Velocities

April 7, 2011
Lab Section 002, Thursday
Team 6
Performance Rating
Manager: Justin Rasor _________________________________________ _______
Researcher: Ashok Bhusal __________________________________________ _______
Technician: Jafar Alzaid __________________________________________ _______
Analyst: Hussain Almerza __________________________________________ _______
Scribe: Khoa Dao __________________________________________ _______
Editor: Garrett Rachal __________________________________________ _______
Academic integrity statement
On my honor I affirm that I have neither given nor received inappropriate aid in the completion of this
exercise.
Name: ___________________________________ Date:_____________________________________
Abstract:
The purpose of this experiment is to investigate the dependence of wave velocity
(compressional and shear) on pressure and saturation. We measured compressional and shear
wave velocities (Vp and Vs) on six samples (three verticals and three horizontals) at two
different states: dry and 100 percent saturated with brine. The average Vp and Vs are 3.80.2
km/s and 2.40.2 km/s respectively for dry samples; and 4.00.2 km/s and 2.30.2km/s
respectively for saturated samples. The velocities of six samples increased nonlinearly with the
increase pressure, and decreased nonlinearly with the increase in porosity. The nonlinear
pressure dependence on velocity suggests that there are cracks in the samples. On average,
the rate of change of Vp with pressure was 2.4*10
-4
2.1*10
-4
km/s/psi for dry samples and
1.4*10
-4
1.0*10
-4
km/s/psi for saturated samples. As for Vs it was 1.7*10
-4
1.3*10
-4
km/s/psi for
dry samples and 1.5*10
-4
1.1*10
-4
km/s/psi for saturated samples.
We can also determine the mechanical properties of the samples. We calculated shear, bulk,
Youngs moduli and Poissons ratio, and predicted on porosity of the samples using wave
velocity. Data shows that shear, bulk, and Youngs moduli increase with increasing confining
pressure for samples at both dry and saturated state. The average shear modulus of the
samples is 12.20.4GPa at dry state and 12.30.3GPa at saturated sate. The average bulk
modulus is 13.80.9GPa at dry state and 20.01.2GPa at saturated state. The average Youngs
modulus is 28.20.9GPa at dry state and 30.60.9GPa at saturated state. The average
Poissons ratio is 0.160.02 at dry state and 0.250.01 at saturated state. Bulk and Youngs
moduli of samples at saturated state are always higher than those at dry state, whereas shear
modulus is independent of saturation. The predicted porosities from the Wyllie Time average
and Raymer-Hunt-Gardner relation are 15.70.4% and 18.60.4% respectively for vertical
samples; and 17.50.4% and 19.81.3% respectively for horizontal samples.
2
Introduction
The consequent drilling of deep wells have given rise to problems with drilling fluids and with the running log
associated with the high pressure and temperature in deep wells. Temperature approaching 400
o
F and pressures
exceeding 10000psi is becoming common. In addition, the behavior of subsurface formations becomes more complex at
these extreme conditions (Mobark et. al. 1971). Therefore knowledge of a reservoirs petrophysical properties is
essential in proper reservoir characterization. However, the direct measurement of these properties is often times
expensive and sometimes impossible task. In these circumstances engineers use indirect methods such as sonic logging
to help calculate a reservoirs petrophysical properties. The use of acoustic waves in well logging was introduced in the
fifties with the well velocity survey. However; at this time the logging tools, surface equipment and techniques that
could be used in data processing placed severe limitations on its effectiveness (Minear 1986). For correct interpretation
of logs run under extreme conditions (high pressure and temperature), knowledge is needed of the effect of pressure and
temperature on the property being deduced from the log data (Mobark et. al. 1971). This paper deals with the effect of
high pressure on elastic wave velocities in rocks and the relation of these effects to sonic log interpretation.
