Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

The Rock Physics of AVO

302

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
Water-saturated
40 MPa

Water-saturated
10-40 MPa

Gas and
Water-saturated
10-40 MPa

L8

303

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

N.1

More than 400 sandstone data points, with porosities

ranging over 4-39%, clay content 0-55%, effective
pressure 5-40 MPa - all water saturated.
When Vp is plotted vs. Vs, they follow a remarkably
narrow trend. Variations in porosity, clay, and pressure
simply move the points up and down the trend.

304

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

N.2

Variations in porosity, pore pressure, and shaliness

move data along trends. Changing the pore fluid
causes the trend to change.

305

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Different shear-related attributes.

306

N.2

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

V P1, VS1, 1
1

Reflected
S-wave

Reflected
P-wave

Incident
P-wave

Transmitted
P-wave
2

2
Transmitted
S-wave

VP2, V S2, 2

N.4

In an isotropic medium, a wave that is incident on a

boundary will generally create two reflected waves (one
P and one S) and two transmitted waves. The total shear
traction acting on the boundary in medium 1 (due to the
summed effects of the incident an reflected waves) must
be equal to the total shear traction acting on the boundary in
medium 2 (due to the summed effects of the
transmitted waves). Also the displacement of a point in
medium 1 at the boundary must be equal to the displacement of a point in medium 2 at the boundary.

307

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

By matching the traction and displacement boundary

conditions, Zoeppritz (1919) derived the equations
relating the amplitudes of the P and S waves:
sin(1 )
cos(1 )
cos( )
sin(1 )
1

VP1

cos(21 )
sin(21 )
VS1

VS1
sin(21 )
cos(21 )
VP1

sin( 2 )
cos( 2 )
Rpp sin(1 )
cos( 2 )
sin( 2 )

2VS22VP1
2VS 2VP1
Rps cos(1 )
=
sin(2 2 )
cos(2 2 )
1VS12VP 2
1VS12
Tpp

sin(21 )

Tps cos(21 )
2VP 2
2VS 2

cos(22 )

cos(2 2 )
1VP1
1VP1

308

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

AVO - Shuey's Approximation

P-wave reflectivity versus angle:
Intercept

Gradient

1 VP

2
2
2

sin
R( ) = R0 + ER0 +

+
tan

sin
]
[
2
2
V

P
(1 )

1 VP
R0
+
2 VP

E = F 2(1 + F )

1 2
1

VP / VP
F=
VP / VP + /

VP = (VP 2 VP1)
VS = (VS 2 VS1 )
= ( 2 1 )

VP = (VP 2 + VP1) / 2
VS = (VS2 + VS1 ) / 2
= ( 2 + 1 ) / 2

309

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

AVO - Aki-Richard's approximation:

P-wave reflectivity versus angle:
Intercept

Gradient

1 VP
VS2
VS 2
R( ) = R0 +
2 2
+2
sin
VP
VS
2 VP
1 VP
+
tan2 sin2 ]
[
2 VP

1 VP
R0
+
2 VP

VP = (VP 2 VP1)
VS = (VS 2 VS1 )
= ( 2 1 )

VP = (VP 2 + VP1) / 2
VS = (VS2 + VS1 ) / 2
= ( 2 + 1 ) / 2

310

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

AVO Response
P-Velocity
contrast
negative
negative
positive
positive

Poisson ratio
contrast
negative
positive
negative
positive

311

AVO response
increase
decrease
decrease
increase

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Vp-Vs Relations
There is a wide, and sometimes confusing, variety of
published Vp-Vs relations and Vs prediction techniques,
which at first appear to be quite distinct. However, most
reduce to the same two simple steps:
1. Establish empirical relations among Vp, Vs, and porosity
for one reference pore fluid--most often water saturated or
dry.
2. Use Gassmanns (1951) relations to map these empirical
relations to other pore fluid states.
Although some of the effective medium models predict both P
and S velocities assuming idealized pore geometries, the fact
remains that the most reliable and most often used Vp-Vs
relations are empirical fits to laboratory and/or log data. The
most useful role of theoretical methods is extending these
empirical relations to different pore fluids or measurement
frequencies. Hence, the two steps listed above.

312

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
7
Sandstones
Water Saturated

Vp (km/s)

Mudrock
mudrock
.8621V
.1724
VVs
= .86
Vpp --11.17
s =

4
3

Han(1986)
(1986)
Han
868
VVs
s == .7936V
p - .-70.79
.79 Vp

Castagna
Castagnaetetal.al.(1993)
(1993)
V s = .8042Vp - . 8 5 5 9

Vs = .80 Vp - 0.86

(after Castagna et al., 1993)

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Vs (km/s)
7
Shales
Water Saturated

Vp (km/s)

Mudrock

mudrock
.86 Vp
Vp -- 1.17
1.1724
VVs
s == .8621

4
3

Han (1986)
(1986)
Han
=
.7936V
7868
V
Vss = .79
Vpp-- .0.79

Castagna etetal.
Castagna
al.(1993)
(1993)
V s = .8042Vp - . 8 5 5 9
Vs = .80 Vp - 0.86

