7.

Effective medium
Upscaling problem
Backus averaging
ODoherty-Anstey approximation
Reuss and Voigt models
Bio-Gassmann model
Hertz-Mindlin model
Upscaling problem

Does seismic wave see the

thin-layering?
 Upscaling problem
From microscopic to macroscopic scale

From pore (graine) scale (millimeters)

From log-scale (centimeteers)
 Upscaling problem
Traditionally, upscaling has meant upscaling of
reservoir petrophysical properties and flow
parameters dedicated for reservoir fluid flow
simulation. However, due to the progresses
mentioned above, there is a need to extend the
concept of upscaling of geological models, for
rock physics properties, seismic modelling and
analysis. For instance, in 4D history matching,
the need for up and downscaling might differ
from the traditional concept of upscaling.
 Backus averaging
Sequential Backus Averaging is a method of averaging the properties of a
stack of thin layers so they are similar to average properties of a single
thick layer.

Figure 7.1. The Backus averaging scheme

 Backus averaging
The advantage of Sequential
Backus Averaging is that no
artificial "blocks" are
introduced into the geology
during the upscaling of the
well-log data. In this example
the density log is blocky, but
the compressional- and shear-
wave velocity logs have
gradational tops and appear
thicker. Blocking would distort
the amplitudes. Furthermore, if
blocking were based solely
upon either the density or the
sonic curves, the result would
be wrong for the other curve.

Figure 7.2. The Backus averaging versus blocking averaging

 Backus averaging
Thin beds appear thinner at oblique incidence angles.

Figure 7.3. The thin beds

 Backus averaging
At nonnormal incidence, the averaging operator must be adjusted to include the
apparent bed thinning.

Figure 7.4. Adjusting of averaging operator

 Backus averaging

The offset synthetic shows differing

AVO signatures for the same elastic
property contrasts, associated with
step-functions, blocky beds, and
gradational interfaces.

Figure 7.5. AVO signatures from different models

Backus averaging

C ,
ij k
, k 1, M

(7.1)

,
C ij
 Backus averaging

c 33 1 1
c13 c 33 p
A

c13 c 33 p p c 11 c 13 c 33
1 2 2 1


(7.2)

p
B
1
c 44
(7.3)
p

How many combinations of the stiffness coefficients enter these matrices?

 Backus averaging
A 32
2 1
A1 c11 c13 c33 c11 A1
A2
1
A 2 c33 A3
c13
1
A3 c13c33 A2
1
A4 c 1
44
c33
A2
1
1 M c 44
m d k mk (7.4)
A4 (7.5)
D k 1

The effective vertical velocity from
Backus averaging
1 1 N N d j
2 d j j 2

j 1 j v j
2
VEF D j 1

1 1 N 1 N d j d k j v j k vk
2 2 2
VTA D j 1 k j 1 v j vk v v (7.6)
k k j j
1 4 N 1 N d d r 2
2 2
j k jk

VTA D j 1 k j 1 v j vk 1 rjk
2

Stovas and Arntsen, 2003

 Layering
0,04
0,02
0,00
M8
-0,02
-0,04
0,04
0,02
0,00
M4
-0,02
-0,04
0,04
0,02
0,00
M2
-0,02
-0,04
0,04
0,02
0,00
M1
-0,02
-0,04

0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40

Time, s

Figure 7.6. The layering effect (each model computed by compression and
doubling of the previous one)
Reflection-transmission versus
layering and contrast
2 0,003

