See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228879214

A comparison of rock physics models for fluid

substitution in carbonate rocks

Article in Exploration Geophysics June 2010

DOI: 10.1071/EG09035

CITATIONS READS

12 395

4 authors, including:

Sajjad Negahban Martin Landro

China University of Petroleum Norwegian University of Science and Techno
2 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS 230 PUBLICATIONS 1,405 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abdolrahim Javaherian
Amirkabir University of Technology
94 PUBLICATIONS 144 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Channle Edge Detection using Shearlet Transform View project

Detection of Buried Channels by Compilation of Seismic Attributes Using Artificial Neural Networks
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Landro on 09 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CSIRO PUBLISHING
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/eg Exploration Geophysics, 2010, 41, 146154

A comparison of rock physics models for uid substitution

in carbonate rocks

Ali Misaghi1,3,5 Sajjad Negahban2 Martin Landr3 Abdolrahim Javaherian4

1
Dana Geophysics Company, Golestan Street, Iran Zamin Avenue, Shahrak-e-Qods, Tehran 1465865187, Iran.
2
Amirkabir University of Technology, No. 242, Haz Street, Tehran, P.O.B. 15875-4413, Iran.
3
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, S.P. Andersens vei 15A, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
4
Institute of Geophysics, University of Tehran, North Karegar Avenue, Tehran 1435944411, Iran.
5
Corresponding author. Email: ali.misaghi@gmail.com

Abstract. Rock physics models play a crucial role in seismic reservoir characterisation studies. The optimal rock physics
model for a sandstone reservoir might be signicantly different from that of a carbonate reservoir. There are several theories
that compare the elastic properties of dry and saturated rocks. These models have mainly been explained by poroelastic
theories or effective medium theories. The Gassmanns model which is commonly used in petroleum rock physics is suitable
for rocks with spherical and interconnected pores at low frequencies. These assumptions do not necessarily meet the
conditions of carbonate rocks. In this work, two additional models, the differential effective medium (DEM) model and the
self-consistent (SC) model have been examined for several carbonate samples. Ultrasonic 30 carbonate and 5 sandstone core
samples from an oileld in south-west Iran were measured in the laboratory. The results show that the DEM model gives the
best compatibility with the dense and low porous carbonate samples. These results are conrmed by well log data from the
same area.

Key words: carbonate reservoirs, differential effective medium model, Gassmanns model, rock physics, self-consistent
model.

Introduction
Today, seismic reservoir monitoring is an established tool for
monitoring of enhanced oil recovery processes and production
management. It is evident, especially for sandstone reservoirs,
that seismic methods are applicable for the entire life cycle of a
reservoir, instead of only for the exploration phase. In seismic
reservoir monitoring, four typical types of reservoir changes are
studied: saturation changes, pressure changes, geo-mechanical
changes (both within and outside the reservoir) and temperature
changes. A major question is how these physical changes can be
related to changes in seismic properties of the medium. The
answer is often given by rock physics models, which can give
more insight into these relationships. There are several important
theories in rock physics, of which Gassmanns model probably is
the most well known. The Biot and Gassmann theories are used to
predict how P- and S-wave velocities are changed as saturation
changes. In these theories, the underlying assumptions are
discussed by White (1983), Bourbi et al. (1987), and Mavko
et al. (1998). Gassmanns theory applies to the low-frequency
case (Gassmann, 1951) and it is identical to the low-frequency
limit of Biots theory (Biot, 1956a). For the high-frequency range,
Biot (1956b) derived theoretical expressions for predicting P- and
S-wave velocities of saturated rocks in terms of dry rocks. Biots
theory predicts two coupled P-waves and one S-wave for the case
of an isotropic, liquid-saturated porous medium. Wyllie et al.
(1963) indicated that only those results should be considered
reliable that show no increase in S-wave velocity when the dry-
rock specimens are saturated with liquids. King (1966) reported
cases of ultrasonic S-wave velocities for brine- and kerosene-
saturated rocks at lower conning stresses that are higher than dry
rock S-wave velocities. Mavko et al. (1998) suggested that Biots
theory for high frequencies is valid in the case of very high-
permeable porous materials, such as ocean sediments. Plona
(1980) demonstrated the existence of Biots slow P-wave in a
porous, high-permeable material made of sintered glass spheres
(see also Bourbi et al., 1987; King, 2005).
Experimental data on carbonate rocks have not been as
thoroughly studied as silisi-clastic sedimentary rocks. Among
others Domenico (1984), Rafavich et al. (1984), Anselmetti and
Eberli (1993), Assefa et al. (2003), Prasad and Nur (2003),
Baechle et al. (2005) and Adam et al. (2005) described the
ultrasonic velocity response of carbonate rocks to porosity,
permeability, texture, uids and pressure. However, there are
relatively few studies on carbonate rock physics models. There
are several rock physics models for estimation of seismic velocity
versus saturation. Since the Gassmann model is based on some
specic assumptions, the concordance of rocks and uid
properties with these assumptions should be evaluated before
its application. In addition to Gassmanns method, there are some
other theories, which can be used in the estimation of the bulk and
shear moduli and ultimately P- and S-wave velocities. Effective
medium theories, self-consistent (SC) theories and differential
effective medium (DEM) theories are some of the models which
can be used in rock physics. In this study, rst, Gassmanns theory
and its failure points in carbonate rocks will be reviewed and
second, alternative rock physics models for carbonate rocks will
be investigated.
Rock physics models
Gassmanns model
The most widely-used theory for uid substitution is the
lowfrequency Gassmanns theory. Gassmanns equation gives