Modern logging tools measure the transit time and velocities of compressional and shear waves through a core. The
ability to measure shear and compressional wave transit time enhances 3-D and 4-D seismic modeling, and combined
with bulk density data allows engineers to determine Poissons ratio, Bulk, Shear and Youngs Moduli (Ajufo et at.,
1996). These elastic rock properties play an important role in various stages of upstream operations such as drilling,
hydraulic fracturing and production (Abdulraheem et. al., 2009). Porosity estimation is another common application of
acoustic velocity data in hydrocarbon wells. Wyllie, et al. (1958) and Raymer-Hunt-Gardner (1980) proposed empirical
equations to convert sonic travel time (ts) of P-wave to porosity. The P-wave velocity (vP ), for a rock with a given
porosity, is also controlled by several other factors such as pore filling minerals, internal and external pressures, pore
geometry, and pore fluid saturation, etc. These factors may have significant effect on measured ts and thus on porosity
interpretation from the sonic log (Khaksar , Griffiths 1999).
3
Experimental Procedure:
The transmission technique measurement is used to measure the velocity of shear (s) and
compressional (p) waves in the dry rock sample and 100 percent saturated rock with brine. We
obtained the six core samples that we used in the previous lab, three horizontal and three
vertical. The rock sample is placed in a rubber boot between two transducers, one act as the
source and the other acts as the receiver. Voltage is applied to the piezoelectric crystals and
creates mechanical waves. The waves propagate through the sample a distance until they
arrive to the receiver. Waves are displayed in the digital oscilloscope. The beginning of
distortion in the waves is considered as the reference time. To calculate the velocity, we need
to find the precise time of the beginning of applying voltage on the rock sample. We applied
different confining pressures on the samples to show the relation between confining pressure
and velocity, which affects the porosity, and the velocity of the waves.
Analysis:
The average Vp and Vs are 3.80.2 km/s and 2.40.2 km/s respectively for dry samples. After
saturation, the average Vp and Vs are 4.00.2 km/s and 2.30.2kam/s respectively. The
average rate of change of Vp with respect to pressure is 1.4*10
-4
1.0*10
-4
km/s/psi for saturated
samples and 2.4*10
-4
2.1*10
-4
km/s/psi for dry samples. The average rate of change of Vs with
respect to pressure is 1.5*10
-4
1.1*10
-4
km/s/psi for saturated samples and 1.7*10
-4
1.3*10
-4
km/s/psi for dry samples.
We investigated the dependence of velocities (shear and compressional) on both pressure and
porosity. As shown in the previous experiment, we concluded that porosity decreases
nonlinearly as confining pressure increases. Therefore we expect the relation between wave
velocity and pressure would be opposite to the relation between wave velocity and porosity.
Fig.2-7 show how compressional and shear wave velocities are related to differential pressure
and porosity for each sample. Both Vp and VS increase nonlinearly with increasing differential
4
pressure, whereas velocities (shear and compressional) decrease nonlinearly with increasing
porosity. We conclude that waves travel faster through rock as it becomes less porous (due to
high confining pressure).
The nonlinear pressure dependence in both compressional and shear velocities of the samples
can be explained by the fact that there are cracks in the samples. We observed that velocity
increases rapidly as pressure initially increases because relatively large numbers of
microcracks close. Further increases in pressure are associated with more nearly linear
increases in velocity (Khaksar 1999). There are common patterns that can be observed in
these figures: the saturated compressional velocity is always higher than dry compressional
velocity (Vp,sat>Vp,dry) ; and dry shear velocity is always slightly higher than saturated shear
velocity (Vs,dry>Vs,sat).
We computed the shear modulus (G), bulk modulus (K), Youngs modulus (E), Poissons ratio ()
and Vp/Vs ratio of each sample at different pressure and saturation using Eq.1-4. The summary
of our calculation is shown in Table 1 (for sample at dry state) and Table 2 (for samples at
saturated state).
