Biot, Gassmann and me

Brian Russell
Hampson-Russell, A CGGVeritas Company

Introduction
In this talk, I want to discuss how the work of Biot and
Gassmann has shaped both Hampson-Russells software
and my own scientific development over the last 27 years.
I will start with a discussion of Gassmanns work, and how it
influenced version 1.0 of AVO in 1985 (at Veritas!).
I will then discuss the importance of Biots work, which I first
appreciated while working to generalize the LMR equation.
This became even clearer while working with Dave Gray to
generalize his two three-term AVO expressions.
Gassmanns contribution to the effects of porosity then lead
me to develop a new rock physics template.
Finally, I will look to the future with a discussion of
Gassmann in anisotropic rocks.
2

Poroelasticity
Biot (1941) and Gassmann (1951) were the founders of
poroelasticity theory, which they developed in quite different
ways by comparing the compressibility of a dry and saturated
volume of rock, as shown below:

Saturated
Rock
(pores full)

Dry rock
frame, or
skeleton
(pores empty)

Rock mineral grains

Pores and fluid

Pressure and compressibility

By considering the pressure effects on samples of a dry
and saturated rock, I will show how Gassmanns result can
be derived.
The compressibility of the rock, C, which is the inverse of
the bulk modulus K, is the change of the volume of the rock
with respect to pressure, divided by the volume:

1
1 dV
C
, where : V volume, P pressure.
K
V dP
In the above equation, there are two fundamental types of
pressure: confining pressure, PC, and pore pressure, PP.
Also, there are three different volumes to consider: the
volume of the bulk rock, the mineral and the pore space.

Three models of a porous rock

Utilizing these concepts, we can build three simple models of
the rock volume, as shown here (Mavko and Mukerji, 1995):
DPc

DPc

Mineral

DPc

DPc

A. Mineral case

DPc

Dry Pore

DPc

DPc

DPc

B. Dry case

Fluid filled DPc

pore

DPp

DPc

DPc

C. Saturated case

In A, we compress the mineral, in B we compress the mineral

and dry pore, and in C the mineral and saturated pore.

Pore space stiffness

By combining cases A and B (mineral and dry) we come
up with the following equation:
1
1

K dry

K min

, where :

K dry dry rock bulk modulus, K min mineral bulk modulus,

K dry pore space stiffness, and porosity.

By combining cases A and C (mineral and saturated) we

come up with the following equation :
1
1

K sat

~ , where :
K m K

K sat saturated rock bulk modulus, and

K min K fluid
~
K K
saturated pore space stiffness
K min K fluid

Deriving the Gassmann equation

We can combine these two fundamental equations to
arrive at the simplest form of the Gassmann equation:
K dry
Kf
K sat

K min K sat K min K dry ( K min K fluid )

Gassmann also showed that shear modulus is independent
of fluid content.
AVO 1.0 used Gassmanns equation for fluid substitution
and dry rock compressibility for porosity change, as well as:

VP

K sat ( 4 / 3)

sat

VS
,
sat

sat min( 1 ) w S w hc( 1 S w ) ,

where : S w water saturation, sat dry .

Using the Gassmann equations

An example of using
Gassmanns
equations, where P
and S-wave velocity
are shown as a
function of gas
saturation in the
reservoir.
Note that P-wave
velocity drops
dramatically as we
add gas, but that Swave velocity only
increases slightly.
8

Biots 1941 paper

Biots 1941 paper, General Theory of Three-Dimensional
Consolidation, pre-dated Gassmanns work by 10 years.
Biot was an engineer, so he uses E (Youngs modulus)
and n (Poissons ratio) to derive his formula.
However, we can convert his final equations to the other
two elastic constant forms to get:

(1) sat dry 2 M

( 2) K sat K dry 2 M , where

the Biot coefficient, and M the fluid modulus.

These two equivalent formulations show us that it is the
effect of the second fluid term, not the particular elastic
constants, that is important.

Relating Biot and Gassmann

To equate the Biot and Gassmann formulations, note
that Gassmanns equation can also be written:
2

K sat

If we let:

K dry
1 K
min

K dry

1 K dry

2
K fluid K min K min

K dry
K min

and

,
M K fluid K min

we see that Gassmanns equation is identical to Biots:

K sat K dry 2 M
10

The generalized LMR method

Combining the work of Biot and the work of Ken Hedlin
(2000), Russell, Hedlin, Hilterman and Lines (Geophysics,
2003) proposed a generalization of the LMR equation:
2
2
f ( VP ) 2 dry
( VS ) 2 ( f s dry
)

dry
K dry 4
VP

2

3
VS dry
2

Note that:

