G fr
K + G fr
3
Figure 9.2: P-wave velocity vs. water saturation in a gas-water saturated porous
rock. The uniform saturation case is modelled with the Reuss average,
and the patchy case denoted by the upper limit Voigt model Laboratory
data are also shown. The figure is taken from the Rock Physics course by
Gary Mavko at Stanford University.
http://pangea.stanford.edu/courses/gp262/Notes.htm
Patchiness is an issure in particular in reservoirs which contain gas. It may also be

important in monitoring of EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) processes where one fluid
phase is displaced by another.
For reservoir monitoring applications, the effect of different saturating liquids is

therefore of significant relevance. This is also the case if one wishes to distinguish e.g.
oil and water saturated zones from logs. In order to quantify such effects, one needs to
know velocities of typical fluids present in sedimentary rocks under reservoir
conditions. An extensive study was reported by Batzle & Wang (1992). A summary of
selected results is presented in Table 9.1.
The calculation leading to Figure 9.1 is performed with fluid properties typically seen at
room conditions. The density and bulk modulus of fluids (both liquid and gas) are
however sensitive to pressure as well as to temperature, and will therefore be quite

- 32 -
different under reservoir conditions than at atmospheric conditions. The bulk and shear
modulus of the rock framework is also stress and pore pressure dependent, so to obtain
realistic values from core measurements in the laboratory is a tedious task.
Table 9.1: Characteristic elastic properties and densities of typical pore fluids
under different pressure and temperature conditions.
Fluid Density [g/cm3] Sound velocity Bulk modulus

[m/s] [GPa]
Air at room 1.2910-3 331 1.410-4
conditions
Hydrocarbon gas at 0.15 0.35 550 - 650 0.05 0.15
100 C and 25 MPa
Hydrocarbon gas at 0.25 0.45 750 - 900 0.15 0.35
100 C and 50 MPa
Hydrocarbon gas at 0.15 0.3 5-600 0.05 0.1
200 C and 25 MPa
Fresh water at room 1.00 1480 2.2
conditions
3.5 % brine at room 1.05 1520 2.4
conditions
3.5 % brine at 0.97 1625 2.6
100C and 25 MPa
3.5 % brine w/
dissolved gas 0.97 1525 2.3
100C and 25 MPa
3.5 % brine at 0.90 1510 2.1
200C and 50 MPa
Light dead oil at 0.80 1320 1.4
room conditions
100C and 25 MPa
200C and 50 MPa
Light live oil 0.64 810 0.4
100C and 25 MPa
Light live oil 0.58 890 0.4
200C and 50 MPa

- 33 -
Let us now look in some detail at the fluid properties: In an ideal gas, the pressure P is
proportional to the number of molecules per volume unit (N/V), to Boltzmanns
constant k and to absolute temperature Ta (in [K]):
PV = NkTa (9.5)
The elastic modulus is
P
( )T = P (9.6)
V / V
The density is
N
= mm (9.7)
V
where mm is the molecular mass. Thus; the wave velocity is
kTa
v= (9.8)
mm
This is of course a huge oversimplification for real gases and liquids. Some realism is
added by considering the process of acoustic wave propagation as adiabatic, not
isothermal as was implicit in the derivation of Eq. (9.8). Thus the bulk modulus in Eq.
(9.6) has to be multiplied by , which is equal to the ratio of the heat capacities
measured under constant pressure (Cp) and constant volume (Cv) conditions:
kTa
v= (9.9)
mm
is 1.4 for an ideal gas.
The ideal gas law is also not a good approximation for a real gas or liquid. An
improvement can be made by multiplying the right hand side of the ideal gas law by a
pressure and temperature dependent so-called compressibility factor Z;
PV = ZNkTa (9.10)
In addition, the variable composition of natural gases adds further complexity. We will
here only give the following empirical relationships (from Batzle & Wang, 1992) for
natural gases under pressures and temperatures that are common in petroleum
exploration and production:
Gas density is

- 34 -
28.8GP
(9.11)
ZRTa
where G is the specific gravity, i.e. the ratio of gas density to air density at 15.6 C and
atmospheric pressure. G is 0.5 0.6 for methane, and 1.5 2 for gases with heavy
components or high carbon numbers. P is given in [MPa].R is the gas constant (=8.31 J /
g mole C).
Z = 0.03 + 0.00527(3.5 Tpr )3 Ppr + (0.642Tpr 0.007Tpr4 0.52) + E (9.12)
1 2 Ppr
1.2
E = 0.109(3.85 Tpr ) exp 0.45 + 8(0.56

