Dr. R.

PRASAD
ROCK PHYSICS

ROCK PHYSICS USES SONIC LOGS, DENSITY LOGS AND

DIPOLE SONIC LOGS IF AVAILABLE
ROCK PHYSICS AIMS TO ESTABLISH P-WAVE VELOCITY,
S-WAVE VELOCITY, DENSITY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP
TO BULK MODULUS, RIGIDITY MODULUS, POROSITY,
PORE FLUID, PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE FOR A
GIVEN LITHOLOGY AND FLUID TYPES
ESTABLISH LINK BETWEEN ROCK PROPERTIES AND
THEIR SEISMIC EXPRESSIONS

Dr. R. PRASAD
 OBJECTIVE OF ROCK PHYSICS

• ESTABLISES A LINK BETWEEN RESERVOIR PPROPERTIES AND

SEISMIC DATA
– SEISMIC WAVES BRINGOUT SUBSURFACE ROCK AND FLUID
INFORMATION IN THE FORM OF
• TRAVEL TIME
• AMPLITUDE
• PHASE VARIATIONS

– SEISMIC PROPERTIES ARE AFFECTED IN COMPLEX MANNER BY

MANY VARIABLES
• POROSITY AND PORE SHAPE
• LITHOLOGY
• CLAY CONTENT
• TEXTURE
• PRESSURE
• TEMPERATURE
• FLUID TYPE
• FLUID SATURATION

Dr. R. PRASAD
POROSITY AND PORE SHAPE

• VELOCITY AND IMPEDENCE OF ROCKS DECREASES WITH

INCREASING POROSITY

• SEISMIC PROPERTIES OF A ROCK ARE MUCH MORE AFFECTED

BY THE PORE SHAPE THAN BY POROSITY
– LOW POROSITY ROCK WITH FLAT PORE AND LOW ASPECT RATIO
MAY HAVE LOWER SEISMIC VELOSITY THAN HIGH POROSITY ROCK
WITH SPHERICAL AND HIGH ASPECT RATIO PORES, BECAUSE FLAT
PORES ARE MUCH MORE COMPRESSIBLE THAN SPHERICAL PORES

• SCATTER IN VELOSITY – POROSITY RELASHIONSHIP PARTLY

ATTRIBUTED TO DIFFERENCE IN PORE SHAPES AMONG ROCK
SAMPLES

Dr. R. PRASAD
 LITHOLOGY

• FOR A GIVEN POROSITY & PORE ASPECT RATIO

Vp Vs
DOLOMITE SAND STONE
LIMESTONE DOLOMITE
SANDSTONE LIMESTONE
UNCONSOLIDATED SAND UNCONSOLIDATED SAND
Vp/Vs

SHALLOW UNCONSOLIDATED SAND

LIMESTONE
DOLOMITE
DEEPLY BURRIED UNCONSOLIDATED SAND
SANDSTONE
• Vp/Vs RATIO DIFFERENCE THEREFORE PROVIDES A TOOL FOR LITHOLOGY
DISCRIMINATION

• Vp AND Vp/Vs ARE COMPLICATED BY THE PORE ASPECT RATIO SPECTUM, FRACTURE
ALIGNMENT, PRESSURE EFFECTS ETC

• SANDS SHALES ARE RESERVOIR CAP ROCKS, ALWASE HAVING HIGHER Vp/Vs RATIOS
THAN RESERVOIR

Dr. R. PRASAD
 CLAY CONTENT

• EFFECT OF CLAY ON SEISMIC

PRROPERTIES DEPENDS ON WATER SATURATED VPO VSO a1 a2 b1 b2
POSITION OF CLAY PARTICLES IN
THE ROCK AND THE CLAY TYPES
– IF THE CLAYS ARE PART OF THE 40 MPa 5.59 6.93 2.18 3.52 4.91 1.89
ROCK MATRIX AND IF THE CLAYS ARE
MORE COMPRESSIBLE THAN 30 MPa 5.55 6.96 2.18 3.47 4.84 1.87
QUARTZ, VELOCITY AND IMPEDENCE
WILL DECREASE AS CLAY CONTENT
INCREASES 20 MPa 5.49 6.94 2.17 3.39 4.73 1.81