Fig.8-13 show that G, K and E increase as confining pressure increases for both dry and
saturated samples. This pattern is consistent with the relation we expected. As confining
pressure increases, rock becomes less porous. Closure of microcracks increases the stiffness of
the rock and therefore increases bulk, shear and Youngs moduli (Khaksar 1999). The average
rate of change of G with respect to pressure is 1.5*10
-3
1.3*10
-3
GPa/psi for saturated samples
and 1.6*10
-3
1.1*10
-3
GPa/psi for dry samples. The average rate of change of K with respect
to pressure is 1.2*10
-3
1.0*10
-3
GPa/psi for saturated samples and 1.3*10
-3
1.2*10
-
3
GPa/psi for dry samples.
We noticed that for each sample, shear moduli at dry and saturated state are relatively equal
at any confining pressure (Gsat=Gdry) while the bulk and Youngs moduli at saturated state are
5
always greater than that at dry state (Ksat>Kdry and Esat >Edry). Because shear modulus is
independent of fluids in the pore, shear waves can be used as indicators of fluid in the pore
space. The relation between Vs,dry and Vs,sat can be derived as function of porosity as shown in
Eq.6.
Table 3 shows the comparison between Willie Time average, Raymer-Hunt-Gardner, effective
porosity to direct measurement of absolute porosity of the samples. The average absolute,
Wyllie, Raymer-Hunt-Gardner and effective porosity are 18.30.2%, 16.61.0%, 19.61.1%,
and 17.20.2% respectively. The Wyllie porosity estimator provides an effective tool to predict
the effective porosity of our samples.
Conclusion:
We investigated Vp and Vs on dry and saturated samples in relation with confining pressure.
Both Vp and Vs increase nonlinearly as we increase confining pressure (therefore reduce the
porosity of the samples). The nonlinear pressure dependence on pressure can be explained by
the fact that there are cracks in the samples. The average Vp and Vs are 3.80.2 km/s and
2.40.2 km/s respectively for dry samples. After saturation, the average Vp and Vs are 4.00.2
km/s and 2.30.2km/s respectively. This result shows that Vp,sat>Vp,dry whereas Vs,sat<Vs,dry. We
also investigated the relation between elastic properties of the samples and pressure. The
shear, bulk, and Youngs moduli increase with increasing confining pressure for samples at both
dry and saturated state. Bulk and Youngs moduli of samples at saturated state are always
higher than those at dry state, whereas shear modulus is independent of saturation. The
average shear modulus of the samples is 12.20.4GPa at dry state and 12.30.3GPa at
saturated sate. The average bulk modulus is 13.80.9GPa at dry state and 20.01.2GPa at
saturated state. The average Youngs modulus is 28.20.9GPa at dry state and 30.60.9GPa at
saturated state. The average Poissons ratio is 0.160.02 at dry state and 0.250.01 at
saturated state. The shear moduli change more than the bulk moduli pressure. We can
conclude that as the rock becomes less porous (lower porosity due to high confining pressure),
6
it becomes stiffer and sonic waves can travel faster through rock. The average Wyllie, Raymer-
Hunt-Gardner and effective porosity are 16.61.0%, 19.61.1%, and 17.20.2% respectively.
The Wyllie porosity estimator provides an effective tool to predict the effective porosity of our
samples.
Reference Cited:
7
Abdulraheem A., Ahmed M., Vantala A., and Parvez T., 2009. Prediction of Rock Mechanical Parameters for
Hydrocarbon Reservoirs Using Different Artificial Intelligence Techniques. Paper SPE 126094 presented at
SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium, Saudi Arabia, 9-11 May.
Ajufo, A., Chapman, D., and Kier, J. 1996. Improved Reservoir Characterization and Delineation Using Acoustic
Measurements on Cores. Paper SPE 35654 presented at Gas Technology Conference, Calgary, 28 April-1 May.