2
) (9.13)
Tpr Tpr
where the pseudopressure Ppr and pseudocritical temperature Tpr both should not be
0.1 or more.
P
Ppr = (9.14)
4.892 0.4048G
Ta
Tpr = (9.15)
94.72 + 170.75G
The adiabatic gas bulk modulus is
P
Ks 0 (9.16)
Ppr Z
1
Z Ppr T
where 0 is
5.6 27.1
0 = 0.85 + + 8.7 exp 0.65( Ppr + 1) (9.17)
( Ppr + 2) ( Ppr + 3.5) 2
The equations show that bulk modulus and density both increase with increasing
pressure and increasing gravity, and decrease with increasing temperature. This is
illustrated in the examples in Table 3 and further in Batzle & Wangs Paper.
The (P-) wave velocity in brine can be fitted to the following empirical relation:
vbrine = vwater + S(1170 9.6T + 0.055T 2 8.5 105T 3 + 2.6P 0 0029TP 0.0476P2 )
(9.18)
+S1.5 (780 10P + 0.16P2 ) 1820S 2
where the velocity of fresh water is

- 35 -
4 3
vwater = wijT i P j (9.19)
i =0 j =0
The coefficients wij are given in Table 9.2. When applying Eqs. (9.18) and (9.19) the
velocities are given in [m/s], S is the salinity in weight fraction [ppm/1000.000], T is
temperature in [C], and P is pressure in [MPa].
In addition, the densities of brine and water (in [g/cm3]), respectively are given by:
brine = water + S{0.668+0.44S +1106 [300P 2400PS +T(80 + 3T 3300S 13P+ 47PS)]} (9.20)
water = 1 + 1106 (80Y 3.3T 2 + 0.00175T 3

(9.21)
+489P 2TP + 0.016T 2 P 1.3 105T 3P 0.333P2 0.002TP2 )
Table 9.2: The coefficients wij for calculation of wave velcoity vs. pressure and
temperature in water (taken from Batzle & Wang; 1992).
w00 = 1402.85 w01 = 1.524 w02 = 3.43710-3 w03 = -1.19710-5

w10 = 4.781 w11 = -0.0111 w12 = 1.73910-4 w13 = -1.62810-6
w20 = -0.04783 w21 = 2.74710-4 w22 = -2.13510-6 w23 = 1.23710-8
w30 = 1.48710-4 w31 = -6.50310-7 w32 = -1.45510-8 w33 = 1.32710-10
w40 = -2.19710-7 w41 = 7.98710-10 w42 = 5.23010-11 w43 = -4.61410-13
3.5
Salinity 20 % Bulk modulus of brine
P = 1 atm.
3.0
Bulk Modulus [GPa]
2.5
2.0 P = 25 MPa; P = 1 atm.

brine w/gas P = 25 MPa
1.5
P = 50 MPa
Salinity 3.5 %
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature [C]
Figure 9.3: Calculated bulk modulus of brine vs. temperature under different
conditions of pressure, salinity, and dissolved gas content.

- 36 -
Predicted velocities for brines under different conditions of pressure and temperature
are shown in Figure 9.3. The following main features should be noticed:
- Modulus (and velocity) of brine increases with increasing temperature at

temperatures below 60 80 C and decreases above that.
- Modulus and velocity of brine increase with increasing brine salinity.
- Modulus and velocity increase with increasing pressure.
When saturation is partial, then the effect of gas on the fluid modulus must be
estimated. If gas is dissolved, then one generally assumes a slight reduction of fluid
modulus with respect to that of the gas free pore fluid. The bulk modulus of brine with
dissolved gas is thought to follow a relationship of the form
K brine
K brine ( with dissolved gas ) = (9.22)
1 + 0.0494 RG
where RG is the gas-water ratio in [l/l]. RG is a function of pressure and temperature:
1.5
log10 RG = log10 (0.712 P T 76.71 + 3676 P 0.64 ) 4 7.786 S (T + 17.78) 0.306 (9.23)
This effect is illustrated in Figure 9.3, where a decrease is observed as a result of

dissolved gas.
The (P-wave) velocity in oil (Figure 9.4) is also temperature and pressure dependent.
There is a strongly decreasing trend of bulk modulus (and velocity) with increasing
temperature, and increasing modulus (and velocity) with pressure. The equations
leading to this plot are also based on no compositional changes as a function of pressure
and temperature. These equations are (for dead oil):
1
0 2 1
1