M32 0
M32 0,000

-2 -0,003
2 0,005

M28 0 M28 0,000

-0,005
-2
2
0,01
M24 0
M24 0,00
-0,01
-2
2
0,03

M20 0
M20 0,00

-2 -0,03
2 0,1

M16 0
M16 0,0
-2 -0,1
2
0,1

M12 0
M12 0,0
-0,1
-2
2
0,2
M8 0
M8 0,0
-0,2
-2
2
0,5

M4 0

-2
M4 0,0
-0,5
2
0,5

M2 0
M2 0,0
-0,5
-2
2 1

M1 0
M1 0
-2 -1
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Time, s Time, s
0,5
1
M32 0,0
M32 0
-0,5 -1
0,5
1
M28 0,0
M28 0
-0,5 -1
0,5
1
M24 0,0
M24 0
-0,5 -1
0,5
1
M20 0,0
M20 0
-0,5 -1
0,5
1
M16 0,0
M16 0
-0,5 -1
0,5
1
M12 0,0
M12 0
-0,5 -1
0,5
1
M8 0,0
M8 0
-0,5 -1
0,5
1
M4 0,0
M4 0
-0,5 -1
0,5
1
M2 0,0
M2 0
-0,5 -1
0,5
1
M1 0,0
M1 0
-0,5 -1
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Time, s Time, s

Figure 7.7. The reflection (bottom)and transmission (top) responses with

different contrasts (to the right is 4 times larger).
 Binary medium (multiples)
Full reflected field Primaries only

0 0
M7 M7

0 0
M6 M6

0 0
M5 M5

0 0
M4 M4

0 0
M3 M3

0 0
M2 M2

0 0
M1 M1
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
Time, s Time, s
Multiples only

0
M7

0
M6

0
M5

0
Figure 7.8. Multiples contribution into
M4

0
the reflection response
M3

0
M2

0
M1
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
Time, s
 Propagation versus contrast
Model: 256 x 1m
r=0.00
primary transmission first multiple
r=0.16

r=0.33 second multiple

r=0.48

r=0.60

r=0.70

r=0.79

r=0.87
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40 0,45 0,50
Time, s
Figure 7.9. Transmission from thin layer model (change in r due to change in r only)
 Effective properties versus net-to-
gross

0,00
2,25
2,20 -0,02
2,15 -0,04
non-linear
2,10 -0,06
2,05 VP0, km/s -0,08 non-symmetric
2,00
1,5
-0,10
-0,12

1,4
-0,14
1,3 non-linear
1,2
1,1 VS0, km/s
1,0 0,00
0,9
-0,02
2,20
2,18

-0,04 symmetric
2,16 linear
2,14 3 -0,06
2,12 , g/cm
2,10 -0,08
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Net-to gross ratio Net-to gross ratio

Figure 7.10. Effective properties from Backus averaging in a binary medium

Stovas, Landro and Avseth, 2004

 Turbidite sequence from Ainsa
basin

Figure 7.11. Turbidite system as an example of binary medium

 Binary medium

1 ei1 0 1 r ei2 0 1 r a b
S i1 i 2 * *
(7.7)
t12t21 0 e r 1 0 e r 1 b a

a
e 1
i 2
e
1 r 2 2 i 2

1 r2
(7.8)

b
re 1
i 2
1 e 2 i 2

2ir sin 2 i1
e
1 r2 1 r 2

k 2 fdk vk (7.9)
 Binary medium
2r 2
Re a cos 1 2 sin 1 sin 2
1 r 2

(7.10)
2r 2
Im a sin 1 2 cos 1 sin 2
1 r 2

det S a b 1
2 2
(7.11)

The propagator matrix is not unitary

a2 b2 2a*b
4r sin 2 2 r sin 2 i r 2 i 2
e e i 2

I
SH S I
2ab* a b 2 i 2 i 2

2
2r sin 2
2 2
1 r 2
i r e e
(7.12)
Binary medium

From the characteristic equation

det S I 0 (7.13)

we compute the eigenvalues

1,2 Re a i 1 Re a
2
(7.14)
 Binary medium

The propagating regime with complex eigenvalues

and the blocking regime with real eigenvalues:

e i , Re a 1
1,2 Re a (7.15)
Re a 2
1
e , Re a 1
Propagating and blocking regimes

r=0.87 r=0.16
1 1
M1 0 M1 0
-1 -1
1 1
M2 0 M2 0
-1 -1
1 1
M4 0 M4 0
-1 -1
1 1
M8 0 M8 0
-1 -1
1 1
M16 0 M16 0
-1 -1
1 1
M32 0 M32 0
-1 -1
1 1
M64 0 M64 0
-1 -1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Frequency, Hz Frequency, Hz

Figure 7.12. Re a as a function of frequency versus layering and contrast.