(after Castagna et al., 1993)

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5
N.5

Vs (km/s)
313

N.5

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
8
Limestones
Water Saturated

Vp (km/s)

6
Castagna
et al. (1993)
Castagna et al. (1993)
Vs
= -.055 Vp2
V s = -.05508 VP 2
+ 1.02
Vp
+ 1.0168 Vp
- 1.03
- 1.0305

5
4
3
2

VPickett(1963)
s = Vp / 1 . 9
Pickett
Vs = Vp(1963)
/ 1.9

1
water

(after Castagna et al.,1993)

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Vs (km/s)
8
Dolomite
Water Saturated

Pickett (1963)
Pickett(1963)
= V/p /1.8
1.8
Vs V=s Vp

Vp (km/s)

6
5
4

Castagna et al. (1993)

Castagna
et al. (1993)
V s = .5832Vp - . 0 7 7 7 6
Vs = .58 Vp - 0.078

3
2
1

(after Castagna et al., 1993)

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5
N.6

Vs (km/s)
314

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
6
Shaly Sandstones
Water Saturated

Vp (km/s)

mudrock
Mudrock
= . 8Vp
6 2 1-V1.17
p-1.1724
Vs =V s.86

clay >
> 25%
25 %
Clay
Vs=.8423Vp-1.099
3 Vs = .84Vp-1.10
clay < 25 %
Clay < 25%
Vs=.7535Vp-.6566

Vs = .75 Vp - 0.66

Vp-sat c>.25
Vp-sat c<.25

(Data from Han, 1986)

0
0

0.5

1.5
2
2.5
Vs (km/s)

3.5

Shaly Sandstones
Water Saturated (hf)

Vp (km/s)

mudrock
Mudrock
Vs ==.86
.8621Vp-1.1724
Vs
Vp - 1.17
4
porosity
%
porosity<<15
15%
Vs
=
.8533Vp-1.1374
Vs = .85 Vp - 1.14

porosity
%
porosity>>15
15%
Vs = .7563Vp-.6620

Vs = .76Vp - 0.66

Vp-sat Phi>.15
Vp-sat Phi<.15

(Data from Han, 1986)

0
0

0.5

1.5
2
2.5
Vs (km/s)
315

3.5
N.7

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Dry Poissons Ratio Assumption

The modified Voigt Average Predicts linear moduli-porosity relations.
This is a convenient relation for use with the critical porosity model.

K dry = K0 1
c

dry = 0 1
c

These are equivalent to the dry rock Vs/Vp relation and the dry rock
Poissons ratio equal to their values for pure mineral.

VS
VS

V
V
P dry rock
P mineral

dry rock mineral

The plot below illustrates the approximately constant dry rock

Poissons ratio observed for a large set of ultrasonic sandstone
velocities (from Han, 1986) over a large rance of effective pressures (5
< Peff < 40 MPa) and clay contents (0 < C < 55% by volume).

16

Shaly Sandstones - Dry

14

= 0.1

clay < 10%

clay > 10%

12

Vs2 dry

= 0.01

= 0.2

10
= 0.3

8
6

= 0.4

4
2
0

10

15
20
2
Vp dry
316

25

30

35
N.8

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Kriefs Relation (1990)

The model combines the same two elements:
1. An empirical Vp-Vs- relation for water-saturated
rocks, which is approximately the same as the critical
porosity model.
2. Gassmanns relation to extend the empirical
relation to other pore fluids.
Dry rock Vp-Vs- relation:

K dry = K mineral (1 )
where is Biots coefficient. This is equivalent to:

1
1

=
+
K dry K 0 K
where
dv p
1 dv p
1
=
; =
K v p d P = constant
dV
P

PP = constant

Kdry
=
K

and Kf are two equivalent descriptions of the pore space

stiffness. Determining vs. or K vs determines the
rock bulk modulus Kdry vs .
Krief et al. (1990) used the data of Raymer et al. (1980) to
empirically find a relation for vs :

(1 ) = (1 )

m ( )

where m( ) = 3 / (1 )
317

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Assuming dry rock Poissons ratio is equal to the

mineral Poissons ratio gives

K dry = K 0 (1 )

dry = 0 (1 )

m( )

m( )

N.9

318

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
Expressions for any other pore fluids are obtained from
Gassmanns equations. While these are nonlinear, they
suggest a simple approximation:

VP2 sat V fl2 VP20 V fl2

=
2
VS sat
VS02
where VP-sat, VP0, and Vfl are the P-wave velocities of the
saturated rock, the mineral, and the pore fluid; and VS-sat
and VS0 are the S-wave velocities in the saturated rock
and mineral. Rewriting slightly gives

VP2 sat

2
2

V
P0
fl
2
2
= V fl + VS sat
V 2
S0

which is a straight line (in velocity-squared) connecting the

2
2 ) and the fluid point ( 2
mineral point ( VP0
, VS0
Vfl , 0). A more
accurate (and nearly identical) model is to recognize that
velocities tend toward those of a suspension at high
porosity, rather than toward a fluid, which yields the
modified form
2
2
2
2