2
dry

Murphy et al (1993) measured values of Kdry and for

clean quartz sandstones, and found a ratio of 0.9.
This was the value used by Ken Hedlin (2000).
Note that a value of 2 gives us the LMR approach.
A table of values is shown on the next page.
11

Table of values for the ratio

(Vp/Vs )dry2
Vp/Vs dry
s dry
K dry /
dry/
4.000
2.000
0.333
2.667
2.000
3.333
1.826
0.286
2.000
1.333
3.000
1.732
0.250
1.667
1.000
2.500
1.581
0.167
1.167
0.500
(4) 2.333
1.528
0.125
1.000
0.333
2.250
1.500
0.100
0.917
0.250
(3) 2.233
1.494
0.095
0.900
0.233
1.414
0.000
0.667
0.000
(2) 2.000
1.155
-1.000
0.000
-0.667
(1) 1.333
In the above table (1) corresponds to K-, (2) to ,
(3) to the Murphy/Hedlin value, and (4) to a clean
unconsolidated sand.
12

P-wave and S-wave Inversion

AI = VP

SI = VS

2
f AI 2 dry
SI 2

As shown above, the practical implementation of this

method uses the inverted P and S impedances.
To find the optimum ratio, well logs should be used.
The next slides show an example from Whiterose,
courtesy of Ken Hedlin and Husky Oil.
We will use three values for 2dry: 1.333, 2, and 2.333.

13

Whiterose well log example

Vs

Vp

Den

Porosity

Cretaceous
Shale

85m

Gas sand

97m

Oil sand

95m

Wet sand
Limestone
Courtesy, Ken Hedlin and Husky Oil

14

f vs s with c = 1.333
rho*f
vs
rho*sfor
forccc===1.333
2
rho*f
vs
rho*s
rho*f
vs
rho*s
for
2.333
7.00
5.00
8.00

rho*ss
rho*
rho*s

4.50
6.00
7.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
3.50
3.00
4.00
5.00
2.50
3.00
4.00
2.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

1.00
1.00
2.00

2.00
2.00
4.00
rho*f
rho*f
rho*f

3.00
3.00
6.00

4.00
4.00
8.00

Shale
Gas
Shale
Oil
Wet
Shale Gas
Gas Oil
Oil Wet
Wet
15

AVO and poroelasticity

All three-term AVO equations can be written:

Dp1
Dp2
Dp2
RPP ( ) a
b
c
,
p1
p2
p2
where : a, b, and c are functions of and VP2 / VS2 ,
and p1 , p2 , and p3 are physical parameters such as
VP , VS , , P impedance, S impedance, etc.
For example, the original Aki-Richards equation uses
VP, VS and and the Fatti equation uses P-impedance,
S-impedance and .
16

AVO and the elastic constants

Gray et al. (1999) derived two new equations, one in
which the physical constants are , and , and the other
for which they are K, and :
1
1 2 D
1
RPP ( ) 2 sec
2
sat
4 2 sat

1 2
1 1 2 D
2 D
sec

2
sin

sec
2
2 4

1
1 2 DK
1
RPP ( ) 2 sec
2
K sat
4 3 sat

1 2
1 1 2 D
2 D
sec

2
sin

sec
3
2 4

These equations are also given on page 244 of the

textbook by Avseth et al.
Note the similarity of the two equations, which differ only
by the factors 1/2 and 1/3.
17

The generalized formulation

Russell, Gray and Hampson (Geophysics, 2011) reformulated the Aki-Richards equation using f, and :

RPP ( ) a

where:

Df
D
D
b
c
f

2
1 dry
2

a 2 sec
4 4 sat
2
dry
2
2
b 2 sec 2 sin 2
4 sat
sat
2
2

1 1 2
V
V
2
2
P
P
c sec , sat 2 and dry 2
2 4
VS sat
VS dry
18

Some observations
The following comments can be made about the general
formulation:
If we substitute dry2 = 2 into the previous formulation, we
obtain the Gray et al. (1999) expression for , , .
If we substitute dry2 = 4/3 into the previous formulation, we
obtain the Gray et al. (1999) expression for K, , .
Again, the optimum value should be determined from well
logs and will probably be in the order of 2.333 for clean
sands or nearer 2.8 for deeper sediments, as found by
Dillon et al. (TLE, 2003) for measurements in Brazil.
The next few slides show a case study of this method.
19

Real data study Input gathers

We applied the f-- method to a Class 3 gas sand from

Alberta. The super-gathers are shown above, with the zone
of interest highlighted. Since the far angle is at 30o, the
density term extraction is considered unreliable.

20

Df/f vs D/ results
Df/f
Here is a comparison
of the fluid result (top)
with the shear
modulus result
(bottom).