Filled low frequency area relates to an effective medium, next coming gap
relates to transition medium. The interchanging of these zones is repeatable.
 Velocity limits
The time average limit means that d
the pulse width is much less than vTA (7.16)
d1 d 2
the propagation time through the cycle)
v1 v2

The effective medium limit can be 1 1 4d1d 2 1 r 2

2 2 (7.17)
computed assuming phases being
small (low frequency limit)
2
vEF vTA d v1v2 1 r 2

d v1v2
The geometrical average limit v (7.18)
2 d1d 2
 Velocity limits versus volume
8000
fraction
7000 vRT
v
vEF
6000
Velocity, m/s

5000

v
4000
vRT r=0.16
r=0.48
3000
r=0.87

2000

1000
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Volume fraction
Figure 7.13. Velocity versus fraction. The larger reflection coefficient the more deviation
between time-average and effective medium velocities. The position for maximum
difference between them moving to high values of volume fraction with r increase.
 Stack of binary layers
The propagator matrix can be represented by the eigenvalue decomposition

S UU 1 (7.19)

diag 1 , 2 (7.20)

1 1
U (7.21)
1 a b 2
a b
 Stack of binary layers
Product of M cycles

1 1 1
M
u22 M
2 u21 2
M
1
M

Q S U U
M M

u22 v21 u21u22 2 1 2 u22 1 u21
M M M M

(7.22)
Transmission and reflection response

1 2 1
tD q
22
2 a 2M 1 a 1M (7.23)

1
rD q12 q22
M
2 1M b
2 2 1 1
a M
a M
 Stack of binary layers
Propagating regime Blocking regime

Re a 1 Re a 1 (7.24)

1,2 e i 1,2 e
(7.25)

cos Re a cosh Re a (7.26)

 Stack of binary layers
Propagating regime

sin ei
tD
sin cos M i Im a sin M 1 C2
(7.27)
i 1
b sin M Ce 2
rD
sin cos M i Im a sin M 1 C2

cos M
cos
1 C2
(7.28)
sin M
Cb
sin
 Stack of binary layers
Blocking regime

sinh ei
tD
sinh cosh M i Im a sinh M 1 C2
(7.29)
i 1
b sinh M Ce 2
rD
sinh cosh M i Im a sinh M 1 C2

cosh M
cos
1 C2
(7.30)
sinh M
Cb
sinh
 Stack of binary layers

r=0.87 r=0.16
1,0 1,0
0,5 0,5
M1 0,0 M1 0,0
-0,5 -0,5
-1,0 -1,0
1,0 1,0
0,5 0,5
M2 0,0 M2 0,0
-0,5 -0,5
-1,0 -1,0
1,0 1,0
0,5 0,5
M4 0,0 M4 0,0
-0,5 -0,5
-1,0 -1,0
1,0 1,0
0,5 0,5
M8 0,0 M8 0,0
-0,5 -0,5
-1,0 -1,0
1,0 1,0
0,5 0,5
M16 0,0 M16 0,0
-0,5 -0,5
-1,0 -1,0
1,0 1,0
0,5 0,5
M32 0,0 M32 0,0
-0,5 -0,5
-1,0 -1,0
1,0 1,0
0,5 0,5
M64 0,0 M64 0,0
-0,5 -0,5
-1,0 -1,0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Frequency, Hz Frequency, Hz

Figure 7.14. cos a as a function of frequency versus layering and contrast

(blue line is for the reference time average medium).