ASEG 2010 10.1071/EG09035 0812-3985/10/020146

Comparison of rock physics models for uid substitution in carbonate rocks
a relationship between saturated bulk modulus, porosity, bulk
modulus of rock frame, bulk modulus of minerals of rock matrix
and the bulk modulus of pore uids (Mavko et al., 1998):

2
k
1  kdry
k sat k dry
1
k dry ;
m
1 micro porosity, saturation has less effect on velocities (Baechle
kfl km k 2
m et al., 2005). Therefore, investigation of constancy of shear
where, ksat is the saturated bulk modulus, kdry is the bulk modulus
of rock frame, km is the bulk modulus of minerals of the rock
matrix, k is the bulk modulus of the pore uids and
is the
porosity. Gassmanns equation is based on several assumptions,
which must be taken into account in any application (Wang,
2001): (1) rock (matrix and frame) must be macroscopically
homogeneous; (2) all pores must be interconnected; (3) pores
are lled with a frictionless uid; (4) the rock-uid system must be
closed (undrained); (5) there should be no interaction between
uid and the matrix in a way that could soften or harden the frame.
The rst assumption implies that the wavelength must be greater
than the pore and grain sizes. The second assumption indicates
that the porosity and the permeability must be high and there
should be no isolated or poorly connected pores. Assumptions 2
and 3 explain why the log and laboratory velocity data often
are higher compared to Gassmanns predictions. For some
frequencies, a relative movement between the uid and the
matrix will occur, and this might lead to dispersive waves.
Relative uid-matrix movements are generally more prominent
for some special (resonance like) frequencies, and might create
large differences between bulk and shear moduli of uid
and matrix. With these assumptions and equation 1, saturated
bulk modulus, ksat, can be estimated. By knowing ksat, P- and
S-wave velocities can be predicted by equations 2 and 3,
(Mavko et al., 1998):
s (Japsen et al., 2002).
k sat 4=3m
Vp ; 2
rB
r Fluids must have no viscosity based on Gassmanns assumptions.
m This assumption is usually broken since most of the reservoir
Vs 3
rB ;
where, m and rB are the shear modulus and bulk density,
respectively. Now, we discuss some of the main characteristics
of carbonate rocks which do not meet Gassmanns assumptions.
Heterogeneity and pore types
Carbonate rocks usually show large heterogeneity, vugs and
mouldic structures that have comparable length with the
ultrasonic wavelength. Due to the presence of different
inclusions and elements with different densities and pores with
large sizes in the carbonate rocks, signicant scattering of the
ultrasonic waves may occur in these rocks (Adam et al., 2006).
New studies have shown that carbonate rocks with spherical pores
are less sensitive to pressure changes for seismic frequencies, and
that these are in good accordance with Gassmanns equation.
Despite this, carbonate rocks with soft and fracture-type pores
which are sensitive to stress do not follow the Gassmanns theory
(Adam et al., 2006).
Variation of shear moduli
Constancy of dry and saturated shear moduli are not part of
Gassmanns assumptions, however, these can be derived from
Gassmanns equation (Berryman, 1999). In Gassmanns equation
only the bulk modulus is changing by saturating the rock, but
some studies have shown that the shear modulus may not be
constant and may vary under some conditions (Adam et al., 2005).
Exploration Geophysics 147
Some laboratory studies have also validated that shear modulus is
varying in dry and saturated rocks (Vo-Thanh, 1995; Assefa et al.,
2003; Baechle et al., 2005; Sharma et al., 2006). In rocks with
intergranular and intercrystalline porosities, m decreases as
saturation increases, while in rocks with mouldic porosity or
modulus can be a way to check the accuracy and applicability
of Gassmanns equation for a specic rock.
Pressure, pore connectivity, dispersion and clay content
For low effective pressure, since the fractures and cracks are open,
the differences between velocities estimated by Gassmanns
equation and measured values are increased for a saturated
rock. High effective pressure will close the soft fractures and
pores. Consequently Gassmanns equation may estimate the
results with less error (Adam et al., 2005). Gassmanns
assumptions state that the pores must be connected to each
other. Since in most carbonate rocks many isolated pores exist,
Gassmanns assumptions are not necessarily valid (Adam et al.,
2005). Usually higher frequencies show larger moduli (Adam
et al., 2006) and dispersion of moduli is higher in saturated rocks
than in dry rocks (Adam et al., 2005). The shear modulus at sonic
frequencies is reduced when the rock changes from dry condition
to saturated condition, while for ultrasonic frequencies it acts
in reverse and the shear modulus increases (Adam et al., 2005;
Sharma et al., 2006). Presence of clay in carbonate rocks
overestimates the bulk modulus by Gassmanns equation. One
reason for this can be the effect of uids on clay structure, which
makes them weaker (Adam et al., 2006). On the other hand, clays
absorb and contain water and even in drained stages (to make the
rocks dry), clay keeps some water and this may change the results
Viscosity, pH, compressibility and polarity of uids
uids are viscous. In addition to viscosity, pH of the uid should
be considered, since this might also affect the interaction between
the uid and the rock and ultimately change the estimated
shear and bulk moduli. More compressible uids make the
differences between dry and saturated samples smaller and
show more compatibility with Gassmanns model. Changes in
shear modulus are smaller in non-polar uids and the measured
results are in better accordance with Gassmanns predictions
(Adam et al., 2006). Some of the failure points for the
Gassmann model in carbonate rocks have been reviewed and
the necessity of a new model with better match with the
characteristics of carbonate rocks seems crucial.
Effective medium models
The effective medium theory assumes that separated pores and
cracks may or may not be connected to each other (Berryman
et al., 2002). Self-consistent and DEM theories are part of the
effective medium theories. In this case, detailed knowledge
regarding pore shape and characteristics of microstructures is
necessary. These two theories have two major advantages: ease of
calculation and exibility of application.
The SC model
The SC model was introduced by Kerner (1956). Later, Hill
(1965) and Budiansky (1965, 1970) computed the elastic
properties of a two-phase medium. This method is based upon
the following idea: a single inclusion representing one of the
148 Exploration Geophysics A. Misaghi et al.