VP sat VR VP 0 VR
=
VS2sat
VS02

where VR is the velocity of a suspension of minerals in a

fluid, given by the Reuss average at the critical porosity.
This modified form of Kriefs expression is exactly
equivalent to the linear (modified Voigt) K vs and vs
relations in the critical porosity model, with the fluid effects
given by Gassmann.
319

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Vp-Vs Relation in Dry and

Saturated Rocks
35

Sandstones

mineral
point

30
25

Vp2 (km/s)2

saturated

20
15
dry

10
5
fluid point

0
0

10

15
2

Vs (km/s)

320

20
N.10

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Vp-Vs Relation in Sandstone

and Dolomite
50
mineral
points

Vp2 (km/s)2

40

Dolomite

30
20
Sandstone

10
fluid points

0
0

Vs2 (km/s)2

321

12

16
N.11

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
Greenberg and Castagna (1992) have given empirical
relations for estimating Vs from Vp in multimineralic, brinesaturated rocks based on empirical, polynomial Vp-Vs
relations in pure monomineralic lithologies (Castagna et
al., 1992). The shear wave velocity in brine-saturated
composite lithologies is approximated by a simple average
of the arithmetic and harmonic means of the constituent
pure lithology shear velocities:
VS = 1
2
L

i=1

where
L
Xi
aij
Ni
Vp, Vs

Ni

j
Xi a ijVP

i=1
j=0

Ni

j
X i a ijVP

i= 1
j= 0

1 1

Xi = 1
number of monomineralic lithologic constituent
volume fractions of lithological constituents
empirical regression coefficients
order of polynomial for constituent i
P and S wave velocities (km/s) in composite brinesaturated, multimineralic rock

Castagna et al. (1992) gave representative polynomial

regression coefficients for pure monomineralic lithologies:
Lithology
S a ndstone
Lime stone
D olomite
S ha le

a i2

a i1

a i0

0
-0 .0 5 5 0 8
0
0

0 .8 0 4 1 6
1 .0 1 6 7 7
0 .5 8 3 2 1
0 .7 6 9 6 9

-0 .8 5 5 8 8
-1 .0 3 0 4 9
-0 .0 7 7 7 5
-0 .8 6 7 3 5

Regression coefficients for pure lithologies with Vp and Vs

in km/s:
(Castagna et al. 1992)
VS = a i2VP2 + ai1VP + a i0
322

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
7

Vp (km/s)

6
5
4
3
Sandstone
Limestone
Dolomite
Shale

2
1
0

Vs (km/s)

N.12

Note that the above relation is for 100% brine-saturated rocks.

To estimate Vs from measured Vp for other fluid saturations,
Gassmanns equation has to be used in an iterative manner.
In the following, the subscript b denotes velocities at 100%
brine saturation and the subscript f denotes velocities at any
other fluid saturation (e.g. this could be oil or a mixture of oil,
brine, and gas). The method consists of iteratively finding a
(Vp, Vs) point on the brine relation that transforms, with
Gassmanns relation, to the measured Vp and the unknown Vs
for the new fluid saturation. the steps are as follows:
1. Start with an initial guess for VPb.
2. Calculate VSb corresponding to VPb from the empirical
regression.
3. Do fluid substitution using VPb and VSb in the Gassmann
equation to get VSf.
4. With the calculated VSf and the measured VPf, use the
Gassmann relation to get a new estimate of VPb. Check with
previous value of VPb for convergence. If convergence
criterion is met, stop; if not go back to step 2 and continue.
323

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
Polynomial and powerlaw forms of the Gardner et al. (1974) velocity-density
relationships presented by Castagna et al. (1993). Units are km/s and
g/cm3.
Coefficients for the equation b = aVp2 + bVp + c
L ithology

Shale
- .0261
Sandstone - .0115
Limestone - .0296
Dolomite
- .0235
Anhydrite - .0203
Coefficients for
L ithology

Shale
Sandstone
Limestone
Dolomite
Anhydrite

1.75
1.66
1.50
1.74
2.19

V p Range
(Km/s)

.373
1.458
.261
1.515
.461
0.963
.390
1.242
.321
1.732
the equation b = dVpf
f

.265
.261
.225
.252
.160

1.5- 5.0
1.5- 6.0
3.5- 6.4
4.5- 7.1
4.6- 7.4

V p Range
(Km/s)
1.5- 5.0
1.5- 6.0
3.5- 6.4
4.5- 7.1
4.6- 7.4

N.15

Both forms of Gardners relations applied to log and lab shale data, as
presented by Castagna et al. (1993)
324

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

N.16

Both forms of Gardners relations applied to

laboratory dolomite data.

325

Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Both forms of Gardners relations applied to log and lab sandstone data, as
presented by Castagna et al. (1993).

Both forms of Gardners relations applied to laboratory N.17

limestone data. Note
that the published powerlaw form does not fit as well as the polynomial. we
also show a powerlaw form fit to these data, which agrees very well with the
polynomial.

326