Stovas and Ursin, 2005

 Stack of binary layers

r=0.87 r=0.16
20 2
10 1
M1 0 M1 0
-10 -1
-20 -2
20 2
10 1
M2 0 M2 0
-10 -1
-20 -2
20 2
10 1
M4 0 M4 0
-10 -1
-20 -2
20 2
10 1
M8 0 M8 0
-10 -1
-20 -2
20 2
10 1
M16 0 M16 0
-10 -1
-20 -2
20 2
10 1
M32 0 M32 0
-10 -1
-20 -2
20 2
10 1
M64 0 M64 0
-10 -1
-20 -2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Frequency, Hz Frequency, Hz

Figure 7.15. Amplitude C as a function of frequency versus layering and contrast

(the gaps relates to the extremely large values).
 Stack of binary layers

TRT r = 0.87 TRT

r = 0.16
1 4
M1 0 M1 0
-1 -4
1 4
M2 0 M2 0
-1 -4
1 4
M4 0 M4 0
-1 -4
1 4
M8 0
-1
M8 0
-4
1 4
M16 0 M16 0
-1 -4
1 4
M32 0 M32 0
-1 -4
1 TEM 4
TEM
M64 0 M64 0
-1 -4
0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10 0,000 0,013 0,026 0,039 0,052 0,065 0,078 0,091
Time, s Time, s

Figure 7.16. Transmission response versus layering and contrast.

Note the difference between TRT (transmission time for time average medium) and
TEM (transmission time for effective medium). Weak transmission for r=0.87 and
Model M16 is due to the wavelet spectrum is in the blocking regime, see Figure 7.12)
 Stack of binary layers

r = 0.87 r = 0.16
4 1,5
M1 0 M1 0,0
-4 -1,5
4 1,5
M2 0 M2 0,0
-4 -1,5
4 1,5
M4 0 M4 0,0
-4 -1,5
4 1,5
M8 0 M8 0,0
-4 -1,5
4 1,5
M16 0 M16 0,0
-4 -1,5
4 1,5
M32 0 M32 0,0
-4 -1,5
4 2*TEM 1,5 2*TEM
M64 0 M64 0,0
-4 -1,5
0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10 0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10
Time, s Time, s

Figure 7.17. Reflection response versus layering and contrast.

 Stack of binary layers

r=0.87 r=0.16
1,0 1,0
M1 0,5 M1 0,5
0,0 0,0
1,0 1,0
M2 0,5 M2 0,5
0,0 0,0
1,0 1,0
M4 0,5 M4 0,5
0,0 0,0
1,0 1,0
M8 0,5 M8 0,5
0,0 0,0
1,0 1,0
M16 0,5 M16 0,5
0,0 0,0
1,0 1,0
M32 0,5 M32 0,5
0,0 0,0
1,0 1,0
M64 0,5 M64 0,5
0,0 0,0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Frequency, Hz Frequency, Hz

Figure 7.18. Transmission (solid line) and reflection (dotted line) amplitudes
as a function of frequency versus layering and contrast.
 Phase velocity
r=0.87 r=0.16
M8
6000 M4
M2 4200
M16
M16 M8
M1 M4
M2
4500 M1
VTA 4000
VTA
VEF M64
3000 M32
M32 3800

VEF
1500 M64

3600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Frequency, Hz Frequency, Hz

Figure 7.19. Phase velocity as a function of frequency versus layering and contrast.
The effective medium is the low frequency part (around effective medium limit), the
transition medium is for dramatical increase in velocity and time average medium is
for oscillating part around time average velocity limit. Note that for small r, the width
of transition zone is narrow comparing with high r case.
 Transition from effective to time
average medium
Critical wavelength-spacing ratio:

l/d=3 (Helbig, 1984)

l/d=5-8 (Carcione et al., 1991)
l/d=10 (Marion et al., 1992, 1994)
Transition from effective to time
average medium
Re a 1 (7.31)

