Wave propagation

Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

Stress and pore pressure dependent anisotropy of elastic waves
in porous structures

Serge A. Shapiro & Axel Kaselow

Freie Universitaet Berlin, Germany

ABSTRACT: Elastic properties of rocks are functions of tectonic stresses. Using the theory of poroelasticity
as a starting point we analyze mechanisms of these dependencies related to changes of the rock-pore-space
geometry. We develop a formalism describing elastic moduli and anisotropy of rocks as non-linear functions of
confining stresses and pore pressure. This formalism appears to be in agreement with laboratory observations.
In a first approximation elastic moduli, seismic velocities as well as the porosity depend on the differential
stress, i.e., the difference between the confining tectonic stresses and the pore pressure only. However, generally,
both, the differential stress tensor and the pore pressure must be taken into account as independent variables.
It is the stress dependent geometry of the pore space that fully controls the stress induced changes of elastic
moduli and seismic velocities. Specifically, the compliant porosity plays the most important role, in spite of
the fact that in many rocks the compliant porosity is just a very small part of the total porosity. Changes of the
compliant porosity with differential stress explain the often observed exponential behaviour of elastic moduli.
We introduce a tensor quantity defining the sensitivity of elastic moduli of rocks to the differential stress and call
it the stress-sensitivity tensor. The stress sensitivity is an important physical property directly related to elastic
non-linearity of rocks.

1 INTRODUCTION dependencies of elastic properties. Moreover, some

Theoretical approaches to understanding stress depen-
dencies of the rock elasticity are necessarily related to
acknowledgement of the fact that rocks behave like
non-linear bodies. Several, quite successful attempts
to use the formalism of non-linear elasticity theory for
this goal are known from recent literature (Sarkar et al.,
2003, Johnson and Rasolofasaon, 1996) However,
these models are restricted to small ranges of stress
changes only, so that the resulting stress dependencies
of elastic parameters principally are liner functions of
stress only.
Such investigations are usually based on a very
general theory of elastic non-linearity. However, it is
intuitively clear that the elastic non-linearity of rocks
is related to a complex heterogeneity of the rock struc-
ture. The first-order heterogeneities of rocks are their
voids, i.e., pores and fractures. A general theory of
elastic non-linearity does not take this specifics of
rocks into account. Several following approaches can
be counted to attempts to specify models of porous
space geometry in order to arrive to a more spe-
cific elastic non-linear rock characterization.These are
spherical contacts models (Duffy and Mindlin, 1957)
or crack contacts models (Gangi and Carlson, 1996).
These approaches are used in geophysical applications.
These models lead to different quite complex stress
of them works in very restricted ranges of pore pres-
sure changes or under very restricted geometrical or
geomechanical conditions.
From the other hand it is known, that under hydro-
static load the pore pressure-, confining stress- and
differential stress dependencies of seismic velocities
or elastic moduli are phenomenologically described
by the following simple relationship (see e.g.,
Zimmerman et al., 1986; Eberhart-Phillips et al., 1989)
where P = Pc Pp is the differential pressure, Pc =
ii /3 is a confining pressure, ij is a component of
the total stress tensor (in this paper, the compression
stress is negative and the summation over repeating
indices is assumed) and Pp is a pore pressure. The
coefficients A, K, B and D of equation (1) are fitting
parameters for a given set of measurements.
It is often observed that equation (1) or similar
equations describing an exponential saturation to a
linear trend provide very good approximations for
velocities and elastic moduli of dry as well as sat-
urated rocks in a range of stress changes of several
hundreds megapascals. Moreover, it is also observed
that this equation provides a very good approximation