v = 2096 3.7T + 4.64 P + 0.0115 4.12(1.08 0 1) 1 TP (9.24)
2
2.6 0
where 0 is the density of the oil measured at 15.6 C and atmospheric pressure. The
density under pressure and temperature conditions is
P
= (9.25)
0.972 + 3.81 104 (T + 17.78)1.175
The pressure dependent part of the density is
P = 0 + (0.00277 P 1.71 107 P 3 )( 0 1.15)2 + 3.49 104 P (9.26)
Again, dissolved gas, which is present in live crude oil, reduces the bulk modulus (and
velocity), more so than in brine. This means that laboratory measurements on dead
oils can be quite misleading. Again the effect of dissolved gas is incorporated through a

- 37 -
factor RG , which can be expressed as
1.205
( 4.072
RG = 0.02123G Pe 0 0.00377T
(max)
(9.27)

The velocity is now calculated with Eq. (9.24), but replacing the density 0 with a
pseudodensity :
0
'= (1 + 0.001RG ) 1 (9.28)
B0
where
1.175
G 1
B0 = 0.972 + 0.00038 2.49 RG ( ) 2 + T + 17.8 (9.29)
0
The oil density is
0 + 0.0012GRG
liveoil = (9.30)
B0
Clearly the velocity behaviour is sensitive to the composition of the oil, and the plot in
Figure 9.4 is given for one fixed composition.
2.5
Bulk Modulus of Oil
P = 1 atm.
2.0 P = 50 MPa
Bulk modulus [GPa]
1.5 P = 25 MPa
1.0
P = 25 MPa; live oil

0.5
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature [C]
Figure 9.4: Calculated bulk modulus of oil vs. temperature for different conditions of
pressure. Also shown is the result for a live oil, containing dissolved gas.

- 38 -
10. Temperature dependent wave velocities

Wave velocities depend on temperature, for 2 obvious reasons:
- The bulk modulus of the pore fluid is temperature dependent

- The bulk and shear moduli of the host mineral is temperature dependent
As an example, the stiffness of quartz decreases with temperature from room

temperature and upwards. This decrease is linked to the transition from low-temperature
(-quartz) to high temperature (-quartz) at 573 C. According to Rzhevsky & Noviks
book (1971), Youngs modulus of quartzite decreases from 80 to about 65 GPa as
temperature is increased from 0 to 200 C.
Figure 10.1 shows predicted temperature dependence in dry and liquid saturated
sandstone using the temperature dependence found in quartz in a critical porosity law
for the frame moduli, and the temperature dependence of fluid properties described
above in the Biot-Gassmann equation. The expected trend, which is in agreement with
observations, is thus that the velocities decrease with temperature, and more so in
saturated than in dry sandstone.
4000
Pressure: 25 MPa
vp dry
vp brine
P-wave Velocity [m/s]
3500 vp oil
3000
Brine salinity: 3.5%

2500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature [C]
Figure 10.1: Calculated temperature dependence of P-wave velocity in dry, oil- and
brine-saturated sandstone.

- 39 -
11. Sound Velocities vs. Stresses.
In most rock cores, wave velocities increase strongly with increasing stress at low stress
levels, and level off at high stresses. This is commonly observed in sandstone. An
example is shown in Figure 11.1.
First, let it be pointed out that the often made basic assumption of linear elasticity
implies that elastic moduli are constants independent of stress. The observation of
stress dependence therefore indicates violence of the basic assumption. This may
happen through stress changes sufficiently large to alter porosity (which is assumed
constant in the linear poroelastic theory), or it may happen because of a nonlinearity in
the stress strain relationship.
The obvious physical explanation for such nonlinearities is that an external stress
improves the grain to grain contacts and / or closes microcracks / microfissures in the
rock, thereby increasing the stiffness. This means that a well cemented rock with
welded grain contacts is expected to show less stress sensitivity than a poorly cemented
rock with many Hertzian grain contacts. It also implies that a cored rock, which has
been unloaded from its in situ stress state and therefore contains microcracks, is
expected to show much stronger stress sensitivity than the same rock under virgin
conditions in situ. The effect of such core damage on wave velocities and their stress
dependence have been discussed elsewhere (e.g. Fjr & Holt, 1999; Nes et al, 2002).
2750
2700
2650
2600
2550
2500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
External Stress [MPa]
Figure 11.1: Characteristic stress dependence of wave velocities as seen in most rock
cores.
A few exceptions to the general behaviour illustrated in Figure 11.1 can be mentioned.
In high porosity shales, the stress dependence effect is often quite small. This is thought