1 1 r
2
tan tan (7.32)
2 2 1 r
1
1 r
a tan

(7.33)
d 1 1 r

1
1 r
a tan

(7.34)
d 2 2 1 r
 Transition from effective to time
average medium
40

36

32

28

24 Effective medium

20
/d

16

12

8 Transition zone

4
Time average medium
0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
Absolute value of r
Figure 7.20. Effective, transition and time average medium (volume fraction 0.5)
versus contrast.
 ODoherty-Anstey
approximation
Plane waves are normally incident on a
sequency of horizontal layers. If the layers are
lossless the shape of the frequency spectrum of
the reflection response depends on the
reflection coefficient series. The law of
dependence can be found by solving the wave
equation for the boundary and initial conditions
of the seismic experiment. The ODoherty-
Anstey formula is an approximation to this law,
and its validity would imply a lowpass spectrum
of the reflection/transmission response if the
reflectivity power spectrum has a highpass
trend.
ODoherty-Anstey
approximation
 ODoherty-Anstey
approximation
The ODA result for the retarded transmissivity caused
by propagation through a set of layers is:

(7.35)

where N is the number of layers and R+(z) is the causal half

of the normalized autocorrelation of the reflectivity function
in a z-transform notation

z-transform: z ei (7.36)
ODoherty-Anstey
approximation

its Fourier representation

(7.37)

(7.38)
 ODoherty-Anstey
approximation
Now recall that reflectivity is a differential process,
and if the elastic parameters are stationary in time, then

(7.39)

and our first, scaling, coefficient goes to zero leaving,

(7.40)
ODoherty-Anstey
approximation

Figure 7.21. Examples of

submillimetric fine layering from
Beringen coal mine:
Top coarse sedimentary rock
(sandstone),
Bottom fine sedimentary rock
(shaly siltstone)
ODoherty-Anstey
approximation
Figure 7.22. Thin micrograph of
Rotliegend Sandstone (at 2990m
depth).
Left laminated structure due to
differences in grain size and
packing.
Right details of two laminae,
upper: coarser grained laminae with
intergranular pores, lower: finer
grained laminae with partly filled
inrergranular space by detrital clays
and dolomite.
 ODoherty-Anstey
approximation

Figure 7.23. Thin section micrographs. Scale = 0.25 mm.

(A) Single lamina of very fine-grained, poorly sorted quarz sandstone in shale (2570m depth).
(B) Two laminae of very fine-grained, well sorted quartz arenit interlaminated wirh sandy shale
(2920m depth).
(C) Laminated, very fine grained sandstone and interbedded silty shale (2650m depth)
 ODoherty-Anstey
approximation

Figure 7.24. Thin section of Rotliegend sandstone (left) and P-wave increase
with triaxial pressure increase
 ODoherty-Anstey approximation
0
0
P S S
g11 g12 g22 g12
P P P z'''
P P S P S S P
g11 g12 S S
'' P P S
z
z''
g11 g12 g22 g12
P P P P P S P
P P S S
'
z z'
g11 g12
P P P
z z

Figure 7.25. Contrubution of first-order multiples into PP transmission (left) and

PS reflection (right).

1 0 2 1 0 2
t Dkk , k, z exp i k z exp rDkk z rDPS z (7.40)
2 2
Stovas and Ursin, 2004
 ODoherty-Anstey approximation
The propagator matrix for the stack of N layers (see eq. 7.7)

AN BN N
Q N * *
Q j (7.41)
BN AN j 1

N 1 N
eiN 2 i j k
AN N 1 rk rj e ... (7.42)

j1 r k 1 j k 1
j 1
N j d j vj
2 i N j
eiN rj e ... k (7.44)
BN j 1 k j
(7.43)
1 rj
N
j 1

j 1
Stovas and Arntsen, 2003
ODoherty-Anstey approximation

Determinant of propagator matrix

N N 1 rj
det Q N AN BN det Q j
2 2
(7.45)
j 1 j 1 1 rj

For binary medium

det Q N 1 (7.46)
ODoherty-Anstey approximation

The elements of the total propagator matrix

N 1 N
eiN 2 i j k
QN 1,1 N 1 rk rj e ... (7.47)

1 rj k 1 j k 1
j 1

N 2 i N j
rj e
iN
e ...
QN 1, 2 j 1 (7.48)