Kelvin, B. 1981. Factors affecting sandstone acoustic compressional velocities and an
examination of empirical correlation between velocities and porosities. Paper SPWLA
presented at Twenty-second Annual Logging Symposium, 23-26 June, 1981
Khaksar, A. and Griffiths, C.M. 1999. Influence of Effective Stress on the Acoustic Velocity and
Log-Derived Porosity. SPE reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 1 (2): PA.DOI:
10.2118/54564-PA
Minear, J. 1986. Full wave sonic logging: A brief perspective. Paper SPWLA presented at
Twenty-seven Annual Logging Symposium, 1 January 1986.
Mobarak, S. and Somerton, W. 1971. The effect of temperature and pressure on wave velocities
in porous rocks. Paper SPE presented at Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, New Orleans, Louisiana, 3-6 October 1971.
Walls, J., Dvorkin, J., Mavko, G. and Nur, A. Use of compressional and shear wave velocity for
overpressure detection. Paper OTC 11912 presented at the 2000 Offshore Technology
Conference, Texas, 1-4 May 2000.
8
Appendix:
9
Fig. 1 - A schematic of the Pulse Transmission configuration. One
transducer acts as a source and at the opposite end, a second acts as
a receiver.
Pc (psi) Vp (km/s) VS1 (km/s) VS2 (km/s) (%) dry (gm/cm^3) G (GPa) K(GPa) E(GPa) VP/VS
496 3.13 2.12 2.06 18.17 2.146 9.61 8.56 20.98 0.100 1.50
999 3.42 2.27 2.22 18.15 2.146 11.05 10.73 24.67 0.122 1.52
1498 3.65 2.40 2.34 18.14 2.146 12.33 12.57 27.88 0.137 1.54
1996 3.75 2.45 2.40 18.12 2.147 12.85 14.40 29.71 0.142 1.55
3001 3.99 2.52 2.50 18.09 2.148 13.62 16.23 31.93 0.174 1.59
5002 4.08 2.59 2.57 18.03 2.149 14.44 16.71 33.63 0.167 1.58
Average 3.70.4 2.40.2 2.30.2 18.120.05 2.1460.001 12.31.8 13.23.2 28.14.7 0.140.03 1.550.03
Pc (psi) Vp (km/s) VS1 (km/s) VS2 (km/s) (%) dry (gm/cm^3) G (GPa) K(GPa) E(GPa) VP/VS
496 3.28 2.13 2.10 18.64 2.122 9.64 10.18 21.98 0.144 1.55
999 3.64 2.30 2.26 18.59 2.123 11.27 13.39 26.41 0.176 1.59
1499 3.76 2.43 2.38 18.54 2.124 12.54 13.69 28.82 0.154 1.56
1997 3.88 2.51 2.45 18.49 2.126 13.36 14.50 30.67 0.153 1.56
2999 4.00 2.55 2.50 18.39 2.128 13.85 16.04 32.27 0.170 1.59
5001 4.11 2.65 2.59 18.19 2.134 15.02 16.50 34.57 0.157 1.57
Average 3.80.3 2.40.2 2.40.2 18.50.2 2.1260.004 12.61.9 14.12.3 29.14.5 0.160.01 1.570.01
Pc (psi) Vp (km/s) VS1 (km/s) VS2 (km/s) (%) dry (gm/cm^3) G (GPa) K(GPa) E(GPa) VP/VS
496 3.23 2.09 2.03 18.25 2.136 9.30 10.16 21.37 0.157 1.57