components is embedded within a large surrounding matrix carbonate rocks is independent of mineralogy. Velocity variation
whose elastic properties are those of the effective medium. in carbonate rocks is a complex function of several parameters.
Wus SC modulus estimation for two-phase composites may These parameters can be categorised in two main groups: internal
be expressed as equations 4 and 5 (m = matrix, I = inclusion), Wu and external parameters. Internal parameters like porosity, pore
(1966). Berryman (1980a, 1980b, 1995) presented a more general type, composition and grain sizes are related to the lithology of
form of the self-consistent approximation for N-phase composites the rock and physical properties of fabric of the rock. Induced
in equations 6 and 7 (Mavko et al., 1998). pressures (by overburden or tectonic) and physical characteristics
of the passing waves are some examples of external parameters.
K*SC Km xi Ki  Km P*i 4 In addition to porosity, type and shape of the pores also impact
m*SC mm xi mi  mm Q*i 5 the seismic velocity in sedimentary rocks. Basically seismic
velocities are the amount of deformability (compressibility and
X
N
rigidity) of rocks, which are dependent on shape and number of
xi Ki  K*SC P*i 0 6 pores. A at thin pore deforms easily and then the seismic velocity
i1
is low in the rocks with this type of pores. In contrast, round and
X
N circular pores are resistant to deformation, therefore seismic
xi mi  m*SC Q*i 0 7 velocity is high in rocks with spherical pores, although they
i1
may have high porosity (Palaz and Marfurt, 1997).
Where i refers to the ithmaterial, xi is its volume fraction, P and Q Porosity in carbonate rocks can be classied in several
are geometric factors, superscript *i on P and Q indicates that main groups: intergranular and intercrystalline; mouldic and
the factors are for an inclusion of material i in a background interparticle; vugs and channels; and nally fenestral. Seismic
medium with SC effective moduli K*SC and, m*SC, where K and m velocity is different from one porosity type to another. In
are the bulk and shear moduli of an uncracked medium, the intergranular and intercrystalline porosity group, seismic
respectively. velocities are low and hence more sensitive to the effective
pressure while in rocks with interparticle and mouldic
DEM model porosities, seismic velocities are relatively high and are not so
Differential effective medium theory takes the point of view that a sensitive to the effective pressure, since these types of pores are
composite material may be constructed by making innitesimal very resistant against deformation. Rocks with vugs usually have
changes in an already existing composite. We suppose that there a rigid framework and P- and S-wave velocities are high in these
are only two constituents in the medium, whose volume fractions rocks. Also due to the rigid framework and low ratio of internal
are x = v(1) and y = v(2) = 1 x. Furthermore, we assume that the surfaces to the porosity they are not very sensitive to pressure.
value of the effective bulk modulus K*DEM(y) at one value of y is Rocks with channel shape pores are easily deformed, especially
known. Treating K*DEM(y) as the composite host medium and when dissolution of fractures and pores make these channels.
K*DEM(y + dy) as the effective constant after a small proportion Therefore, these rocks show low seismic velocities in certain
dy/(1 y) of the composite host has been replaced by spherical porosities by increasing the pressure; P- and S-wave velocities
inclusions of type (2), therefore (Berryman and Berge, 1993): may increase initially since some of the pores may collapse.
Seismic velocities in rocks with fenestral pores behave similarly
K*DEM y dy  K*DEM y dy k 2  K*DEM y to the rocks with intercrystalline pores, and in certain porosities
: 8
K*DEM y dy 43 m*DEM y 1  y k 2 43 m*DEM y and pressures show low P- and S-wave velocities, but by increase
in pressure, due to deformation of pores, the velocities will
Since the composite host contains the volume fraction x of increase.
type (1) and y of type (2), on average a fraction dy/(1 y) of the
composite host must be replaced by type (2) in order to change the Laboratory measurements
overall fraction of type (2) to y + dy. Taking the limit dy ! 0 gives
the following results: In this study, some data from the Sarvak Formation, a carbonate
reservoir in south-west Iran, were used. Thirty carbonate core
d samples and ve sandstone samples were tested at different
1  y k*y k 2  k*P*2 y; 9
dy saturations and at constant pressure and temperature conditions
d (4400 psi and 95C) for P-wave velocity measurements using
1  y m*y m2  m*Q*2 y: 10 ultrasonic waves. The measured parameters on the core samples
dy
have been listed in Table 1. In a typical section, the Sarvak
With initial conditions k*(0) = k1,*m(0) = m1, k and m1 are bulk Formation (Cenomanian) includes three units with a total
and shear moduli of the host material (phase 1), bulk and shear thickness of 822 m. The Sarvak Formation consists of carbonate
moduli of the incrementally added inclusion (phase 2), and y is sediments deposited in a shallow marine environment. The average
concentration of phase 2. For uid inclusions and voids, y equals porosity of the Sarvak Formation is ~18% and the average
the porosity. The terms P and Q are geometric factors (Mavko permeability is 45 mD in the reservoir zones.
et al., 1998). To be able to compare the efciency of different rock physics
models, an attempt has been made to keep the conditions of the
Seismic characteristics of carbonate rocks experiments similar to each other, and also to use similar constant
parameters in the formulations for different rock physics models.
Seismic velocity in carbonate rocks is controlled by two main
The origin of the parameters that were used in the different rock
factors: lithology of sediments and sedimentation processes like:
physics models are summarised in Table 2.
cementation and dissolution. Carbonate rocks, in comparison
with other sedimentary rocks, show less compositional variations.
Calcite, dolomite and aragonite are the main (more than 95%) Comparing measured data with the Gassmanns model
minerals in carbonate rocks. These minerals have similar physical By measuring P- and S-wave velocities and knowing rock and
properties, therefore, the wide range of velocity variations in uid properties, saturated bulk modulus can be estimated using
Comparison of rock physics models for uid substitution in carbonate rocks Exploration Geophysics 149

