GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 64, NO. 5 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1999); P.

1627–1629

Tutorial

Origin of Gassmann’s equations

James G. Berryman∗

INTRODUCTION argument. Gassmann’s paper is concerned with the quasi-static

(low-frequency) analysis of the elastic moduli and that is what
Gassmann’s relations are receiving more attention as seismic
we emphasize here also. Generalization to higher frequency
data are increasingly used for reservoir monitoring. Correct
effects and complications arising in wave propagation due to
interpretation of underground fluid migration from seismic
frequency dispersion are well beyond the scope of what we
data requires a quantitative understanding of the relationships
present.
among the velocity data and fluid properties in the form of
In contrast to simple elasticity with stress tensor σi j and strain
fluid substitution formulas, and these formulas are very com-
tensor ei j , the presence of a saturating porefluid in porous me-
monly based on Gassmann’s equations. Nevertheless, confu-
dia introduces the possibility of an additional control field and
sion persists about the basic assumptions and the derivation
an additional type of strain variable. The pressure p f in the
of Gassmann’s (1951) well-known equation in poroelasticity
fluid is the new field parameter that can be controlled. Allow-
relating dry or drained bulk elastic constants to those for fluid-
ing sufficient time (equivalent to a low-frequency assumption)
saturated and undrained conditions. It is frequently stated, for
for global pressure equilibration will permit us to consider p f
example, but quite incorrect to say that Gassmann assumes
to be a constant throughout the percolating (connected) pore
the shear modulus is constant (i.e., mechanically independent
fluid, while restricting the analysis to quasi-static processes. The
of the presence of the saturating fluid). This note clarifies
change ζ in the amount of fluid mass contained in the pores
the situation by presenting an unusually brief derivation of
is the new type of strain variable, measuring how much of the
Gassmann’s relations that emphasizes the true origin of the
original fluid in the pores is squeezed out during the compres-
constant shear modulus result, while also clarifying the role
sion of the pore volume while including the effects of compres-
played by the shear modulus in the derivation of the better
sion or expansion of the pore fluid itself due to changes in p f .
understood result for the bulk modulus.
It is most convenient to write the resulting equations in terms
of compliances si j rather than stiffnesses ci j , so for an isotropic
DERIVATION FOR ISOTROPIC POROUS MEDIA
porous medium (chosen only for the sake of its simplicity) the
I now present a very concise, but nevertheless complete, basic equation to be considered takes the form:
derivation of Gassmann’s famous results. For the sake of sim-     
plicity, the analysis that follows is limited to isotropic systems, e11 s11 s12 s12 −β σ11
    
 e22   s12 −β   
  σ22  .
but it can be generalized with little difficulty to anisotropic sys- s11 s12
 = (1)
tems (Gassmann, 1951; Brown and Korringa, 1975; Berryman, e   s  
−β   σ33 
1998). Gassmann’s (1951) equations relate the bulk and shear  33   12 s12 s11 
moduli of a saturated isotropic porous, monomineralic medium −ζ −β −β −β γ −p f
to the bulk and shear moduli of the same medium in the drained
case and shows furthermore that the shear modulus must be The constants β and γ appearing in the matrix on the right
mechanically independent of the presence of the fluid. An im- hand side will be defined later. It is important to write the
portant implicit assumption is that there is no chemical inter- equations this way rather than using the inverse relation in
action between porous rock and fluid that affects the moduli; terms of the stiffnesses, because the compliances si j appearing
if such effects are present, we assume the medium is drained in equation (1) are simply and directly related to the drained
(rather than dry) but otherwise neglect chemical effects for this constants λdr and µdr (the Lamé parameters for the isotropic

Manuscript received by the Editor November 16, 1998; revised manuscript received May 28, 1999.
∗
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences Directorate, P.O. Box 808 L-200, Livermore, California 94551-9900.
E-mail: berryman1@llnl.gov.
°c 1999 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

1627
1628 Berryman

porous medium in the drained case) in the same way they are If K ∗ and µ∗ are, respectively, the undrained bulk and shear
related in normal elasticity (the matrix si j is just the inverse moduli, then equations (2) and (3) together with equations (8)
of the matrix ci j ), whereas the individual stiffnesses ci∗j (the and (9) imply that
∗ superscript indicates the constants for the saturated case)
1 1 1 1 β2
obtained by inverting equation (1) must contain coupling terms + = + − , (10)
through the parameters β and γ that depend on the porous 9K ∗ 3µ∗ 9K dr 3µdr γ
medium and fluid compliances. Using the standard relations and
for the isotropic moduli, I find that 1 1 1 1 β2
λdr + µdr − = − − . (11)
s11 =
1
= =
1
+
1
(2) 9K ∗ 6µ∗ 9K dr 6µdr γ
E dr µdr (3λdr + 2µdr ) 9K dr 3µdr
Subtracting equation (11) from (10) shows immediately that
and 1/2µ∗ = 1/2µdr or, equivalently, that