997 3.68 2.28 2.24 18.23 2.137 11.12 14.35 26.51 0.196 1.63
1497 3.86 2.39 2.34 18.21 2.137 12.24 15.85 29.21 0.198 1.63
1996 3.93 2.46 2.42 18.19 2.138 12.96 16.09 30.66 0.187 1.61
2999 4.07 2.54 2.51 18.15 2.139 13.76 17.36 32.65 0.190 1.62
5001 4.11 2.61 2.58 18.07 2.141 14.63 16.88 34.04 0.168 1.58
Average 3.80.3 2.40.2 2.40.2 18.20.1 2.1370.001 12.31.9 15.12.6 29.14.6 0.180.02 1.610.03
Pc (psi) Vp (km/s) VS1 (km/s) VS2 (km/s) (%) dry (gm/cm^3) G (GPa) K(GPa) E(GPa) VP/VS
496 3.40 1.96 2.07 18.75 2.121 8.16 13.00 20.24 0.229 1.69
997 3.50 2.17 2.26 18.70 2.122 10.0 12.07 23.49 0.165 1.58
1497 3.69 2.31 2.38 18.65 2.123 11.4 13.35 26.55 0.161 1.57
1995 3.73 2.37 2.44 18.60 2.125 11.9 13.83 27.78 0.145 1.55
2999 3.86 2.46 2.53 18.50 2.127 12.9 14.07 29.67 0.142 1.55
5001 3.95 2.54 2.61 18.30 2.132 13.8 14.33 31.35 0.129 1.53
Average 3.70.2 2.30.2 2.40.2 18.60.2 2.1250.004 11.42.0 13.40.8 26.54.1 0160.03 1.570.06
Pc (psi) Vp (km/s) VS1 (km/s) VS2 (km/s) (%) dry (gm/cm^3) G (GPa) K(GPa) E(GPa) VP/VS
496 3.27 2.19 2.11 18.57 2.124 10.19 9.64 22.61 0.120 1.52
997 3.49 2.22 2.28 18.47 2.127 10.47 11.51 24.11 0.143 1.55
1499 3.69 2.34 2.36 18.37 2.130 11.64 13.32 27.04 0.159 1.57
1996 3.75 2.47 2.46 18.27 2.132 13.04 13.68 29.69 0.119 1.52
2998 3.88 2.52 2.52 18.07 2.138 13.56 14.11 30.82 0.136 1.54
5001 3.98 2.63 2.58 17.67 2.148 14.85 14.51 33.22 0.124 1.53
Average 3.70.3 2.40.2 2.40.2 18.20.3 2.1330.009 12.31.9 12.81.9 27.94.1 0.130.01 1.540.02
Pc (psi) Vp (km/s) VS1 (km/s) VS2 (km/s) (%) dry (gm/cm^3) G (GPa) K(GPa) E(GPa) VP/VS
496 3.47 2.12 1.88 18.20 2.137 9.56 14.31 23.45 0.252 1.74
999 3.64 2.30 2.22 18.19 2.137 11.28 13.77 26.58 0.187 1.61
1497 3.74 2.37 2.31 18.18 2.137 11.97 14.42 28.12 0.181 1.60
1995 3.78 2.40 2.36 18.17 2.137 12.31 14.29 28.69 0.169 1.58
2998 3.87 2.51 2.47 18.15 2.138 13.51 14.33 30.84 0.146 1.55
5002 3.98 2.58 2.55 18.11 2.139 14.21 15.08 32.43 0.144 1.55
Average 3.70.2 2.40.2 2.40.2 18.160.02 2.1380.001 12.11.6 14.40.4 28.43.2 0.180.04 1.610.07
H3
Table 1- Dry state
V1
V2
V3
H1
H2
10
Pc (psi) Vp (km/ s)VS1(km/ s)VS2 (km/ s) (%) sat(gm/ cm^3)G (GPa) K (GPa)E (GPa) VP/ VS Wyllie (%) Raymer (%)
505 3.63 2.03 2.05 18.17 2.346 9.7 18.0 24.6 0.27 1.78 20.90 23.79
1006 3.78 2.23 2.20 18.15 2.347 11.6 18.2 28.8 0.24 1.71 18.67 21.66
1505 3.96 2.33 2.34 18.14 2.347 12.8 19.6 31.5 0.23 1.69 16.22 19.23