Table 1. The measured parameters on the core samples.

Sample Lithology Depth Bulk Grain Porosity Ave. Effective Temp. Dry Vp Saturated Vp
(m) density density (%) horizontal pressure (C) (km/s) (km/s)
(g/cc) (g/cc) permeability (psi)
(mD)
1 Carbonate 2881.1 2.09 2.70 22.43 2.86 4400 95 3.54 3.85
2 Carbonate 2892.5 2.27 2.66 14.51 0.81 4400 95 4.11 4.53
3 Carbonate 2894.2 2.06 2.70 23.92 6.32 4400 95 3.35 3.68
4 Carbonate 3783.1 2.40 2.64 8.86 0.23 4400 95 4.58 4.61
5 Carbonate 3786.6 2.53 2.76 8.19 0.17 4400 95 4.42 4.93
6 Sandstone 3839.4 2.08 2.65 21.47 490.75 4400 95 3.76 3.86
7 Sandstone 3839.9 2.08 2.68 22.38 362.74 4400 95 3.75 3.71
8 Sandstone 3844.3 2.17 2.66 18.34 806.29 4400 95 3.87 3.97
9 Sandstone 3844.5 2.10 2.65 20.96 2208.35 4400 95 3.84 3.92
10 Sandstone 3845.8 2.14 2.66 19.58 1364.71 4400 95 3.69 3.81
11 Carbonate 2765.2 2.02 2.70 25.25 74.40 4400 95 3.44 3.88
12 Carbonate 2770.0 1.93 2.71 28.62 73.04 4400 95 3.94 4.19
13 Carbonate 2870.0 2.50 2.67 6.61 0.10 4400 95 4.70 4.81
14 Carbonate 2878.0 2.57 2.65 2.89 0.03 4400 95 5.25 5.47
15 Carbonate 2882.4 2.29 2.69 14.89 1.09 4400 95 3.76 4.28
16 Carbonate 2781.4 2.17 2.70 19.49 1.89 4400 95 4.13 4.26
17 Carbonate 2788.0 2.24 2.70 16.97 23.96 4400 95 4.16 4.35
18 Carbonate 2789.3 2.20 2.70 18.74 6.13 4400 95 3.89 4.17
19 Carbonate 2802.6 2.05 2.71 24.44 59.78 4400 95 3.51 3.73
20 Carbonate 2808.2 2.23 2.70 17.41 7.67 4400 95 3.98 4.37
21 Carbonate 2811.5 1.98 2.68 26.30 179.15 4400 95 3.79 4.09
22 Carbonate 2817.4 1.92 2.72 29.45 95.93 4400 95 3.48 3.68
23 Carbonate 2819.1 2.01 2.74 26.82 228.15 4400 95 3.49 3.81
24 Carbonate 2832.3 2.60 2.69 3.29 2.38 4400 95 5.59 6.02
25 Carbonate 2842.3 2.56 2.69 4.76 0.35 4400 95 5.22 5.48
26 Carbonate 2845.9 2.37 2.70 12.34 2.24 4400 95 4.66 4.79
27 Carbonate 2849.7 2.22 2.69 17.21 70.54 4400 95 4.69 4.81
28 Carbonate 2638.4 2.42 2.69 9.94 0.46 4400 95 4.57 4.82
29 Carbonate 2648.6 2.59 2.69 3.85 0.08 4400 95 4.85 5.44
30 Carbonate 2654.5 2.37 2.70 12.41 3.47 4400 95 4.32 4.69
31 Carbonate 2656.0 2.20 2.70 18.42 10.12 4400 95 4.42 4.53
32 Carbonate 2676.7 2.59 2.69 3.99 0.66 4400 95 5.47 5.48
33 Carbonate 2660.1 2.61 2.70 3.26 0.12 4400 95 5.15 5.73
34 Carbonate 2684.3 2.41 2.68 10.24 1.07 4400 95 4.67 4.94
35 Carbonate 2694.1 2.52 2.67 5.53 0.51 4400 95 5.02 5.27

Table 2. Origin of parameters used for different models.