1 r
N

j
j 1
ODoherty-Anstey approximation
The transmission and reflection response:
N
e iN
1 r k
N
tD Q 1
2, 2 k 1 (7.49)
N 1 N
N
2 i j k
1 rk rj e ...
k 1 j k 1

N 2 i N j
e 2iN rj e ...
N
rD QN 1, 2 QN1 2, 2 j 1 (7.50)
N 1 N 2 i j k
1 rk rj e ...
k 1 j k 1
ODoherty-Anstey approximation
The transmission amplitude

1 r k
t D
N
k 1 (7.51)
1

consists of two two terms:

1 r
k 1
k
attenuation due to transmission

1
1 attenuation due to scattering
ODoherty-Anstey approximation
The transmission phase

Im
N N a tan (7.52)
1 Re

also consists of two terms

N the time-average term

Im
a tan the scattering term
1 Re
ODoherty-Anstey approximation
The phase velocity
1 1 Im t D 1 1 Im
a tan a tan
V D Re t D VTA D 1 Re
N 1 (7.53)
r r sin 2 k ...
N

k j j
1 1 k 1 j k 1
a tan
VTA D N 1 N
1 r r cos 2
k 1 j k 1
k j j k ...

The zero-frequency limit

N 1
r r k ...
N

1 1 1 2
k 1 j k 1
k j j

lim (7.54)
V VTA D N 1 N
1 rr
V0 0
k j ...
k 1 j k 1
ODoherty-Anstey approximation
With approximation of the type

1 e (7.55)

and transmission amplitude 7.51 we obtain

N 1 N
rk rj cos 2 j k N
N
tD e k 1 j k 1
1 r
k 1
k
(7.56)

and zero-frequency limit 7.54 becomes

N 1 N
rk rj j k
2
N (7.57)
V0 VTAe k 1 j k 1
 ODoherty-Anstey approximation
2120
Velocity, m/s 2100
2080
2060
2040 data, = 2
weak-contrast
2020
O'Doherty-Anstey
2000
1980
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1,0

0,9
Transmission

0,8

0,7

0,6

0,5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.26. The phase velocity and transmission amplitude versus frequency.
The comparison between exact, weak-contrast and ODoherty-Anstey approximation.
Note the low frequency range, less than 5 Hz.
 Reuss model
Isostress model (valid for suspensions, with the
fluid phase load-bearing), porosity is greater
than critical porosity.

1 1 N di
(7.58)
MR D i 1 Mi

The critical porosity separates the mechanical and acoustic behavior into two
disctinct domains.
For porosity less the critical one the mineral grains are load-bearing.
For porosity larger the critical one the sediment becomes a suspension.
 Voigt model
Isostrain model (the load-bearing domain),
porosity is less than critical porosity

1 N
M V di Mi (7.59)
D i 1
 Thin-layer model

Figure 7.27. Snapshot for a thin layer model (f=30Hz)

 Reuss averaging

Figure 7.28. Snapshot for an effective Reuss model (f=30Hz)

 Voigt averaging

Figure 7.29. Snapshot for an effective Voigt model (f=30Hz)

 Average slowness

Figure 7.30. Snapshot for an effective average slowness model (f=30Hz)

 Average velocity

Figure 7.31. Snapshot for an effective average velocity model (f=30Hz)

 Backus average

Figure 7.32. Snapshot for an effective Backus model (f=30Hz)

 Bio-Gassmann model
Biot (1956): frequency dependent velocities of
saturated rocks in terms of the dry rock
properties
Gassmann (1951): the low frequency limit of Biot
equations
Assumptions and limitations:
- Rock is isotropic
- All minerals making up rock have same bulk and
shear moduli
- Fluid-bearing rock is completely saturated

Biot equations can be extended to VTI medium

 Gassmann model


K K 2
2 K fr
1 4 fr ma (7.60)
3 K K
K ma 1 ma fr
Kf K ma


2
(7.61)