– IF CLAYS ARE LIKE PORE FILLINGS ( 10 MPa 5.39 7.08 2.13 3.29 4.73 1.74
EXCEPT FOR DENSITY EFFEFT)
THERE IS LITTLE EFFECT ON SEISMIC
PROPERTIES, UNLESS THE PORES 5 MPa 5.26 7.08 2.02 3.16 4.77 1.64
ARE COPLETELY FILLED

AIR SATURATED
– Han et al (1986)
• Vp = VPO – a1ø – a2C 40 MPa 5.41 6.35 2.87 3.57 4.57 1.83
• Vs = VSO – b1ø – b2C

Dr. R. PRASAD
TEXTURE

• SEISMIC PROPERTIES ARE ALSO CONTROLLED BY TEXTURE

SUCH AS GRAIN TO GRAIN CONTACTS, ROUNDNESS,
CEMENTATION, GAIN SIZE, SORTINGS etc.
– POOR GRAIN TO GRAIN CONTACTS NORMALLY RESULT IN LOWER
SEISMIC VELOCITY
– WELL ROUNDED GRAINS LEAD TO BETTER GRAIN CONTACTS AND
HENCE HIGHER VELOCITY
– CEMENTATION INCREASES SEISMIC VELOCITY SHARPLY
– LARGER GRAIN SIZE SANDS SHOW HIGHER SEISMIC VELOCITY
COMPARED TO FINE SANDS DUE TO LARGER CONTACT AREAS
AMONG GRAINS
– POORLY SHORTED SANDS SHOW HIGHER VELOCITY BECAUSE
POOR SHORTING REDUCES POROCITY

Dr. R. PRASAD
 PRESSURE

• TWO DISTINCT PRESSURES IN A RESEVOIR

– OVERBURDEN PRESSURE / CONFINING PRESSURE, EXERTED BY ROCK
STRATA (Po)
– RESERVOIR PRESSURE/ FLUID PRESSURE/ PORE PRESSURE EXERTED BY
FLUID MASS( Pf)
– NET OVERBURDEN PRESSURE = Po - Pf
• SEISMIC VELOCITIES AND IMPEDENCES FOR P & S WAVE INCREASES
WITH INCREASE IN NET OVERBURDEN PRESSURE. BUT THE
RELATIONSHIP IS NON-LINEAR
– SEISMIC PROPERTIES INCREASES FASTER IN LOW NET OVERBURDEN
PRESSURE REGION
• KNOWING OF RESERVOIR PRESSURE REGIME IS VERY IMPORTANT IN
SEISMIC APPLICATIONS SUCH AS 4D AND AVO

Dr. R. PRASAD
PRESSURE

3800

3700 SANDSTONE
1000 PSI
3600

1650-2650 5.2%
3500
4500-5500 0.5%

3400
1000 PSI

3300
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
NET OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (PSI)

Dr. R. PRASAD
 PRESSURE

• DURING PRODUCTION AND EOR PROCESS BOTH RESERVOIR

PRESSURE AND FLUID SATURATION CHANGES
– RESULTING CHANGE IN SEISMIC PROPERTIES DEPEND ON THE COMBINED
EFFECT OF PRESSURE AND SATURATION CHANGES
• IN WATER DRIVE PROCESS, WATER DISPLACES OIL SO THAT OIL SATURATION
DECREASES, AT THE SAME TIME RESERVOIR PRESSURE MAY DROP DUE TO
PRODUCTION AND HENCE INCREASE IN NET OVERBURDEN PRESSURE.
– THERE WILL BE INCREASE IN Vp DUE TO BOTH THE CHANGES.