Model Variable: Gassmann DEM SC

Km Smith et al. (2003) Smith et al. (2003) Smith et al. (2003)
Equations 9, 10, 11 Equations 9, 10, 11 Equations 9, 10, 11
mm Smith et al. (2003) Smith et al. (2003)
Equations 9, 10, 11 Equations 9, 10, 11
Kmineral Carmichael (1989) Carmichael (1989) Carmichael (1989)
mmineral Carmichael (1989) Carmichael (1989) Carmichael (1989)
K Laboratory measurements Laboratory measurements Laboratory measurements
F Laboratory measurements Laboratory measurements Laboratory measurements
Kdry Smith et al. (2003)
Equation 2
mdry Smith et al. (2003)
Equation 3
vp sat, vs sat, vp dry and vs dry Laboratory measurements
Ksat Smith et al. (2003) Mavko et al. (1998)
Equation 1
msat = mdry Berryman (1999) Mavko et al. (1998) Mavko et al. (1998)
rb dry Laboratory measurements
rb sat Laboratory measurements Laboratory measurements Laboratory measurements
F (volumetric fraction of mineral) Laboratory measurements Laboratory measurements Laboratory measurements
vp sat model Smith et al. (2003) Smith et al. (2003) Smith et al. (2003)
Equation 13 Equation 13 Equation 13
vs sat model Smith et al. (2003) Smith et al. (2003) Smith et al. (2003)
Equation 14 Equation 14 Equation 14
P*i, Q*i Table 4.9.1 Mavko et al. (1998) Table 4.8.1 Mavko et al. (1998)
150 Exploration Geophysics A. Misaghi et al.

Gassmanns equation 1. Based on Gassmanns assumptions, 7

shear modulus is supposed to be equal to the dry case. Now,
using equations 2, P-wave velocities can be calculated for the Carbonate sample
saturated case. 6

Vp sat Gassmann (km/s)

Best fit
To see how well the Gassmann model ts the studied samples, Sandstone sample

the measured P-wave velocity in the laboratory for water saturated

5
samples were compared with the results from Gassmanns
equation (Figure 1). In the presented graphs, the equation of
the best tted curve to the data, R2, root mean squared error 4
y = 0.074*x7652
R 2 = 0.95
(RMSE), sum of squares due to error (SSE) and sum of squared RMSE = 0.1574
error (S) have been calculated. Figure 1 shows that, except for one SSE = 0.6938
sample, Gassmanns model predicts lower P-wave velocities 3
than those measured. The mismatch between Gassmanns
assumptions and the characteristics of the samples and
2
experiment conditions (like measurements at high frequencies, 2 3 4 5 6 7
variation of shear modulus in dry and saturated conditions and Vp sat measurement (km/s)
improper pore connections) can be some reasons for the
discrepancies. As expected Gassmanns model gives better Fig. 1. A comparison between P-wave velocity calculated by Gassmanns
correspondence with measurements for the sandstone samples, model and measured in the laboratory for 32 carbonate samples (red circles)
even though these are not completely clean. Since the pores in and 5 sandstone samples (blue squares) in an oileld in south-west Iran. Green
these carbonate samples have spherical shape, the data from dashed line is the best t passing through the data with its equation. Black
continuous line is the ideal line when the velocity calculated by the model and
Gassmanns model are not so dispersed in this study.
measured data in the laboratory are the same. RMSE, root mean squared error;
Nevertheless, the differences between measured values and
SSE, sum of squares due to error.
predicted values from Gassmanns model are signicant. The
relationships between porosity and P-wave velocity; porosity
and bulk modulus for measured and estimated (Gassmann) Comparing measured data with the SC model
values are shown in Figure 2. The apparent similarity in shape The SC theory allows a composite to become disconnected
of the graphs (not the values) is interesting and spherical pore at some nite porosity; therefore the SC theory is expected to
shapes can be the cause for these similarities. However, for all provide good elastic property estimates for granular sedimentary
graphs, Gassmanns model shows lower values. rocks and other materials that become unconsolidated at high
Bulk modulus sat measurement (GPa)

7 70
y = 0.002*x 2 0.13*x + 6 y = 0.064*x 2 3.2*x + 64
R 2 = 0.8917
Vp sat measurement (km/s)

60 Carbonate sample
R 2 = 0.8942
RMSE = 0.2218 Best fit
6 RMSE = 4.151
SSE = 1.3288 Sandstone sample
50 SSE = 465.20

40
5
30

20
4 Carbonate sample
Best fit 10
Sandstone sample
3 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Porosity (%) Porosity (%)

7
Bulk modulus sat Gassmann (GPa)

y = 0.017*x 2 0.13*x + 5.6 70

R 2 = 0.8806 y = 0.047*x 2 2.6*x + 51
Carbonate sample
Vp sat Gassmann (km/s)