P-wave velocity
S-wave velocity
Density
Bulk modulus of solid framework K fr
Shear wave modulus
Intrinsic modulus of solid matrix K ma
Saturated fluid bulk modulus Kf
Porosity
 Gassmann model
Density f 1 ma (7.62)

1 S 1 S
Fluid bulk modulus (7.63)
Kf K w Ko

Fluid density f wS o 1 S (7.64)

Fluid density f
Matrix density ma
Oil density o
Water density w
Oil bulk modulus Ko
Water nulk modulus K w
 Hertz-Mindlin model
The Hertz-Mindlin model (Mindlin, 1949)
can be used to describe the properties of
precompacted granular rocks
 Hertz-Mindlin model

C2 1 2
2
K eff 3 P (7.65)
18 2
1 2

3C2 1 2
2
5 4
eff P (7.66)
5 2
3
2 1
2 2

Poissons ratio
Shear modulus
Porosity
Average number of contacts per grain C9
Hydrostatic confinig pressure P
 Gassmann-Mindlin
3,0

2,8
, km/s

2,6

Pa
0,025
Figure 7.32. The vertical P-wave and

,G
2,4 0,020

re
0,015

su
0,0
S-wave velocities versus water

es
0,2 0,010

pr
0,4

e
Wat 0,6 0,005

iv saturation and effective pressure

er sa
t urat 0,8 ct
fe
ion
Ef

1,0

changes.

1,4
, km/s

1,2
Pa

0,025
,G

1,0 0,020
re

0,015
su

0,0
es

0,2 0,010
pr

0,4
e

Wat 0,6 0,005

iv

er sa
ct

tura 0,8
fe

tion
Ef

1,0
Stovas and Landro, 2005
 Gassmann-Mindlin
0,06 /
0,04

0,02 /
0,00
/
-0,02
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

0,2 Water saturation

0,1

0,0
/
-0,1

-0,2 /
-0,3

0,000 0,005 0,010 0,015 0,020 0,025

Effective pressure, GPa

Figure 7.33. Relative (to the initial model) changes in P-wave velocity, S-wave velocity
and density versus water saturation and effective pressure changes.
Within the Hertz-Mindlin model density does not change with pressure.
 Gassmann-Mindlin
0,10
Reflection coefficients
0,08
RPS Increase S
0,06

0,04

0,02

0,00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0,0
Reflection coefficients

-0,1 Increase S

-0,2
RPP
-0,3

-0,4

-0,5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Incidence angle, degrees

Figure 7.34. The behavior of the PP and PS reflection coefficients with changing
water saturation. The initial model reflection coefficients are plotted by circles.
The curves are sampled in the water saturation change of 0.2.
 0,15
Gassmann-Mindlin Increase P
Reflection coefficients

0,10

RPS
0,05

0,00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Increase P
0,0
Reflection coefficients

-0,1

-0,2

-0,3
RPP
-0,4
Increase P
-0,5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Incidence angle, degrees

Figure 7.35. The behavior of the PP and PS reflection coefficients with changing
effective pressure. The initial model reflection coefficients are plotted by circles.
The curves are sampled in the change in effective pressure of 0.001 Gpa.
 Gassmann-Mindlin
0,04

0,00
(40 )
0

-0,04
-Iso/IsoPP

-0,08

R

-0,12
0,025

Pa
0,020

,G
-0,16

re
0,0 0,015

su
0,2

es
0,010
0,4

pr
Wat 0,6 0,005

e
er sa

iv
tura 0,8

ct
tion

fe
1,0

Ef
Figure 7.36. Stacked PP reflection coefficient versus saturation and pressure
 Gassmann-Mindlin

0,08
(40 )

0,06
0
-Iso/IsoPS

0,04

R

0,02

Pa
0,025

,G
0,020

re
0,015

su
0,0

es
0,2 0,010

pr
0,4

e
Wate 0,6 0,005

iv
r sat

ct
urat 0,8

fe
ion

Ef
1,0

Figure 7.36. Stacked PS reflection coefficient versus saturation and pressure