• IN WATER INJECTION PROCESS THE INJECTED WATER DIPLACES OIL SO THAT OIL
SATURATION DEREASES, BUT RESERVOIR PRESSURE IS INCREASED BY WATER
INJECTION, HENCE A DECRESE IN NET OVERBURDEN PRESSURE.

– LOWER SATURATION WOULD INCREASE, BUT HIGHER RESERVOIR PRESSURE WOULD

DECREASE THE P-WAVE VELOCITIES AND IMPEDANCES. HENCE PARTALLY OR EVEN TOTALLY
CANCELLING EACH OTHER,S EFFECT ON SEISMIC PROPERTIES

Dr. R. PRASAD
TEMPERATURE

• SEISMIC PROPERTIES IN GENERAL DECREASES WITH

INCREASE OF TEMPERUTURE
– DECREASES ONLY SLIGHTLY IN ROCKS SATURATED WITH GAS OR
WATER
– DEREASES IN LARGE AMOUNT WHEN THE ROCK IS SATURATED
WITH OIL, ESPECIALLY IN UNCONSOLIDATED SANDS WITH HEAVY
OIL
– WHICH IS PHYSICAL BASIS FOR SEISMIC MONITORING OF THERMAL
EOR

Dr. R. PRASAD
TEMPERATURE
HEAVY OIL
2400 1200
2300

1100
2200

2100
1000
2000

1900
900
1800

1700
800

•Vp & Vs DECREASES BY 15 % WHEN TEMPERATURE INCREASES FROM 220 TO 1770 C. Vp DROPS FURTHER FROM 1200 TO
1770 AT LOW PORE PRESSURE ( 50 & 100 PSI) AS WATER INSIDE THE ROCK TRANSFORMED INTO STEAM ADDING
ANOTHER 10% DECREASE IN Vp, Vp DECREASE IS CAUSED BY HIGHER COPRESSIBILITY OF STEAM COMPAERED TO
HOT WATER

• THOUGH Vs IS THEORETICALLY NOT AFFECTED BY FLUIDS, THE Vs DECREASE IS CAUSED BY CHANGES IN ROCK
FRAME AND ROCK FLUID INTERACTION. AS TEMPERATURE INCREASES, OIL VISCOSITY AND THE INTERFACIAL
FORCES DECREASES, LOOSENING UP THE SAND GRAIN SO THAT BOTH THE BULK MODULUS AND SHEAR MODULUS
DECREASES.

•Vs INCREASES AT LOW PORE PRESSURE BY ABOUT 5 % AS A RESULT OF STEAM. THIS INCREASE IS CAUSED BY THE
BULK DENSITY DECREASE AS STEAM DISPLACES LIQUIDS OUT OF THE PORE SPACE DUE TO VOLUME EXPANSION

Dr. R. PRASAD
 PORE FLUID

• ROCK SATURATED WITH LESS COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS

SHOW HIGHER VP AND IMPEDANCES
• S- WAVE VELOCITY AND IMPEDENCES ARE MUCH LESS
AFFECTED BY PORE FLUIDS BECAUSE FLUIDS HAVE NO
RIGIDITY
• CONSEQUENTY ROCKS WITH LESS COMPRESSIBLE
FLUIDS HAVE HIGHER VP/VS RATIO
• SUCH VP AND VP/VS DEPENDENCE ON PORE FLUID TYPE
IS THE PHYSICAL BASIS FOR USE OF ANGLE DEPENDENT
REFLECTIVITY FOR DHI AND DELINEATION

Dr. R. PRASAD
 FLUID SATURATION

• FULL SATURATION OF A LIQUID IN A ROCK INCREASES THE

COMPRESSIONAL SEISMIC PROPERTIES BUT DECREASES S-
WAVE VELOCITY(DUE TO INCREASE IN DENSITY)
– RESULTING IN INCREASE IN Vp/Vs
• WHEN GAS IS INTRODUCED IN A FULLY LIQUID SATURATED
ROCK, THE COMPRESSIONAL SEISMIC PROPERTIES
DECREASES BUT S- WAVE VELOCITY INCREASES (DUE TO
DECREASE IN DENSITY)
– RESULTING IN DECREASE IN Vp/Vs
• MAGNITUDE OF SATURATION EFFECT IS HIGHER IN ROCKS
WITH WEAK FRAME AND OR FLAT PORES ( CRACKS,
FRACTURES)
• GASSMANN EQUATION IS USED FOR FLUID SUBSTITUTION
MODELLING