167
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
for elastic properties of anisotropic rocks (see our
Figure 1).
In our previous publication (Shapiro, 2003) we
attempted to explain this equation for isotropic rocks
and hydrostatic loads. We have introduced a rock
property called the elastic piezosensitivity (i.e., pres-
sure sensitivity; note that this property has nothing
to do with characteristics of piezoelectric effects)
which controls exponential terms in equations of the
type (1).
In this work we consider the case of anisotropic
rocks and an arbitrary symmetry of the tectonic load.
We show that equations of the form (1) can be derived
from a rather general consideration. We assume that
the elastic non-linearity of rocks is very weak, so that,
for example, seismic wave propagation phenomena
and other small deformation (incremental) effects can
be considered like purely linear. It is just changes of
linear elasticity of propagation media due to changing
tectonic loads or pore pressure what must be taken into
account. Moreover, we assume that the grain mate-
rial is completely linear. We also neglect all effects
of geometrical non-linearity (related to quadratic and
higher combinations of displacement gradients). This
last assumption is justified by the following orderof-
magnitude estimate. Usually, in well consolidated
rocks strains due to moderate stress changes (few
hundred of megapascals) are of the order of 102 or
less. This is also the order of rotations and rock sam-
ple changes. Geometrical non-linearity effects are of
the order 104 . However, relative variations of elastic
velocities are of the order of 101 . Therefore, effects
of physical non-linearity must be a dominant reason
of these changes.
Our hypothesis is following. In a range of moderate
changes of tectonic stresses (few hundred of mega-
pascals) the non-linearity of drained rocks is com-
pletely controlled by deformations of the pore space
and, therefore, it is related to changes of the geom-
etry of fracture boarder and grain contact vicinities.
Changes of contact geometries is directly related to
changes of their elastic properties. In this sense our
approach is similar to the works cited above.
A significant difference to the previous approaches
is the following. To account for changes of the pore
space geometry we use the laws of porosity evolu-
tion obtained from the theory of poroelasticity. We
derive general laws how the geometry of porous
space behaves by loading porous systems. In this
derivation we keep our considerations in terms of the
poromechanics following concepts of Biot (1962) and
following and generalizing the approach of Brown
and Korringa, (1975). Then, we take these laws into
account for analyzing stress dependencies of elastic
moduli. On this way we arrive at a generalization of the
notion of the piezosensitivity to the stress-sensitivity
tensor for anisotropic rocks and non/hydrostatic loads.
168
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
2 STRAIN OF PORE SPACE
In the following we assume that both, the solid as
well as the pore space, are continuous. We consider
a thought experiment where a porous pressure as well
as a uniform confining stress ij acting on the external
surface ! of a rock specimen can be changed. Sur-
face ! is the external surface of the solid part of the
rock. Simultaneously it seals also pores. In a given
point x of the surface ! the applied traction is then
where nj (x) are components of the outward normal
of !.
Let us assume that the confining stress and/or
porous pressure has changed from the load state
(ij0 , Pp0 ) to the load state (ij , Pp ). As a result, points
of the external surface has been displaced on ui (x).
The displacement is assumed to be very small in
comparison with the size of the rock volume under
consideration.
For convenience, we assume also that to the surface
of the pore space not only just a scalar pressure but
f
rather a uniform stress ij can be applied. Also here,
the stress compressional in respect to the solid phase
is negative. If the load on the pore space surface is
f
hydrostatic, then ij = Pp ij . The differential stress
is defined as:
For example, for a completely hydrostatic load
Note also that we use here a different definition for
the term differential stress than those applied in
tectonophysics, where by such a term usually a dif-
ference between minimum and maximum principal
components of the tectonic stress tensor is denoted.
By analogy with the paper of Brown and Korringa
(1975), we introduce compliances of an anisotropic
dr
porous body: Sijkl the compliance of a drained rock,
mt p
Sijkl the compliance of the grain material, Sijkl the
compliance of the pore space.
We analyze the porosity weighted strain tensor of
the pore space ij . This quantity describes geometrical
changes of the pore space normalized by the rock vol-
ume. The trace of this tensor is directly related to the
porosity . If the external surface ! is loaded by an
anisotropic stress and the internal surface of the pore
space is loaded by a pore pressure Pp , we will obtain the
following equation for strain changes of pore space:
For the porosity, under a completely hydrostatic load
these equations are reduced to the following one:
Results (5)(6) show that generally the porosity is a
function of the both, differential stress as well as pore
p
mt
pressure. However, if Siikk = Siikk (this condition is con-
sistent with the Gassmans equation; see Brown and
Korringa (1975)) then porosity changes depend on
the differential stress only. If porosity is small, then
both porosity changes and strain of the pore space
depend on differential stress only. In the following
we will work in this approximation. Under hydrostatic
conditions this rule reduces to the porosity depen-
dence on the differential pressure, like it was shown
by Zimmerman, et al., 1986:
where C mt and C dr are bulk compressibilities of the