D/
Note the change in
polarity at the gas
sand when comparing
the two results.
21

Pore space stiffness

Recall that in version 1.0 of the software we used the dry
pore space stiffness equation to compute porosity effects:
1
1

K dry

Km

, where :

K dry dry rock bulk modulus, K m mineral bulk modulus,

K dry pore space stiffness, and porosity.

The use of this method was questioned by several of our

clients (they preferred the critical porosity method) so I
prepared a CREWES paper in 2007 that analyzed the two
methods uses Hans classic dataset.
The results are shown on the next slide.
Following this slide, we show the basics of the method for
computed porosity change.
22

Best fits for constant pressure

K /Km = 0.162

RMSE = 0.039

c = 34.3%
RMSE = 0.058

This figure (from Russell and Smith, 2007) shows the fit of pore space
stiffness (left) and critical porosity (right) to a set of measured values at
constant pressure and differing porosity (Han, 1986). The pore space
stiffness method gives a smaller error than the critical porosity method.

Modeling Kdry versus porosity

Note that
K reduces
to Km at 0%
porosity, as
it should.

Km

Constant K
curve

Knew
Kcal

new

cal

Graphically, we model Kdry at a new porosity new using a

calibration porosity cal, moving along the K curve.

24

Modeling Kdry versus porosity

Mathematically, this is done as follows:

1
K dry _ new

1 new 1
1

K m cal K dry _ cal K m

This work lead to another CREWES paper in 2011, where I

proposed a new approach to the Rock Physics Template, or
RPT.
I will first review the concepts of the RPT and then discuss
this new approach.
I will finish with both a log and real data example.

25

The rock physics template (RPT)

degaard and Avseth
(2003) proposed a
technique they called
the rock physics
template (RPT), in
which the fluid and
mineralogical content of
a reservoir could be
estimated on a crossplot
of Vp/Vs ratio against
acoustic impedance, as
shown here.
from degaard and Avseth (2003)
26

The degaard/Avseth RPT

degaard and Avseth (2003) compute Kdry and dry as a
function of porosity using Hertz-Mindlin (HM) contact
theory and the lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound:
1

/ c
1 / c
4
K dry

HM

3
K HM (4 / 3) HM K m (4 / 3) HM
1

dry

/ c
1 / c
4
HM 9 K HM 8 HM

HM , where z
3
6 K HM 2 HM
HM z m z
1
3

1
3

n (1 c )

4 4n m 3n (1 c )
K HM
P
,

P ,
HM

2
2
5(2 n m ) 2 (1 n m )
18 (1 n m )

P confining pressure, K m , m mineral bulk and shear modulus, n contacts

2

2
m
2

2
m
2

per grain, n m mineral Poisson' s ratio, and c high porosity end - member.

They then use standard Gassmann theory for the fluid

replacement process.

27

The new Gassmann RPT

I proposed a new approach to the rock physics template, in
which we still use Gassmann for saturation change but use
pore space stiffness to compute the porosity change.
The new approach uses the same formulation for shear
modulus as for the bulk modulus (Qing Li suggested this):

dry _ new

new 1
1

m cal dry _ cal m

1

The next slide shows a comparison of the two methods in

terms of the final dry modulus ratio.
We will then look at a case study on both logs and real
data.
28

Comparison of the methods for the modulus ratio

A comparison between the two methods and the constant ratio empirical
result. The plot on the left shows the dry rock K/ ratio as a function of
porosity (0 to 40%) and the plot on the right shows the dry shear
modulus as a function of porosity for only the first 10% of porosity:

The new approach is closer to the experimental results of Murphy et al.,

except near 0% porosity, where it correctly predicts the mineral value. 29

3.0

Vp/Vs vs P-impedance from logs

Vp/Vs ratio

Shales

Cemented sands

Brine sands

1.5

Now we will
compare our
templates to
real data. This
plot shows well
log data from a
gas sand in the
Colony area of
Alberta.

4500

Gas sands

P-impedance (m/s*g/cc)

11000

The Vp and logs were measured and Vs was computed using

the mud-rock line in the shales and wet sands and the
30
Gassmann equations in the gas sands.

Shales
Brine sands

Vp/Vs ratio

Cemented sands

1.8

The results of a
simultaneous
pre-stack
inversion from
the same area.
Note that the
range of values
is less extreme
than on the log
data due to the
bandlimited
nature of the
seismic data.

2.9

Vp/Vs vs P-impedance from inversion

Gas sands

5200

6800
P-impedance (m/s*g/cc)

Next, we show the log and seismic data superimposed on the

RPTs, where the log data has been integrated to time.