Dr. R. PRASAD
DEPENDENCE OF VP & VS ON PORE FLUIDS SATURATION

• WE WILL CONCENTRATE ON THE EFFECT OF FLUIDS ON THE

DENSITY, P-WAVE VELOCITY AND S-WAVE VELOCITY OF
ROCKS

• AFTER AN OVERVIEW OF VELOCITIES IN NON-POROUS

ROCKS, WE WILL TAKE A BRIEF LOOK AT BIOT-GASSMANN
THEORY

• IN THE SUBSEQUENT SLIDE RELATION BETWEEN ROCK

PROPERTIES AND SEISMIC PROPERTIES ARE DISCUSSED,
WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL FOR AVO MODELLING

Dr. R. PRASAD
 BASIC ROCK PHYSICS

• THE AVO RESPONSE IS DEPENDENT ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF P-WAVE

VELOCITY (VP), S-WAVE VELOCITY (VS), AND DENSITY ( ) IN A POROUS
RESERVOIR ROCK. AS SHOWN BELOW, THIS INVOLVES THE MATRIX
MATERIAL, THE PORES, AND THE FLUIDS FILLING THE PORES:

Rock Matrix Pores / Fluid

Dr. R. PRASAD
P- AND S-WAVES

(a) P-wave motion (b) S-wave motion

Dr. R. PRASAD
 VELOCITY EQUATIONS USING K AND

• THE VELOCITY EQUATIONS IN TERMS OF BULK AND

SHEAR MODULUS OF NON- POROUS ROCK:

Dr. R. PRASAD
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Shear Modulus Bulk Modulus Young Modulus

F
F

F F

ΔL
θ
F F F

Dr. R. PRASAD
 POISSON’S RATIO

• Lateral Strain/ Longitudinal Strain=Constant (Poisson’s Ratio)

W
W+ΔW

ΔW/W
σ = ΔL/L

Dynamic relation
(VP/VS)2 - 2
σ=
2[(VP/VS)2 - 1]

Dr. R. PRASAD
 TRANSFORM EQUATIONS

Gardner’s velocity-density transform

ρ = 0.23 V 0.25 ( gm/cm3 & ft/sec)
Best fit curve for all Lithology

Wyllie’s velocity-porosity transform

1/V = (1-ø)/Vma + ø/Vfl
Δt = (1-ø) Δt ma + ø Δt fl
Δt for sandstone = 55.5, limestone = 47.5, dolomite = 43.5,
anhydrite = 50, salt= 67, brine= 189

Dr. R. PRASAD
 TRANSFORM EQUATIONS

Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume transform

Clean sandstone
VP= 6.08 – 8.06 ø and VS= 4.06 – 6.28 ø, at effective pressure 40 MPa

Shaly sandstone
VP= 5.59– 6.93 ø – 2.18 C and VS= 3.52 – 4.91 ø – 1.89 C, at effective
pressure 40 MPa
VP= 5.26– 7.08 ø – 2.02 C and VS= 3.16– 4.77 ø – 1.64 C, at effective
pressure 5 MPa
• Taking 1 MPa = 145 psi, and effective pressure gradient = 0.5 psi/ft, 40
MPa & 5 MPa correspond to approximate depyh of 12000 ft and 1500 ft
respectively

Dr. R. PRASAD
HANS’S VELOCITY-POROSITY-CLAY VOLUME TRANSFORM

Dr. R. PRASAD
HANS’S VELOCITY-POROSITY-CLAY VOLUME TRANSFORM

• Velocity variation with depth are smaller for well consolidated sand
stone
• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, the velocity
decreases about 2.5 times more for porosity than for clay
• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, Poisson’s ratio
increases
• Poisson’s ratio decreases with depth