grain material and of the drained rock, respectively.
3 STIFF AND COMPLIANT POROSITIES
Analogously to Shapiro (2003) we separate the total
porosity into two parts
where the first part, c , is a compliant porosity sup-
ported by thin cracks and grain contact vicinities.
According to laboratory observations we expect that
the compliant porosity will close up by the compres-
sional differential stress of few hundred megapascals.
This corresponds to the porosity with an aspect ratio
(a relationship between the minimum and maximum
dimensions of a pore) less than 0, 01 (see Zimmerman
et al., 1986). The second part, [s0 + s ], is a stiff
porosity supported by more or less isomeric pores (i.e.,
equidimensional or equant pores). The aspect ratio of
such pores is typically larger than 0.1.
In turn, we separate the stiff porosity into a part
s0 , which is equal to the stiff porosity in the case of
d = 0, and to a part s which is a change of the stiff
porosity due to a deviation of the differential stress
from zero. We assume that the relative changes of the
stiff porosity, s /s0 , are small. In contrast, the relative
changes of the compliant porosity (c c0 )/c0 can
be very large, i.e., of the order of 1 (c0 denotes the
compliant porosity in the unloaded case d = 0). Note,
however, that c and c0 are usually very small quan-
tities. As a rule, (e.g., in porous sandstones) they are
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
much smaller than the s0 and even than the absolute
value of s . Thus, the following inequality is usually
valid:
For example, in porous sandstones typical orders
of magnitude of these quantities are s0 = 0.1,
|s | = 0.01 and c = 0.001.
Analogously with (8) we also represent ij :
In the following we call quantity ij generalized
porosity. Quantity ijs0 denotes the stiff part of ij in
the unloaded state. Quantity ijs denotes changes of
the stiff part of the generalized porosity due to a load.
Thus, if the load is absent, ijs = 0. Further, ijc denotes
the compliant part of the generalized porosity. It can be
completely closed under a compressional differential
stress of the order of few hundred megapascal. By ijc0
we will denote compliant part of the generalized poros-
ity in the unloaded state. We define also c = 0 for a
configuration with a closed compliant porosity. Then,
as a first-order approximation we can use c = iic ,
s0 = ijs0 , and s = iis .
In the definitions above we introduced asymmet-
ric notations for the stiff and compliant porosities. It
is justified by different physical behaviour of them.
We assume that under moderate loads considered here
the stiff porosity suffers small changes only. In con-
trast to this, the compliant porosity can be significantly
changed or even completely closed. Thus, the notation
system introduced above is convenient for describing
such an asymmetric behaviour.
Taking into account that quantities ijs and ijc intro-
duced above are of the order of the strain, it is logic to
assume the first, linear approximations of the skele-
ton compliances as functions of these quantities. The
Taylor expansion gives:
drs
where Sijkl is the drained compliancy of a hypothetical
rock with a closed compliant porosity (i.e., c = 0) and
the stiff porosity equal to s0 . Further,
where the derivatives are taken in points s = 0 and
c = 0, respectively and C drs is the bulk compress-
ibility of the hypothetical rock mentioned above.
Quantities are individual for a given piece of rock
considered in a loading experiment. We assume that in
such an experiment as soon as a changing load leads
169
to the same ijs and ijc the elastic moduli will also
assume the same values. We also assume that the same
configuration of the load (independent of its history)
will give the same configuration of ijs and ijc . Thus,
non-hysteretic deformations only are considered.
Approximation (11) implies that the quantities of
the form are smaller than 1. Numerous laboratory
experiments and practical experience show that the
drained compressibilities depend strongly on changes
in the compliant porosity, and depend much weaker
on changes in the stiff porosity. We will express this
empirical observation by the restriction
If so, the approximation (11) further can be used in the
following simplified form:
Beside this approximation we use also following sim-
plifying assumptions. In direct additive terms we
neglect in comparison with 1, i.e., we will con-
sider rocks with moderate or small porosity of the
order of 0.1 or less. We assume that S mt and S p can
be neglected in comparison with S dr . This is quite
a realistic assumption for rocks at least in the upper
Earth crust. Finally, we will assume that magnitude
of differential stress changes is not smaller than this
of pore pressure changes. This corresponds to realistic
geological and technical processes in the underground.
Under the assumptions summarized above we mod-
ify equation (5):
Equations (11) and (15) provide the searched for
description of stress dependencies of rock elastic mod-
c
uli. The last equation shows that tensor quantity klijmn
controls these dependencies.
c general and still very simple. This assumption (note
Tensor quantity klijmn is analogous to the scalar
dimensionless quantity called piezosensitivity in
(Shapiro, 2003). Further we will call this quantity the
tensor of stress sensitivity. In the first approximation
the stress-sensitivity tensor possess symmetries coin-
ciding with the symmetries of the third-order elastic
coefficient tensor of non-linear elastic media.
4 STRESS DEPENDENCIES OF ELASTIC
PROPERTIES
We assume that stiff porosity changes with stress are
independent of the changes of the compliant porosity.
This means also, that changes of the stiff porosity are
independent on the fact if the compliant porosity is
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
closed or not. If the compliant porosity is closed then
ijc = 0 and we obtain from (15)
However, if the assumption above is valid then