RMSE = 0.2561 60 R 2 = 0.8637

6 SSE = 1.7707 Best fit
RMSE = 4.246
SSE = 486.66 Sandstone sample
50

40
5
30

4 Carbonate sample 20
Best fit
Sandstone sample
10
3 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Porosity (%) Porosity (%)
(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Analogy between Gassmanns model and the measured data in the laboratory for 32 carbonate samples (red circles) and 5 sandstone samples
(blue squares) in an oileld in south-west Iran: (a) analogy for P-velocity versus porosity and (b) analogy for bulk modulus versus porosity, green dashed line is the
best t passing through the data. RMSE, root mean squared error; SSE, sum of squares due to error.
Comparison of rock physics models for uid substitution in carbonate rocks Exploration Geophysics 151

porosities. For samples with microstructure like fuse glass beads,
the SC model is expected to show good estimates. Because
assumptions of this model are more compatible with
microstructures of sandstone, this model gives better results in
these rocks. But for carbonate samples that have continuous
matrix and discontinuous inclusions, the SC model seems
unsuitable. This is in agreement with the measurements shown
in Figure 3, where a signicant discrepancy between the SC
model and the ultrasonic measurements is observed. This
discrepancy is probably due to the SC assumption which is
not compatible with typical carbonate rock microstructure,
because matrix of this sample is continuous and inclusions are
discontinuous. Furthermore, these samples are not granular. For
sandstone samples in this study, the results show that the SC
model does not give suitable estimations, which might be caused
by the relatively high shale content of the samples. Figures 3 and 4
show that the SC model overestimates the velocities and modulus
for these samples. However, contrary to the Gassmanns model
there is no similarity between analogue charts.
Comparing measured data with the DEM model
The DEM model is expected to give better results for the samples
in our study because this model was developed for glass foam.
The microstructure of glass foam is similar to that of carbonates so
that the basic assumptions underlying the DEM model better
match our data. One of the main assumptions of this model is that
the particles should be discontinuous and the matrix continuous.
This means that the cracks and pores are isolated, which is the case
for most carbonate rocks. Figure 5 shows that the results from the
DEM model are well correlated with the measured data for the
carbonate samples. However, for the sandstone samples there is
less correlation, and we think this is due to differences in
microstructures partly violating the assumptions of the model.
Analysis of the errors of the three different models reveals that the
DEM model is best choice for carbonate rocks. If the error S is
calculated as the sum of squared differences of the measured
velocity of compressional waves in the laboratory and calculated
using the models, S equals 6.13, 41.02 and 4.07 for Gassmanns,
SC and DEM models, respectively. Figure 6 shows another sum
of the squared errors (S). Here, S is the sum of the squared

7.0
7
6.5
Carbonate sample
6
6.0 Best fit
Vp sat SC (km/s)

Vp sat DEM (km/s)

Sandstone sample
Carbonate sample
5.5
Best fit 5
Sandstone
5.0
y = 0.808*x+2.01
4.5
2
R = 0.7802 4
RMSE = 0.2839 y = 1.29*x1.29
4.0 SSE = 2.257 2
R = 0.88
3 RMSE = 0.3232
SSE = 2.92
3.5
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 2
Vp sat measurement (km/s) 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vp sat measurement (km/s)
Fig. 3. A comparison between P-wave velocity calculated by self-consistent
(SC) model and measured in the laboratory for 32 carbonate samples Fig. 5. A comparison between P-wave velocity calculated by differential
(red circles) and 5 sandstone samples (blue squares) in an oileld in south- effective medium (DEM) model and measured in the laboratory for 32
west Iran. Green dashed line is the best t passing through the data with its carbonate samples (red circles) and 5 sandstone samples (blue squares) in
equation. Black continuous line is the ideal line when the velocity calculated an oileld in south-west Iran. Green dashed line is the best t passing through
by the model and measured data in the laboratory are the same. RMSE, root the data with its equation. Black continuous line is the ideal line when the
mean squared error; SSE, sum of squares due to error. velocity calculated by the model and measured data in the laboratory are the
same. This gure shows DEM is a suitable model for the carbonate samples.
RMSE, root mean squared error; SSE, sum of squares due to error.

80
Bulk modulus sat SC (GPa)

7
2
y = 0.0019*x 10.6*x+75
2
R = 0.99
60 RMSE = 1.3
SSE = 45.64 6
Vp sat models (km/s)