Dr. R. PRASAD
 TRANSFORM EQUATIONS

Castagna’s VP to VS transform ( mudrock line)

Clastic silicate rock

VP = 1.16 VS + 1.36 Km/Sec
For various water saturated lithology
Sandstone : VS = - 0.856 + 0.804 VP
Limestone : VS = - 1.030 + 1.017 VP – 0.055 VP2
Dolomite : VS = - 0.078 + 0.583 VP

Dr. R. PRASAD
POISSON’S RATIO

• A common way of looking at the ratio of VP to VS is to use

Poisson’s ratio, defined as:

• The inverse to the above formula, allowing us to derive VP

or VS from , is given by:

Dr. R. PRASAD
POISSON’S RATIO GRAPH

Gas Case Wet Case

Dr. R. PRASAD
THE BIOT-GASSMANN EQUATIONS

• INDEPENDENTLY, GASSMANN (1951) AND BIOT (1956),

DEVELOPED THE THEORY OF WAVE PROPAGATION IN FLUID
SATURATED POROUS ROCKS, BY DERIVING EXPRESSIONS FOR
THE SATURATED BULK AND SHEAR MODULII, AND SUBSTITUTING
INTO THE REGULAR EQUATIONS FOR P- AND S-WAVE VELOCITY:

Dr. R. PRASAD
 DRY VERSUS SATURATED ROCK

• To understand the Biot-Gassmann equations, this shows the concept of

the dry rock frame, or skeleton, where the pores are empty, and the
saturated rock, where the pores are full:

Saturated
Rock
Dry rock (pores full)
frame, or
skeleton
(pores
empty)
Rock Matrix Pores / Fluid
Dr. R. PRASAD
BIOT-GASSMANN BULK MODULUS AND SHEAR MODULUS

THE EXPRESSION FOR Ksat IS GIVEN BELOW

Ksat = Kdry + KP = Kdry + β2M, where
β = (1- Kdry / Km) called Biot’s coefficient
M = {Km Kfl }/{Ф Km + Kfl(β-Ф)}

where sat = saturated rock, dry = dry frame, m = rock matrix,

fl = fluid, and Ф = porosity.

• This equation shows that Ksat is dependent on the porosity and fluid
content of the rock, as expected.
• In the Biot-Gassmann equations, the shear modulus does not change
for varying saturation at constant porosity :

where: sat = shear modulus of saturated rock,

and: dry = shear modulus of dry rock.

Dr. R. PRASAD
BIOT-GASSMANN BULK MODULUS AND SHEAR MODULUS
Therefore, equations for VP and VS may be written as

VP = [{Kdry +(4/3) μdry + KP }/ ρsat] ½

VS = [ μdry / ρsat ] ½

Above are the Gassmann equations for porous rock

Murphy et al (1993) established an empirical relation between

Kdry and porosity for clean sands as given below
Kdry = 38.18(1- 3.39 Ф + 1.95 Ф2) ; Ф ≤ 0.35
Kdry = exp (- 62.60 Ф + 22.58); Ф> 0.35
Similarly they showed
μdry = 42.65(1- 3.48 Ф + 2.19 Ф2) ; Ф ≤ 0.35
μdry = exp (- 62.69 Ф + 22.73); Ф > 0.35

Krief et al (1990) derived an empirical expression for β as below

(1-β) = (1- Ф) m (Ф)
m(Ф) = 3/(1- Ф)
Dr. R. PRASAD
DRY VERSUS SATURATED ROCK

Dr. R. PRASAD
 FLUID SUBSTITUTION MODELING

• We must first determine the following properties of given sand

– Saturated properties (Ksat , μsat and ρsat )

– Porosity (ø)
– Fluid properties ( Kfl , ρfl )
– Matrix properties ( Km, ρm )
– Dry Frame properties ( Kdry )