- 40 -
to be because water always covers clay particles. Grain contacts are then often
constituted by water, which in itself is thought to be stress insensitive. In chalk,
increasing hydrostatic stress may lead to pore collapse which causes a velocity
reduction because the breaking of grains and grain bonds leads to a weakening of the
chalk structure. This is illustrated in Figure 11.2.
Figure 11.2: Measured velocities vs. stress in Red Wildmoor sandstone, Fullers Earth
(claystone) and outcrop chalk. From Holt et al., 1991.

- 41 -
Velocities depend on an effective stress ', which is the external stress minus a certain
contribution from the internal (pore) pressure pf:
' = p f (11.1)
The coefficient is normally assumed to be close to 1, but values < (and >) 1 may be
found. From Eq. (11.1) one sees that a high pore pressure plays the same role as a low
external stress, causing the sound velocity to be reduced. This is used in the estimation
of abnormal pore pressures from logs (and may also be used in seismics). Since the
expected trend in a homogeneous formation would be a monotonous increase of
velocity with depth (because the effective stress increases with depth), an overpressured
zone shows up as a low velocity zone breaking the expected trend.
It is however important to underline that the effective stress law above is not the same
as the Biot effective stress law from linear poroelasticity. Here we consider the stress
dependence of an elastic parameter, which already means that we are beyond linear
elasticity. Further, as seen above, the pore pressure has an intrinsic effect on the bulk
modulus and density of the pore fluid, without affecting the rock framework. This is
illustrated in Figure 11.3, which shows calculated P-wave velocities for a rock saturated
with brine and with oil, for a case where the framework is modelled as stress
insensitive. If the effective stress principle applied, we would expect the same stress
sensitivity independent of fluids, and if =1 (as is conventionally thought), there would
not be any stress dependency of the saturated rock in this case.
2900
T=150 C
Brine Saturated Rock
3.5% salinity
2800
Oil Saturated Rock

2700
2600 Dry Rock
2500
0 10 20 30 40 50
External Stress = Pore Pressure [MPa]
Figure 11.3: Calculated P-wave velocity vs. external stress (=pore pressure) in a
sandstone where the framework is assumed stress insensitive.

- 42 -
When a rock sample is stressed in anisotropic stress conditions, the wave velocities
become anisotropic. This is particularly the case near failure (Figure 11.4), where the
velocities with propagation direction and / or polarisation along the minor principal
stress direction are found to decrease substantially. This is result of opening of
microcracks (grain bond breakage) in this direction. It is also the case for a core sample
retrieved from the Earth, where stress release has caused development of an oriented
microcrack distribution, which carries a memory of the in situ stress state.
The presence of fractures or cracks smaller than the wavelength will significantly
reduce sound velocities. This essentially happens because the stiffness is strongly
reduced by the presence of cracks. The stress dependence discussed above is related to
closing of microcracks. If the fractures are larger than the wavelength, they will act as
reflectors.
Figure 11.4: P- velocities along (axial) and prependicular (radial) to the major
principal stress during a triaxial test with sandstone (failure strain:
0.015).

- 43 -
Let us finally look at the stress changes that may occur in a depleting reservoir. Clearly,
these stress changes may produce effects that can be seen in time-lapse seismics. For a
reservoir which is relatively large in extent compared to thickness, one may assume that
(i) there is no horizontal strain during depletion; and (ii) the reservoir feels the full
weight of the overburden at all times (no shielding; or stress arching). Hookes law
may now be used to estimate the stress change, as well as the compaction and porosity
change associated with depletion. From Hookes law we write
1
x = x y z
E E E (11.2)
1
z = x y + z
E E E
We now associate the z-direction with the in situ vertical (v) direction, and the x- and y-
directions with the in situ horizontal (h) directions. Here we assume the in situ stress to
be isotropic (=h) in the horizontal plane, but that assumption does not affect the results
below)According to poroelasticity theory, we need to replace the stresses with the
effective stress changes occurring during depletion. The elastic parameters to be used
are those of the drained rock framework. Hence:
1
h = 0 = h' fr h' fr v'
E fr E fr E fr
(11.3)
h 1
z = = fr h' fr h' + v'
h E fr E fr E fr
Since the total vertical stress is not changing, the effective vertical stress change in the
reservoir is directly given by the pore pressure change:
v' = p f (11.4)
From the first of the two equations under (11.3) we then find the horizontal effective
stress change as
fr
h' = v' = fr (p f ) (11.5)
1 fr 1 fr
For a Poisson ratio of 0.25, the effective horizontal stress increase will be 1/3 of the
effective vertical stress increase. Since the total vertical stress is constant, the total
horizontal stress is actually decreasing during depletion. Notice that depletion implies
that the pore pressure change pf is negative.
The second equation under (11.3) permits us to compute the compaction h (in meters),
given the initial thickness h of the reservoir. Combining with Eq. (11.5) we find that
(1 + fr )(1 2 fr ) 1
h = (p f ) h = (p f ) h (11.6)
E fr (1 fr ) 4
K fr + G fr
3