40
5

20 Carbonate sample
Best fit 4
Sandstone sample Gassmann S = 6.13

0 DEM S = 4.075
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3
Porosity (%) Best result S = 0

SC S = 41.02
Fig. 4. Bulk modulus calculated by the self-consistent (SC) model and 2
measured in the laboratory for 32 carbonate samples (red circles) and 5 2 3 4 5 6 7
sandstone samples (blue squares) in an oileld at south-west Iran. Green Vp sat measurement (km/s)
dashed line is the best t passing through the data with its equation. Black
continuous line is the ideal line when the velocity calculated by the model and Fig. 6. S-values for the best t lines for each model (dashed lines) and
measured in the laboratory are the same. RMSE, root mean squared error; the ideal line when the velocity calculated by the model and measured in the
SSE, sum of squares due to error. laboratory are the equal (black continuous line).
152 Exploration Geophysics
differences between the best tted lines through each model data
(measured velocity of compressional waves in laboratory and
calculated using the models) from the best result line (when
measured velocity of compressional waves in laboratory and
calculated using the models are equal). These two different S
values shows that the DEM model has the minimum S, and thus it
can be interpreted as the best model for the carbonate rocks.
Comparison between velocity models and log data
After comparing the different models using laboratory core
samples, the models are compared to log data from the same
well as the core samples were taken. Figure 7 shows that the DEM
model gives the best estimation while Gassmann and SC models
underestimate and overestimate the values, respectively. The
accuracy of DEM estimations varies along the log. There is a
LITHOLOGY
GR
Fig. 7. A composite log with estimated velocities using different models. In the velocity column, the red graph is the sonic
log; the green graph is the calculated velocity using Gassmanns model, brown for the self-consistent model and blue for the
differential effective medium model.
A. Misaghi et al.
good correlation between DEM data and the sonic data in some
parts, while other parts show reduced correlation. Investigation of
these differences is important and provides useful information.
For example a comparison of the composite logs with the
estimated velocity logs reveals that the accuracy of the models
decreases with increasing shale content. Shales change the matrix
of the rocks and thus the physical properties as shales have widely
varying shear and bulk moduli which may explain the observed
discrepancies. To build an accurate model, the volume of shale
and related shear and bulk moduli must be estimated precisely.
Presence of oil also reduces the accuracy of the model; this may
be due to variations in bulk modulus of oil along the well or
inaccurate saturation logs. Presence of oil in shaly layers will
accumulate the errors and the models will be less accurate in such
areas. Therefore, the logs must be accurately corrected for shale
content and correct relative saturation logs must be used in the
PHI Sw RHOB Velocity (k m/s)
Comparison of rock physics models for uid substitution in carbonate rocks
calculations. Despite the mentioned pitfalls, the DEM model
gives the best estimates for carbonate rocks compared to the
other models considered in this paper. In Figure 7 in the velocity
column, the red graph is the sonic log; the blue graph is the
calculated velocity using the DEM model, the green curve
corresponds to Gassmanns model and the dark red curve
represents the SC model. The blue and red graphs
corresponding to DEM and sonic logs, respectively, show the
best correlation.
Conclusions
No model can be recommended as the best model for a given rock
or reservoir formation in advance. Microstructure is one of the
main factors that control the elastic properties of the rocks, so
before any choice of model, the rock microstructure must be
studied in detail. Gassmanns model has several underlying
assumptions that restrict the models universal use. Gassmann
gives a good estimation in rocks with connected pores at low
frequencies. By comparing P-wave velocities measured on
carbonate core samples for an Iranian oileld with Gassmanns
estimated velocities, we have found that Gassmanns estimations
are systematically lower than the ultrasonic measurements. In this
study, the rock samples have mouldic porosity and due to the
spherical shape of the pores Gassmanns model was expected to
give good estimates. However, since there is a low connectivity
between the pores and also because we measure ultrasonic
frequencies in the laboratory, there are discrepancies between
modelled and measured results. One point of interest in this
comparison is the analogy in shape (not absolute values) of the
graphs derived from Gassmanns model and measured data. Self-
consistent assumptions are compatible with fuse glass beads. This
model allows composites to be discontinuous in nite porosity.
Therefore, this model is suitable for granular rocks and materials
that are highly porous and unconsolidated. Carbonate rocks do
not satisfy these assumptions as they usually have a continuous
matrix; hence the SC model is not suited to model carbonates.
The DEM model gives good estimation in microstructures
which are similar to glass foam. In this study, the main
assumptions are: continuous matrix and discontinuous
inclusions, this means pores and cracks have to be isolated.
The microstructures of our carbonate samples are compatible
with the DEM assumptions. This study showed that indeed the
DEM model better matched our data than the other models. The
DEM model was ~30 percent more accurate than Gassmanns
model. Modelling of uid substitution in porous media is an
important step in most reservoir characterisation studies. The
results of this study can be used in feasibility studies for time-lapse
seismic projects and also in forward modelling workows when
we are dealing with uid substitution and saturation changes.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the Research Institute of Petroleum Industry of Iran
(RIPI) for permission to use the data. Martin Landr thanks the Norwegian
Research Council for nancial support to the ROSE project at NTNU.
References
Adam, L., Batzle, M., and Brevik, I., 2005, Gassmanns uid substitution