Dr. R. PRASAD
USING GASSMANN EQUATION

• Saturated properties (Ksat , μsat and ρsat )

Ksat = ρsat ( VP2 – 4/3 VS2 )
μsat = ρsat VS2 (If VS is not available, VP to VS transform is used )
ρsat = CALCULATED FROM LOG DATA OR FROM
TRANSFORM EQUATION
• Porosity (ø)
Measured from log data or core data
(calibration from core data is important)

Dr. R. PRASAD
USING GASSMANN EQUATION

• Fluid properties ( Kfl , ρfl ):

– Two approaches are used generally
» Measured directly from pore fluid recovered from
reservoir
» Estimated from empirical calculations [Batzle &
Wang (1992)]
» If two or more fluid phases :
Kfl = (Sw/Kw) + (1-Sw)/Khc
ρfl = (Swρw) + (1-Sw) ρhc)

Dr. R. PRASAD
 USING GASSMANN EQUATION
• MATRIX PROPERTIES ( Km, ρm )
– CALCULATION OF Km
» IF CORE SAMPLES ARE AVAILABLE, MINERAL COMPOSITION IS
CALCULATED
» LOG DATA MAY BE USED TO CALCULATE CLAY AND SAND VOLUME
FRACTIONS
» Km IS ESTIMATED BY VOIGT, REUSS, AND HILL’S (VRH ) METHOD
1/KR = F1/K1+F2/K2
KV = F1K1+F2K2
KVRH = ½(KR + KV )
– CALCULATION OF ρm
» USING FOLLOWING EQUATION

ρsat = ρm ( 1- ø) + ρfl ø ↔ ρm = ( ρsat - ρfl ø )/ ( 1- ø)

» OR, DIRECTLY FROM MINERAL FRACTIONS USING VRH METHOD
•

Dr. R. PRASAD
USING GASSMANN EQUATION

– DRY FRAME PROPERTIES ( Kdry )

– MAY BE DERIVED FROM
• VELOCITY MEASUREMENT ON CONTROLLED HUMIDITY DRIED CORE

» APPLICATION OF EMPIRICAL RELATION SHIPS

» DIRECT CALCULATION FROM LOG DATA USING
GASSMANN EQUATION

Kdry =Km {(Ksat/ Km) *(1-Ф) + Ф (Ksat / Kfl) – 1} /

{(Ksat/ Km) + Ф (Km / Kfl - 1) - 1}
β = 1- (Kdry/ Km) = Biot coefficient

Dr. R. PRASAD
WORK FLOW FOR APPLICATION OF GASSMANN EQUATION

1. LOG EDITS & INTERPRETATION OF

• COMRESSIONAL VELOCITY (VP )
• SHEAR VELOCITY ESTIMATION ( VS ) ( IF NECESSARY)
2. CALCULATION OF Ksat AND μsat FOR INSITU CONDITION USING EQUATIONS
Ksat = ρsat ( VP2 – 4/3 VS2 )
μsat = ρsat VS2
3. CALCULATION OF Km BASED ON LITHOLOGY ESTIMATES VRH METHOD

4. CALCULATION OF INDIVIDUAL FLUID PROPERTIES ( KW,Koil, Kgas AND ρW, ρoil, ρgas ) INSITU
CASE FROM EMPIRICAL RELATIONS (BATZLE AND WANG-1992)