- 44 -
The porosity change during depletion can also be calculated (more tedious). The result
is:
1
= 1 ( p f ) (11.7)
K fr
is the mean stress change during depletion, given as
1 2 fr
= v + 2 h = p f (11.8)
1 fr
The porosity changes during depletion are usually small, and the direct effect of a
porosity change on wave velocities will normally also be small. The stress changes may
however be sufficiently large to exceed the elastic limits, so that new faults or fractures
are made within the reservoir (or in the overburden!), or old faults are activated. In
those cases one would expect a significant effect of the stress change on the 4D seismic
response. One would also expect a significant 4D effect when the reservoir is very soft
(Hertzian contacts) or when it is fractured.

- 45 -
12. Frequency dependent wave velocities
Sound velocities are slightly frequency dependent, increasing with frequency from
seismic to ultrasonic frequencies. Typically the total increase in velocity is a few %. The
transition between low and high frequency behaviour depends on pore fluid viscosity ,
and on the dispersion mechanism. If dispersion is caused by global viscous flow of pore
fluid (Biot flow), then
fc (12.1)
If dispersion is caused by local flow (squirt flow) between pores and cracks / pore
throats, then
1
fc (12.2)

The latter mechanism is often thought be the most important in sedimentary rocks.
For most rocks, the seismic frequency range is thought to be well below the transition
frequencies given above. Thus; the seismic velocities are assumed frequency
independent, although they may be smaller than laboratory measured (ultrasonic)
velocities, and also possibly smaller than those measured with a sonic logging tool.
A final note at the end: When computing elastic stiffnesses from wave velocities, one
generally finds that the dynamic elastic moduli are larger than thos measured in a static
experiment. Although part of that can be related to the frwequency dependence
discussed here, the major contribution to the discrepancy comes from the fact that the
amplitude of an elastic wave is too small to trigger non-elastic processes, such as crack
sliding and grain contact plastification. Such processes do however usually contribute to
the static deformation of rock. Thus; for instance, using the P-wave modulus of a dry
rock directly to estimate reservoir compaction (Eq. (11.6)) gives a lower limit to the
actual compaction that will occur in the field during depletion.