2008 4.06 2.43 2.41 18.12 2.347 13.9 20.3 33.9 0.22 1.67 14.92 17.87
3012 4.17 2.44 2.49 18.09 2.348 14.0 21.7 34.5 0.23 1.69 13.58 16.43
5017 4.22 2.48 2.49 18.03 2.348 14.4 22.5 35.6 0.24 1.68 12.91 15.70
Average 4.00.2 2.30.2 2.30.2 18.10.1 2.3470.001 12.71.820.01.831.54.20.240.021.700.0416.23.1 19.13.1
Pc (psi) Vp (km/ s)VS1(km/ s)VS2 (km/ s) (%) sat(gm/ cm^3)G (GPa) K (GPa)E (GPa) VP/ VS Wyllie (%) Raymer (%)
506 3.64 2.02 2.03 18.64 2.328 9.51 18.20 24.30 0.277 1.80 20.71 23.61
1007 3.89 2.22 2.22 18.59 2.329 11.47 19.91 28.86 0.258 1.75 17.13 20.14
1507 4.05 2.29 2.30 18.54 2.329 12.20 21.84 30.87 0.264 1.76 15.00 17.96
2008 4.09 2.38 2.36 18.49 2.330 13.20 21.54 32.88 0.247 1.73 14.48 17.40
3012 4.15 2.40 2.41 18.39 2.332 13.48 22.18 33.63 0.247 1.72 13.74 16.61
5017 4.25 2.50 2.49 18.19 2.335 14.58 22.85 36.06 0.238 1.71 12.56 15.30
Average 4.00.2 2.30.2 2.30.2 18.50.2 2.3300.002 12.41.821.11.731.14.10.260.011.740.0315.62.9 18.53.0
Pc (psi) Vp (km/ s)VS1(km/ s)VS2 (km/ s) (%) sat(gm/ cm^3)G (GPa) K (GPa)E (GPa) VP/ VS Wyllie (%) Raymer (%)
506 3.71 2.00 2.02 18.25 2.338 9.35 19.60 24.21 0.293 1.85 19.70 22.65
1010 3.98 2.19 2.20 18.23 2.338 11.25 21.98 28.83 0.281 1.81 15.92 18.91
1507 4.03 2.28 2.29 18.21 2.338 12.12 21.65 30.64 0.263 1.76 15.31 18.28
2010 4.12 2.34 2.35 18.19 2.339 12.79 22.62 32.29 0.261 1.76 14.09 16.99
3012 4.14 2.40 2.42 18.15 2.339 13.47 22.01 33.56 0.244 1.72 13.89 16.77
5017 4.20 2.46 2.50 18.07 2.340 14.20 22.03 35.06 0.232 1.69 13.20 16.01
Average 4.00.2 2.30.2 2.30.2 18.20.01 2.3390.001 12.21.721.61.130.83.90.260.021.770.0615.42.3 18.32.4
Pc (psi) Vp (km/ s)VS1(km/ s)VS2 (km/ s) (%) sat(gm/ cm^3)G (GPa) K (GPa)E (GPa) VP/ VS Wyllie (%) Raymer (%)
507 3.65 1.96 1.99 18.75 2.328 8.94 17.60 22.93 0.293 1.85 20.61 23.51
1007 3.74 2.20 2.15 18.70 2.329 11.23 17.98 27.89 0.246 1.72 19.18 22.16
1507 3.81 2.25 2.25 18.65 2.329 11.84 18.13 29.17 0.232 1.69 18.16 21.17
2007 3.89 2.32 2.29 18.60 2.330 12.50 18.72 30.67 0.229 1.69 17.14 20.16
3012 3.92 2.36 2.36 18.50 2.332 13.01 18.53 31.63 0.215 1.66 16.66 19.67
5017 4.00 2.44 2.43 18.30 2.335 13.85 18.98 33.42 0.207 1.65 15.60 18.58
Average 3.80.1 2.30.2 2.20.2 18.60.2 2.3300.002 12.01.718.30.529.33.70.240.031.710.0717.91.8 20.91.8
Pc (psi) Vp (km/ s)VS1(km/ s)VS2 (km/ s) (%) sat(gm/ cm^3)G (GPa) K (GPa)E (GPa) VP/ VS Wyllie (%) Raymer (%)
507 3.72 2.07 2.03 18.57 2.330 9.99 18.17 25.33 0.281 1.81 19.53 22.50