this relationship will be valid also for an arbitrary
(however, because of other assumptions, small) c .
Therefore,
A complete analysis of equation system (17) is a chal-
lenging problem. We consider orthorhombic media
only. We assume also that the main stress compo-
nents I iid (I is equal to 1, 2 or 3 denoting one
of index combinations 11, 22 or 33; note also that
there is no summation over i here) act perpendicular
to the symmetry planes of the orthorhombic system.
Moreover, we will naturally assume that the medium
stay orthorhombic with the same symmetry plains in
a loaded state (this also includes possibilities for the
medium to become transversely isotropic, cubic or
isotropic).
The most simple, isotropic stress-sensitivity tensor
is characterized by only 3 independent components. A
detailed analysis of equations (17) shows that in real-
istic for rock situations only one of these components
is not vanishing. In this case, changes of quantities
c c c
11 , 22 and 33 are completely independent from
each other. This is equivalent to an assumption that
there are three non-intersecting components of the
compliant porosity independently changing by apply-
ing corresponding uniaxial differential stresses. Such
a situation is possible for rocks. Thus, we analyse it
further.
Moreover, if we assume that changes of quanti-
c c c
ties 11 , 22 and 33 are completely independent from
each other even for lower symmetries of the stresssen-
sitivity tensor, our consideration will become more
that in the case of an isotropic stress sensitivity, it is
not an assumption but rather the only possible realistic
situation) gives:
Here we introduced new notations 1c , 2c and 3c for
c c c
111111 , 222222 and 333333 , respectively.
We consider now an arbitrary elastic characteristics
 (e.g., a seismic velocity, a stiffness or a compliance)
of a porous drained body. We assume that the character-
istic  is such that in the point where porosity is equal
to s0 function  can be expanded in the Taylor series
170
(in a way similar to equation (11)) relative to the poros-
ity (this should be valid for all such characteristics like
seismic velocities and elastic moduli):
where we have kept only linear part of the Taylor
expansion. Further,
and the derivatives are taken at s = 0 and c = 0,
respectively. Substituting equations (16) and (18) into
equation (19) we obtain:
where K and I can assume one of values 1, 2 or 3
denoting 11, 22 and 33, respectively. In the exponent
there is no summation over repeating indices.
A comparison of this result with equation (1) shows
that they have the same form. In the case of a uniaxial
stress N of a given direction N all coefficients D are
identic to a single exponent DN characterizing all elas-
tic quantities changing by such a load. A result of an
arbitrary three axial load is equivalent to a simple sum
of changes due to corresponding uniaxial stresses.
5 STRESS INDUCED ANISOTROPY
Significant changes of elastic characteristics of rocks
are produced by changes of compliant porosities only.
Thus, for the further analysis it is reasonable to neglect
the contributions of the stiff porosity. We also recall
that we consider orthorhombic and higher symmetry.
Then, in the case of a uniaxial stress N of a given direc-
tion N compliances changing due to such a load are
dr dr dr dr
SNN (no summation over N here), S44 , S55 and S66 . For
a three-axial stress we obtain then the following stress
dependencies of the compliances (from this point on
all capital indices can accept one of the values 1, 2, 3,
4, 5 or 6 and we use the standard contracted notation):
171
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
Here, BNNM =C drs NNM c
Mc0
/SNN drs
(no summation over
N , M ), as well as Ei = e ic i C drs
(no summation over i).
Note that in the contracted notation components NKM c
drs dr n
as well as SNK and SNK are 2 times the correspond-
ing tensor coefficient, where n is the number of
appearances of 4, 5 or 6 as a subscript.
To discuss stress dependence of anisotropy we
consider Tsvankins parameters (so-called anisotropy
measures , and ) for an orthorhombic medium
under drained conditions (we omit in the following
the index dr). Usually these parameters are given in
terms of stiffnesses (see e.g., Sarkar et al., 2003).
To consider a stress induced elastic anisotropy
drs
we assume that the compliances tensor Sijkl is
isotropic only. In addition, we assume that the
stress sensitivity tensor and ijc0 are also isotropic.
This last assumption leads to the following equiva-
lences for non vanishing NNM c c
: 111 = 222
c
= 333
c
=
442 = 443 = 551 = 553 = 661 = 662 = , and also
c c c c c c c
1c0 = 2c0 = 3c0 = c0 /3. In this approximation
Tsvankins parameters simplify to:
drs drs
Here, A1 = 23 S44 (S
S11 C
44 4S11 )
and A2 = 16 CS44 . If stress
changes are small the exponential functions Ei in these
equations can be expanded in Taylor series. Then, in
the linear approximation with respect to stress the
resulting formulas will be completely analogous to
equations (19)(23) of Sarkar et al., (2003). However,
in contrast to their results the equations above are also
valid for moderate stress changes.
In the case of a hydrostatic load
Obviously, in this case anisotropy does not change
with stress. For initially isotropic rocks the situation
reduces to the one considered in (Shapiro, 2003).
Quantity c is then the piezosensitivity. Moreover, even
in the case of initially anisotropic rocks only one sin-
gle quantity D = c C drs controls the exponential parts
of the pressure dependency of any compliance, of
any stiffness and of any elastic wave velocity. In fact,
there are anisotropic rocks, that show this interesting
behaviour. Figure 1 gives an example for such a rock.
This metamorphic sample was taken from the German
KTB deep drill hole. Three P- and six correspond-
ing S-wave velocities were simultaneously measured
in orthogonal directions over a differential pressure