31

Avseth/degaard Rock Physics Template

Pressure
Clay content
Shale
Porosity
Cement
Gas
Gas Sands
30% Porosity

20% Porosity

Seismic (Vp/Vs shifted)

Log data

32

New Rock Physics Template

Pressure
Clay content
Shale
Porosity
Cement
Gas
Gas Sands
30% Porosity

20% Porosity

Seismic (Vp/Vs shifted)

Log data

33

Anisotropic Hookes Law

Here is the stiffness form of Hookes law, which relates the
stress tensor to the strain tensor, for the orthorhombic
anisotropic case, requiring 9 independent stiffness terms:

s 11 c11
s c
22 12
s 33 c13

s 23 0
s 13 0

s 12 0

c12
c22
c23
0
0
0

c13 0
c23 0
c33 0
0 c44
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
c55
0

0 11
0 22

0 33
,
0 23
0 13

c66 12

where : s ij stress, ij strain, cij stiffness coefficients.

Note that the isotropic case, which we have been
discussing so far, requires only 2 independent terms.

Anisotropic Biot-Gassmann
The anisotropic Gassmann equations can be written in the
following Biot-type form (Gurevich, 2003):

cijsat cijdry i j M
3

where : m 1

c
n 1

dry
mn

3K min

, m 1,2,3, m 0, m 4,5,6,

K min
1 3 3 dry
*
M
, K cij
*
1 ( K / K min ) 1 ( K min / K fluid )
9 i 1 j 1

Note that the anisotropic Biot coefficients are simply sums

over the first three columns of the stiffness matrix.
I will next apply these equations to an orthorhombic
sandstone example from Dillen (2000).

Orthorhombic Sandstone Example

Conclusions
In this talk, I outlined my long relationship with Biot and
Gassmann.
It started in 1985, with version 1.0 of our AVO program.
I then used their theories, along with ideas from Ken Hedlin
and Fred Hilterman, to generalize the LMR process.
With Dave Gray, we used their theories to generalize two
separate linearized AVO expressions.
Most recently, I used the pore space compressibility concept
to build a new rock physics template.
This last work validates the assumptions that we made in
version 1.0 of AVO about computing porosity change.
My current interest involves using Biot and Gassmann in the
anisotropic world.
37

References
Biot, M. A., 1941, General theory of three-dimensional consolidation,
Journal of Applied Physics, 12, 155-164.
Dillon, L., Schwedersky, G., Vasquez, G., Velloso, R. and Nunes, C., 2003,
A multiscale DHI elastic attributes evaluation: The Leading Edge, 22, no.
10, 1024-1029.
Gassmann, F., 1951, Uber die Elastizitat poroser Medien: Vierteljahrsschrift
der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zurich, 96, 1-23.

Goodway, W., Chen, T., and Downton, J., 1997, Improved AVO fluid
detection and lithology discrimination using Lame petrophysical parameters:
67th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 183
186.
Gray, F., Chen, T. and Goodway, W., 1999, Bridging the gap: Using AVO to
detect changes in fundamental elastic constants, 69th Ann. Int. Mtg: SEG,
852-855.
38

References
Han, D., 1986, Effects of porosity and clay content on acoustic properties
of sandstones and unconsolidated sediments: Ph.D. dissertation,
Stanford.
Hedlin, K., 2000, Pore space modulus and extraction using AVO: 70th
Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 170-173.
Mavko, G., and T. Mukerji, 1995, Seismic pore space compressibility and
Gassmann's relation: Geophysics, 60, 1743-1749.
Murphy, W., Reischer, A., and Hsu, K., 1993, Modulus Decomposition of
Compressional and Shear Velocities in Sand Bodies: Geophysics, 58,
227-239.
Nur, A., 1992, Critical porosity and the seismic velocities in rocks: EOS,
Transactions American Geophysical Union, 73, 43-66.

degaard, E. and Avseth, P., 2003, Interpretation of elastic inversion

results using rock physics templates: EAGE, Expanded Abstracts.
39

References
Russell, B., Hedlin, K., Hilterman, F. and Lines, L., 2003, Fluid-property
discrimination with AVO: A Biot-Gassmann perspective: Geophysics,
68, 29-39.
Russell, B. H. and Smith, T., 2007, The relationship between dry rock
bulk modulus and porosity An empirical study: CREWES Report,
Volume 19.
Russell, B.H. and Lines, L., 2011, A Gassmann consistent rock physics
template: CREWES Report, Volume 23.
Russell, B.H., Gray, D., and Hampson, D.P., 2011, Linearized AVO and
poroelasticity, Geophysics, 76, no. 3, C19-C29.

40