- 46 -
References and Suggested Readings
Batzle, M. & Wang, Z. (1992) Seismic properties of pore fluids. Geophysics 57, 1396-
1408.
Biot, M.A. (1962) Mechanics of deformation and acoustic propagation in porous media. J.
Appl. Phys. 33, 1482-98.
Fjr, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M., Risnes, R. (1992) Petroleum Related
Rock Mechanics. Elsevier, 338 pp.
Fjr, E. & Holt, R.M. (1999) Stress and stress release effects on acoustic velocities from
cores, logs and seismics. Proc. SPWLA Ann. Int. Mtg., Oslo; 12pp.
Holt, R.M., Fjr, E., Raaen, A.M., Ringstad, C. (1991) Influence of stress stae and stress
history on acoustic wave propagation in sedimentary rocks. In Shear Waves in Marine
Sediments; eds. J.M.Hovem et al.; Kluwer; pp. 167-174.
Holt, R.M., Snsteb, E.F., Horsrud, P. (1997) Acoustic velocities of North Sea shales.
EAGE; Amsterdam NL, June97; 2pp.
Kendall, K. (1984) Connection between structure and strength of porous solids. In Phys.
& Chem. of Porous Media; eds. D.L.Johnson & P.N.Sen; Am. Inst. Phys. Proc. 107;
pp.78-88.
Marion, D., Nur, A., Yin, H., Han, D. (1992) Compressional velocity and porosity in
sand-clay mixtures. Geophysics 57, 554-563.
Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., Dvorkin, J. (1998) The Rock Physics Handbook. Cambridge Un.
Press; 329 pp.
Murphy, W., Reischer, A., Hsu, K. (1993) Modulus decomposition of compressional and
shear velocities in sand bodies. Geophysics 58, 227-239.
Nes, O._M., Holt, R.M., Fjr, E. (2002) The reliability of core data as input to seismic
reservoir monitoring studies. SPE Res. Eng. & Eval. ; Febr. 2002; pp. 79-86.
Nur, A. & Wang, Z. (1988) Seismic and acosutic velocities in reservoir rocks. Vol.I:
Experimental studies. SEG Geophysics Reprint Series No.10.
Rzhevsky, V. & Novik, G. (1971) The Physics of Rocks. MIR Publ.; 320pp.
Vernik, L. (1994) Predicting lithology and transport properties from acoustic velocities
based on petrophysical classification of siliclastics. Geophysics 59, 420-427.
Wang, Z. and Nur., A. (1992) ) Seismic and acosutic velocities in reservoir rocks. Vol.II:
Theoretical and model studies. SEG Geophysics Reprint Series No.10.
White, J.E. (1983) Underground sound. Elsevier.
Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R., Gardner, G.H.F. (1957) An experimental investigation of
factors affecting elastic wave velocities in porous media. Geophysics 23, 459-493.

Rock Acoustics Lecture Notes Explained

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rock Acoustics Lecture Notes Explained

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture Notes

NTNU, Trondheim, 2004

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\1\29/01/2004

1. Summary of poroelasticity. ...................................................................................3

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\2\29/01/2004

2 stresses: The external stress ij

Example 1: Drained (hydrostatic) loading.

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\3\29/01/2004

Example 2: Undrained (hydrostatic) loading.

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\4\29/01/2004

Kf: Bulk modulus of pore fluid

G(undrained) = G(drained) (1.11)

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\5\29/01/2004

empirical to theoretical effective medium approaches. We will discuss such models in

2. Bounds for elastic moduli

For a composite material consisting of N components, the elastic moduli M (M = K or

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\6\29/01/2004

Hashin and Shtrikman calculated bounds based on elastic energy considerations,

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\7\29/01/2004

For the shear modulus, they found:

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\8\29/01/2004

3. Critical porosity model

Sedimentary rocks can be considered as packages of grains which somehow are

The undrained modulus K is then

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\9\29/01/2004

The critical porosity model is illustrated in Figure 3.1.

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\10\29/01/2004

Figure 3.2: Modified critical porosity model using Eq.(3.5)

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\11\29/01/2004

4. Effective medium theory

Inclusion models, where pores or cracks are treated as voids or inclusions in a

Figure 4.1 Sketch of a solid sphere of volume V containing a spherical cavity of

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\12\29/01/2004

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\13\29/01/2004

Figure 4.2: A penny shaped crack.

In the self-consistent approach (Budiansky & OConnell, 1976):

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\14\29/01/2004

Figure 4.3: Sketch of Hertzian grain contact.

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\15\29/01/2004

bulk modulus for a porosity (given by the packing) can be calculated as

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\16\29/01/2004

5. Sound velocities in rocks and other materials.

Material vp (m/s) vs (m/s) (g/cm3) Comments

Saturated loose 1500-2000 10-300 2.0-2.4

Competent 2500-4500 1500-2500 2.0-2.3

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\17\29/01/2004

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\18\29/01/2004

6. Wave velocities vs. porosity.

An example of calculated velocities in dry rock for different values of is shown

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\19\29/01/2004

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\20\29/01/2004

v P = (1 )2 v solid + v fluid (6.4)

v P = 5.54 8.22 (6.5)

There is however also a significant amount of scatter in the data.

5000 Critical porosity

1000 Suspension (Reuss' average)

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\21\29/01/2004

Figure 6.4: Comparison of laboratory measured compressional wave velocities with

\\Boss\avd33\Medarbeidere\RMH\NTNU\Forelesningsnotater\TPG4170 Rock Acoustics.doc\E\22\29/01/2004

7. Sound velocities vs. lithology.

vp/vs ~ 1.5 for dry sands

Dry shale does not exist at depth.

Density [g/cm3] Bulk modulus [GPa] Shear modulus