5. CALCULATION OF Kfl AND ρfl BY MIXING ACCORDING TO SW

6. CALCULATION OF DRY ROCK BULK MODULUS Kdry USING GASSMANN EQUATION

7. CACULATION OF NEW FLUID PROPERTIES (Kfl , ρfl ) AT DESIRED SW

8. CALCULATION OF NEW Ksat USING GASSMANN EQUATION

9. CALCULATION OF NEW ρsat USING EQUATION ρsat = ρm ( 1- ø) + ρfl ø

10. CALCULATION OF NEW VP AND VS

Dr. R. PRASAD
FLUID SUBSTITUTION MODELLING

The following petrophysical parameters is given for

Water saturated rock
Given that, Sw= 100%, sand=85%, shale=15%, ø = 22%, VP=3.47 km/sec, ρsat =
2.29 gm/cc
VP to VS trasnsform ( Castagnan-Greenberg transform)
Sand : Vs = - 0.856 + 0.804* VP
Shale: Vs = -1.030 + 1.017 * VP
VP VS
Sand 3.47 1.93388
Shale 3.47 2.49899
V-R-H effective medium application for Vs
sand% shale% VR VV VS
0.85 0.15 2.001781 2.018647 2.010214
Estimate of Ks
ρsat VP VS KS
2.29 3.47 2.01 15.23789
Dr. R. PRASAD
 FLUID SUBSTITUTION MODELLING

Estimate of Kfl
Kfl = 2.2 Gpa (from Table)
Estimate of Km ( V-R-H method )
Km V% KR KV Km
Sand 40 0.85 36.69725 37.75 37.22362
Shale 25 0.15
Estimate of Kdry
ø Km Kfl Ksat Kdry
0.22 37.23 2.2 15.24 10.78021
Estimate of μdry
VS ρsat μdry
2.01 2.29 9.251829
Estimate of ρm
ø ρsat ρfl ρm
0.22 2.29 1.09 2.628462
Estimate of VP/VS and σ
VP VS VP/VS VS/VP σ
3.47 2.01 1.726368 0.579251 0.247519
Dr. R. PRASAD
 FLUID SUBSTITUTION MODELLING
Now 70 % gas is substituted i.e
SW = 30% and Sg = 70%
Estimate of ρf and ρb variation with porosity
ø SW ρW ρg ρm ρfl ρsat
0.22 0.3 1.09 0.1 2.63 0.397 2.13874
Estimate of kf
Kg KW SW Kfl
0.02 2.2 0.3 0.028461
Estimate of Vp & Vs
Kdry Km Kfl B ø μdry ρsat VP VS
3.29272
10.8 37.23 0.03 0.709911 0.22 9.25 2.14 3 2.079045
Estimate of σ
VP VS VP/VS VS/VP σ
3.29 2.08 1.581731 0.632219 0.167082

Dr. R. PRASAD
FLUID SUBSTITUTION MODELLING
ø SW VP VS VP/VS σ
0.22 0 3.343541 2.112172 1.582987 0.167961
0.22 0.05 3.334967 2.106647 1.583068 0.168018
0.22 0.1 3.326478 2.101165 1.583159 0.168081
0.22 0.15 3.318078 2.095726 1.583259 0.168151
0.22 0.2 3.309769 2.090328 1.583373 0.16823
0.22 0.25 3.301556 2.084973 1.583501 0.168319
0.22 0.3 3.293443 2.079658 1.583647 0.168421
0.22 0.35 3.285439 2.074383 1.583815 0.168538
0.22 0.4 3.277554 2.069149 1.584011 0.168675
0.22 0.45 3.269801 2.063954 1.584241 0.168835
0.22 0.5 3.2622 2.058798 1.584517 0.169026
0.22 0.55 3.25478 2.05368 1.584853 0.169259
0.22 0.6 3.247584 2.0486 1.58527 0.169548
0.22 0.65 3.24068 2.043558 1.585803 0.169917
0.22 0.7 3.234179 2.038553 1.586507 0.170403
0.22 0.75 3.228277 2.033584 1.587482 0.171074
0.22 0.8 3.223361 2.028652 1.588918 0.172058
0.22 0.85 3.220294 2.023755 1.591247 0.173644
0.22 0.9 3.221502 2.018894 1.595677 0.176623
0.22 0.95 3.237379 2.014067 1.607384 0.18428
0.22 1 3.469931 2.009275 1.726957 0.247778
Dr. R. PRASAD
VARIATION OF VP,VS & σ WITH WATER SATURATION

VP

VS

Water Saturation Water Saturation

Dr. R. PRASAD