νdr 1 1 µ∗ = µdr . (12)

s12 = − = − , (3)
E dr 9K dr 6µdr
Thus, the first result of Gassmann is that, for purely mechan-
where the drained Young’s modulus E dr is defined in terms of ical effects, the shear modulus for the case with trapped fluid
the drained bulk modulus K dr and shear modulus µdr by the (undrained) is the same as that for the case with no fluid
second equality of equation (2) and the drained Poisson’s ratio (drained). Then, substituting equation (12) back into either
is determined by equation (10) or equation (11) gives one form of the result
λdr commonly known as Gassmann’s equation for the bulk modu-
νdr = . (4) lus:
2(λdr + µdr )
1 1 9β 2
The fundamental results of interest (Gassmann’s equations) = − . (13)
K∗ K dr γ
are found by considering the saturated (and undrained) case
such that I want to emphasize that the analysis presented shows clearly
that equation (12) is a definite result of this analysis, not an
ζ ≡ 0, (5) assumption. In fact, we must have equation (12) in order for
equation (13) to hold, and furthermore, if equation (13) holds,
which [making use of equation (1)] implies that the pore pres- then so must equation (12). Thus, monitoring any changes in
sure must respond to external applied stresses according to shear modulus with changes of fluid content (say, through shear
β velocity measurements) provides a test of both Gassmann’s
p f = − (σ11 + σ22 + σ33 ). (6) assumptions and results.
γ
To obtain one of the more common forms of Gassmann’s
Equation (6) is often called the “pore-pressure buildup” equa- result for the bulk modulus, first note that
tion (Skempton, 1954). Then, using this result to eliminate both
1 1 α
ζ and p f from equation (1), I obtain 3β = − ≡ , (14)
     K dr Kg K dr
∗ ∗ ∗
e11 s11 s12 s12 σ11
   ∗ ∗ ∗   where K g is the grain modulus of the solid constituent present
=
 22   12 11 12   22 
e s s s σ and α is the Biot-Willis parameter (Biot and Willis, 1957). Fur-
∗ ∗ ∗
e33 s12 s12 s11 σ33 thermore, the parameter γ is related through equation (6) to
      Skempton’s (1954) pore-pressure buildup coefficient B, so that
s11 s12 s12 1 1 1 σ11 3β
 β 
2
    = B. (15)
= s12 s11 s12  − 1 1 1 σ22  , γ
γ
s12 s12 s11 1 1 1 σ33
Substituting these results into equation (13) gives
(7)
K dr
K∗ = , (16)
where si∗j is the desired compliance including the effects of the 1 − αB
trapped fluid, while si j is the compliance in the absence of the
fluid. Since for elastic isotropy there are only two independent which is another form (Carroll, 1980) of Gassmann’s standard
coefficients (s11 and s12 ), I find that equation (7) reduces to one result for the bulk modulus.
expression for the diagonal compliance:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
∗ β2
s11 = s11 − , (8) I thank Michael L. Batzle and Patricia A. Berge for helpful
γ comments on the manuscript. This work was performed under
and another for the off-diagonal compliance: the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-
∗ β2
s12 = s12 − . (9) ENG-48 and supported specifically by the Geosciences Re-
γ search Program of the DOE Office of Energy Research within
 Origin of Gassmann’s Equations
the Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Engineering
and Geosciences.
REFERENCES
Berryman, J. G., 1998, Transversely isotropic poroelasticity arising
from thin isotropic layers, in Golden, K. M., Grimmett, G. R. , James,
R. D., Milton, G. W., and Sen, P. N., Eds., Mathematics of multiscale
materials: Springer-Verlag, 37–50.
Biot, M. A., and Willis, D. G., 1957, The elastic coefficients of the theory
1629
of consolidation: J. App. Mech., 24, 594–601.
Brown, R. J. S., and Korringa, J., 1975, On the dependence of the elastic
properties of a porous rock on the compressibility of the pore fluid:
Geophysics, 40, 608–616.
Carroll, M. M., 1980, Mechanical response of fluid-saturated porous
materials, in Rimrott, F. P. J., and Tabarrok, B., Eds., Theoretical and
Applied Mechanics: North-Holland Publ. Co., 251–262.
Gassmann, F., 1951, Über die Elastizität poroser Medien: Veirteljahrss-
chrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich, 96, 1–23.
Skempton, A. W., 1954, The pore-pressure coefficients A and B:
Geotechnique, 4, 143–147.