Figure 1. Seismic velocities versus confining stress in a dry
sample of a German KTB crystalline rock. The data are taken
from Kern, (1997). The fitting curves are given by equations
of the type (1) with a single D.
range up to 600 MPa. We were able to fit all velocities
with an equation of type (1), where the fit parameter
D = 0.0093 MPa1 was identical for all velocities.
Exactly as found by Sarkar et al., (2003) the results
above also describe elliptical changes of anisotropy
due to the stress only. However, anisotropy changes
are not elliptical in more general situations of a
non isotropic stress-sensitivity tensor. An anelliptic-
ity remains non vanishing also in the case of uniaxial
stress and even in the case of a hydrostatic load.
6 CONCLUSION
In the first approximation elastic moduli, seismic
velocities as well as the porosity depend on the differ-
ential stress, i.e., the difference between the confining
172
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
stress and the pore pressure only. Equations of the
type V (P) = A + KP B exp (PD) are quite gen-
eral. The stress dependence of the porosity controls
the elastic moduli and velocity changes with stress.
Here, the most important role is played by the com-
pliant porosity which can be just a very small part
of the total porosity. Closing compliant porosity with
increasing differential stress explains the experimen-
tally observed exponentially saturating increase of
seismic velocities. Coefficients of this relationship are
defined by the compliant porosity dependence of the
drained bulk modulus.
The dimensionless tensor quantity c defines the
sensitivity of the elastic characteristics to the differ-
ential stress. In parallel with elastic moduli it is an
additional characteristic of rocks. We propose to call
it the tensor of stress sensitivity. It is defined by the
compliant porosity of rocks. A single stress sensitivity
is enough in the case of isotropic non-linearity and a
hydrostatic load. In this case the anisotropy does not
change under the load.
REFERENCES
Biot, M. A. (1962). Mechanics of deformation and acoustic
propagation in porous media. Journal of Applied Physics
33, 14821498.
Brown, R. J. S. and J. Korringa (1975). On the depen-
dence of the elastic properties of a porous rock on the
compressibility of the pore fluid. Geophysics 40, 608616.
Detournay, E. and A.-D. Cheng (1993). Fundamentals
of poroelasticity. In J. Hudson (Ed.), Comprehensive
Rock Engineering: Principles, Practice and Projects,
Chapter 5, pp. 113171. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Duffy, J. and R. D. Mindlin (1957). Stress-strain relations
and vibrations of a granular medium. Journal of Applied
Mechanics 24, 585593.
Eberhart-Phillips, D., D.-H. Han, and M. D. Zoback (1989).
Empirical relationships among seismic velocity, effec-
tive pressure, porosity and clay content in sandstone.
Geophysics 54, 8289.
Gangi, A. F. and R. L. Carlson (1996). An asperity-
deformation model for effective pressure. Tectonophysics
256, 241251.
Johnson, P. A. and P. N. Rasolofosaon (1996). Nonlinearl
elasticity and stress-induced anisotropy in rock. Journal
of Geophysical Research 101, 31133124.
Sarkar, D., A. Bakulin, and R. L. Krantz (2003). Anisotropic
inversion of seismic data for stressed media: Theory and a
physicalmodeling study on Berea sandstone. Geophysics
43, 805830.
Shapiro, S. A. (2003). Elastic piezosensitivity of porous and
fractured rocks. Geophysics 68, 482486.
Zimmerman, R. W., W. H. Somerton, and M. S. King (1986).
Compressibility of porous rocks. Journal of Geophysical
Research 91, 1276512777.