1007 3.78 2.19 2.16 18.47 2.331 11.16 18.56 27.89 0.253 1.74 18.72 21.72
1507 3.88 2.27 2.25 18.37 2.333 12.00 19.19 29.79 0.243 1.72 17.30 20.32
2007 3.91 2.32 2.30 18.27 2.334 12.56 18.98 30.87 0.231 1.69 16.90 19.91
3012 3.95 2.38 2.34 18.07 2.337 13.29 19.10 32.36 0.222 1.67 16.28 19.28
5015 4.07 2.46 2.42 17.67 2.343 14.24 20.27 34.61 0.220 1.67 14.70 17.64
Average 3.90.1 2.30.1 2.30.1 18.20.3 2.3340.005 12.21.519.00.730.13.30.240.021.710.0517.21.7 20.21.7
Pc (psi) Vp (km/ s)VS1(km/ s)VS2 (km/ s) (%) sat(gm/ cm^3)G (GPa) K (GPa)E (GPa) VP/ VS Wyllie (%) Raymer (%)
506 3.69 2.00 2.01 18.20 2.338 9.40 19.28 24.25 0.290 1.84 19.99 22.93
1008 3.79 2.17 2.18 18.19 2.338 11.04 18.76 27.69 0.253 1.74 18.57 21.57
1507 3.86 2.25 2.26 18.18 2.338 11.85 18.94 29.42 0.240 1.71 17.56 20.58
2007 3.90 2.31 2.30 18.17 2.338 12.50 19.04 30.77 0.232 1.69 16.95 19.97
3011 3.95 2.36 2.35 18.15 2.339 13.00 19.17 31.81 0.225 1.68 16.35 19.35
5015 4.01 2.44 2.40 18.11 2.339 13.98 19.27 33.77 0.212 1.65 15.53 18.51
Average 3.90.1 2.30.2 2.20.1 18.20.1 2.3380.001 12.01.619.10.229.63.30.240.031.720.0717.51.6 20.51.6
Table 2. Saturated state
V1
V2
V3
H1
H2
H3
11
Sample abs (%) Wyllie (%) Raymer (%) effective (%)
V1 18.10.1 16.23.1 19.13.1 17.00.1
V2 18.50.2 15.62.9 18.53.0 17.40.2
V3 18.20.01 15.42.3 18.32.4 17.20.1
H1 18.60.2 17.91.8 20.91.8 17.50.2
H2 18.20.3 17.21.7 20.21.7 17.20.3
H3 18.20.1 17.51.6 20.51.6 17.10.1
Table 3. Comparison of porosities
12
Fig.1 - The relation between wave velocities and (a) pressure and (b) porosity for sample V1. Notice the
opposite trends in velocity as pressure and porosity increase. Wave velocity shows nonlinear relation to
pressure and porosity. Vp,sat=4.00.2km/s, Vs,sat=2.30.2km/s, Vp,dry =3.70.4km/s, Vs,dry=2.40.2km/s.
Fig.2 - The relation between wave velocities and (a) pressure and (b) porosity for sample V2. Notice the
opposite trends in velocity as pressure and porosity increase. Wave velocity shows nonlinear relation to
pressure and porosity. Vp,sat=4.00.2km/s, Vs,sat=2.30.2km/s, Vp,dry =3.80.4km/s, Vs,dry=2.40.2km/s.
Fig.3 - The relation between wave velocities and (a) pressure and (b) porosity for sample V3. Notice the
opposite trends in velocity as pressure and porosity increase. Wave velocity shows nonlinear relation to
pressure and porosity. Vp,sat=4.00.2km/s, Vs,sat=2.30.2km/s, Vp,dry =3.80.4km/s, Vs,dry=2.40.2km/s.