paradox on carbonates: seismic and ultrasonic frequencies: Presented at
the 75th Annual International Meeting, SEG, 24, 15211524.
Adam, L., Batzle, M., and Brevik, I., 2006, Gassmanns uid substitution
and shear modulus variability in carbonates at laboratory seismic and
ultrasonic frequencies: Geophysics, 71, F173F183. doi:10.1190/
1.2358494
Exploration Geophysics 153
Anselmetti, F. S., and Eberli, G. P., 1993, Controls on sonic velocity in
carbonates: Pure and Applied Geophysics, 141, 287. doi:10.1007/
BF00998333
Assefa, S., McCann, C., and Sothcott, J., 2003, Velocity of compressional
and shear waves in limestones: Geophysical Prospecting, 51, 113.
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2478.2003.00349.x
Baechle, G. T., Weger, R. J., Eberli, G. P., Massaferro, J. L., and Sun, Y.-F.,
2005, Changes of shear moduli in carbonate rocks: Implications for
Gassmann applicability: Leading Edge, 24, 507510. doi:10.1190/
1.1926808
Berryman, J. G., 1980a, Long-wavelength propagation in composite elastic
media, I. Spherical inclusions: The Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 68, 18091819. doi:10.1121/1.385171
Berryman, J. G., 1980b, Long-wavelength propagation in composite elastic
media, II. Ellipsoidal inclusions: The Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 68, 18201831. doi:10.1121/1.385172
Berryman, J. G., 1995, Mixture theories for rock properties, In T. J. Ahrens,
(Ed.), Rock physics and phase relations, A handbook of physics constants,
205228, American Geophysical Union.
Berryman, J. G., 1999, Origin of Gassmanns equations: Geophysics, 64,
16271629. doi:10.1190/1.1444667
Berryman, J. G., and Berge, P. A., 1993, Rock elastic properties: Dependence
on microstructure: in homogenization and constitutive modeling for
heterogeneous materials, In C. S. Cheng, and J. W. Ju, (Eds), AMSE,
New York, 113.
Berryman, J. G., Pride, S. R., and Wang, H. F., 2002, A differential scheme for
elastic properties of rocks with dry or saturated cracks: Geophysical
Journal International, 151, 597611. doi:10.1046/j.1365-246X.2002.
01801.x
Biot, M. A., 1956a, Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a uid-saturated
porous solid, I: Low frequency range: The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 28, 168178. doi:10.1121/1.1908239
Biot, M. A., 1956b, Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a uid-saturated
porous solid, II: Higher frequency range: The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 28, 179191. doi:10.1121/1.1908241
Bourbi, T., Coussy, O., and Zinszner, B., 1987, Acoustics of porous media,
Ed. Technip, Paris.
Budiansky, B., 1965, On the elastic moduli of some heterogeneous materials:
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 13, 223227.
doi:10.1016/0022-5096(65)90011-6
Budiansky, B., 1970, Thermal and thermoelastic properties of isotropic
composites: Journal Composite Material, 4, 286295. doi:10.1177/
002199837000400301
Carmichael, R. S., 1989, Practical handbook of physical properties of rocks
and minerals: CRC Press, 741 p.
Domenico, S. N., 1984, Rock lithology and porosity determination from
shear and compressional wave velocity: Geophysics, 49, 11881195.
doi:10.1190/1.1441748
Gassmann, F., 1951, ber die elastizitt poroser medien: Vierteljahrsschrift
der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zrich, 96, 123.
Hill, R. A., 1965, A self-consistent mechanics of composite materials: Journal
of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 13, 213222. doi:10.1016/0022-
5096(65)90010-4
Japsen, P., Hier, C., Rasmussen, K. L., Fabricius, I., Mavko, G., and
Pedersen, J. M., 2002, Effect of uid substitution on ultrasonic
velocities on chalk plugs, South Arne eld, North Sea: 72nd Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 21, 18811884.
Kerner, E. H., 1956, The elastic and thermoelastic properties of composite
media: Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section B, 69, 808813.
doi:10.1088/0370-1301/69/8/305
King, M. S., 1966, Wave velocities in rocks as a function of changes in
overburden pressure and pore uid saturants: Geophysics, 31, 5073.
doi:10.1190/1.1439763
King, M.S., 2005, Rock-physics developments in seismic exploration:
a personal 50-year perspective: Geophysics, 70, 3ND8ND.
doi:10.1190/1.2107947
Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J., 1998, The rock physics handbook:
Tools for seismic analysis in porous media: Cambridge University Press.
Palaz, I. and Marfurt, K., J., 1997, Carbonate seismology: Society of
exploration geophysicists.
154 Exploration Geophysics
Plona, T. J., 1980, Observation of a second bulk compressional wave in a
uid-saturated porous solid at ultrasonic frequencies: Applied Physics
Letters, 36, 259261. doi:10.1063/1.91445
Prasad, M., and Nur, A., 2003, Velocity and attenuation anisotropy in
reservoir rocks: 73rd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded
Abstracts, 22, 16521655.
Rafavich, F., Kendall, C. H. St. C., and Todd, T. P., 1984, The relationship
between acoustic properties and the petrographic character of carbonate
rocks: Geophysics, 49, 16221636. doi:10.1190/1.1441570
Sharma, R., Prasad, M., Surve, G., and Katiyar, G. C., 2006, On the
applicability of Gassmann model in carbonates: SEG Expanded
Abstract,, 25, 18661870. doi:10.1190/1.2369889
Smith, T. M., Sondergeld, C. H., and Rai, C. S., 2003, Gassmann uid
substitutions: A tutorial: Geophysics, 68, 430440. doi:10.1190/
1.1567211
http://www.publish.csiro.au/journals/eg
View publication stats
A. Misaghi et al.
Vo-Thanh, D., 1995, Inuence of uid chemistry on shear-wave attenuation
and velocity in sedimentary rocks: Geophysical Journal International,
121, 737749. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1995.tb06435.x
Wang, Z., 2001, Fundamentals of seismic rock physics: Geophysics, 66,
398412. doi:10.1190/1.1444931
White, J. E., 1983, Underground sound: Application of seismic waves:
Elsevier Science Publishing Co..
Wu, T. T., 1966, The effect of inclusion shape on the elastic moduli of a
two-phase material: International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2,
18. doi:10.1016/0020-7683(66)90002-3
Wyllie, M. R. J., Gardner, G. H. F., and Gregory, A. R., 1963, Addendum
to studies of elastic wave attenuation in porous media: Geophysics, 28,
1074. doi:10.1190/1.1439306
Manuscript received 25 July 2009; manuscript accepted 17 February 2010.