13
Fig.4 - The relation between wave velocities and (a) pressure and (b) porosity for sample H1. Notice the
opposite trends in velocity as pressure and porosity increase. Wave velocity shows nonlinear relation to
pressure and porosity. Vp,sat=4.00.2km/s, Vs,sat=2.30.2km/s, Vp,dry =3.70.4km/s, Vs,dry=2.40.2km/s.
Fig.5 - The relation between wave velocities and (a) pressure and (b) porosity for sample H2. Notice the
opposite trends in velocity as pressure and porosity increase. Wave velocity shows nonlinear relation to
pressure and porosity. Vp,sat= 3.80.1km/s, Vs,sat=2.30.2km/s, Vp,dry =3.70.2km/s, Vs,dry=2.40.2km/s
14
Fig.6 - The relation between wave velocities and (a) pressure and (b) porosity for sample H3. Notice the
opposite trends in velocity as pressure and porosity increase. Wave velocity shows nonlinear relation to
pressure and porosity. Vp,sat= 3.90.1km/s, Vs,sat=2.30.2km/s, Vp,dry =3.70.2km/s, Vs,dry=2.40.2km/s
Fig.7- Shear, bulk and Youngs moduli in relation to confining pressure for sample V1. The moduli
increase as the pressure increases, proving that the sample gets stiffer as they get pressurized. Also
notice that Esat>Edry, Ksat>Kdry, and Gsat relatively equals to Gdry
Fig.8- Shear, bulk and Youngs moduli in relation to confining pressure for sample V8. The moduli
increase as the pressure increases, proving that the sample gets stiffer as they get pressurized. Also
notice that Esat>Edry, Ksat>Kdry, and Gsat relatively equals to Gdry
15
Fig.9- Shear, bulk and Youngs moduli in relation to confining pressure for sample V3. The moduli
increase as the pressure increases, proving that the sample gets stiffer as they get pressurized. Also
notice that Esat>Edry, Ksat>Kdry, and Gsat relatively equals to Gdry
Fig.10- Shear, bulk and Youngs moduli in relation to confining pressure for sample H1. The moduli
increase as the pressure increases, proving that the sample gets stiffer as they get pressurized. Also
notice that Esat>Edry, Ksat>Kdry, and Gsat relatively equals to Gdry
16
Fig.11- Shear, bulk and Youngs moduli in relation to confining pressure for sample H2. The moduli
increase as the pressure increases, proving that the sample gets stiffer as they get pressurized. Also
notice that Esat>Edry, Ksat>Kdry, and Gsat relatively equals to Gdry
Fig.12 Shear, bulk and Youngs moduli in relation to confining pressure for sample H3. The moduli
increase as the pressure increases, proving that the sample gets stiffer as they get pressurized. Also
notice that Esat>Edry, Ksat>Kdry, and Gsat relatively equals to Gdry
17
Equation:
Equation 1:
Shear modulus:

2
V G
Equation 2:
Bulk modulus:

,
_

2 2
3
4
s p
V V K
Equation 3:
Youngs modulus:
G K
KG
E
+

3
9
Equation 4:
Poissons ratio:
1
1
]
1

,
_

1
1
]
1

,
_

1
2
2
2
s
p
s
p
V
V
V
V

Equation 5:
Effective porosity:
w d
e
f

Equation 6:
Wet Shear Wave Velocity:
dry
f

+ 1 ( _ _ dry s wet s V V
18
Nomenclature:
E = Youngs modulus -
e = effective porosity fraction
sonic = sonic porosity fraction
G = shear modulus GPa
K = bulk modulus GPa
P = pressure psi, GPa
r = bulk density gm/cm
3
d = dry density gm/ cm
3
f = fluid density gm/ cm
3
w = wet density gm/ cm
3
ttendcap
= transit time through
endcaps sec
ttsam = travel time through sample sec
tttotal = total transit time sec
v = Possions Ratio -
Vp = compressional velocity km/sec
Vs = shear wave velocity km/sec
19