Comparative study between Kuster-Toksoz and differential effective medium method

for determining pore type in carbonate reservoir

Y. N. Candikia, M. S. Rosid, and M. W. Haidar

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1862, 030185 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4991289

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4991289
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1862/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
Comparative Study between Kuster-Toksoz and Differential
Effective Medium Method for Determining Pore Type in
Carbonate Reservoir
Y. N. Candikia1, M. S. Rosid1, a), and M. W. Haidar2
1
Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences (FMIPA),
Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, Indonesia.
2
JOB – Pertamina Petrochina East Java, Menara Kuningan Lt. 18 and 20, Jakarta 12940, Indonesia
a)
Corresponding author: syamsu.rosid@gmail.com

Abstract. Characterizing or understanding carbonate rocks is always challenging. This is because carbonate rocks have a
complex pore system due to their diagenesis process which is very intense. The diagenesis process causes changes in the
mineralogy and the texture of the original frame which make a variety in pore types within carbonate rocks. Carbonate’s
pore system affects propagation wave velocity, so that seismic responses in carbonate rocks are poorly understood. Pore
types of carbonate rocks could be determined by rock physics methods such as Kuster-Toksoz and Differential Effective
Medium (DEM). Both methods generate some physical parameters models of the bulk and shear moduli of rocks. The input
parameters are bulk and shear moduli of matrix and inclusion, geometry factor and fraction of inclusion. After performing
both methods, effective bulk and shear moduli are extracted and the rock’s pore type could also be determined by each
method. Even though both methods have a similar function, they have a different way to generate the effective bulk and
the shear moduli. The Kuster-Toksoz method focuses on the final condition of the rocks while the DEM method pays
attention to not only the final condition, but also the process of how the rocks are (reached their final conditioned) formed.
Then, the results of both methods are compared and controlled by well data. Based on that comparison, the DEM method
is the one that has a higher coefficient correlation of pressure and shear wave velocity than the Kuster-Toksoz method. As
a result, the DEM method is considered as a more suitable method for carbonate rock in determining the pore type of
carbonate rocks and predicting their shear wave velocity.

INTRODUCTION
Carbonate reservoirs consider as one of the main reservoirs which produce oil and gas worldwide. Unfortunately,
carbonate rocks more complicated than siliciclastic rocks so that carbonate reservoirs are usually harder to understand
compare to sand reservoirs. The difference between the carbonate reservoirs and the sand reservoirs is the distance of
deposition. Local deposition happened in carbonate rocks, meanwhile in siliciclastic rocks the grains may travel
hundreds of miles down the river systems before deposition and lithification. This local deposition affects significantly
carbonate rocks heterogeneity.
One of the methods that use to characterize carbonate reservoirs is rock physics analysis. This method could
determine geophysical pore types of carbonate rocks (such as interparticle, stiff and crack) which are very complex
through its elastic moduli. The porosity of carbonate rocks can be divided into three types: Interparticle or reference
pores, existing between the carbonate grains and are considered as the dominant pore types in carbonate; Stiff pores,
represent moldic and vuggy pores and are usually formed as a product of dissolved grains and fossils chamber; Cracks,
represent micro-fractures and micro-cracks. Each type of pores has their own characteristic. Their wave respond and
treatment are different. Those types of pore are determined by the model of elastic moduli of rocks which is generated
from Kuster-Toksoz method and DEM method using Matlab program. The models which are produced from both
methods are compared with the well data in order to find a precise model to represent the real data.

International Symposium on Current Progress in Mathematics and Sciences 2016 (ISCPMS 2016)
AIP Conf. Proc. 1862, 030185-1–030185-8; doi: 10.1063/1.4991289
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1536-2/$30.00

030185-1
 TABLE 1. Data used in this research
Paramater YNC-14 YNC-15 YNC-35
Depth V V V
Effective Porosity V V V
Total Porosity V V V
Water Saturation V V V
Mineral Fraction V V V
Fluid Fraction V V V
Vp V V V
Vs V X X
Density V V V

The data that is used in this research consist of three wells. The first well is called YNC-14, which has information
about the depth of this well, effective and total porosity value, water saturation, mineral and fluid fraction, pressure
velocity (Vp), density and also shear wave velocity (Vs). The two other wells are called YNC-15 and YNC-35. Both
of it contains the same parameter as YNC-14 except for Vs information which not provided in both wells. The data is
listed on Table 1.

METHODS

Kuster-Toksoz (KT)
In the Earth, where rocks are generally saturated or partly saturated with fluids, the seismic waves propagate
through two-phase media. For theoretical treatment, Kuster and Toksoz [1] derived expressions for P- and S- wave
velocities by using a long-wavelength first-order scattering. This method is one of the rock physic methods that used
to determine elastic property of a media by created models. A generalization of their expressions for the effective
* *
moduli K KT and µ KT for a variety of inclusion shapes can be written as (Equation 1 and 2) [1] .
4
(K m + µm ) N
*
( K KT − Km ) 3 = ∑ xi ( K i − K m ) P mi (1)
* 4
(K KT + µ m ) i =1
3
N
(µm + ζ m )
*
( µ KT − µm ) *
( µ KT
= ∑ xi (µi − µm )Q mi
+ ζ m ) i =1
(2)

with ζ = µ (9K + 8µ )
6 ( K + 2µ )
where
*
K KT = The effective bulk modulus of Kuster-Toksoz
*
µ KT = The effective shear modulus of Kuster-Toksoz
K m = Bulk modulus of matrix; µm = Shear modulus of matrix
Ki
= Bulk modulus of inclusion;
µi = Shear modulus of inclusion
xi = Volume concentration; P mi
and Q mi = The geometry factors
To process this method, there are some steps that need to be done. First, the inputs are needed to fulfill the Kuster-
Toksoz’s equation (Equation 1 and 2). The elastic modulus of the matrix is modeled by using Voight-Reuss-Hill
method based on the data that we have. While the elastic modulus of inclusion is extracted from the elastic modulus
of oil, gas and water literature, the fraction of inclusion is extracted from the data. Moreover, the geometry factor is
generated from the aspect ratio looping which is a process to find a suitable geometry factor by doing trial and error a

030185-2
range of possible numbers. Second, the inputs are processed with KT method in Matlab program and generate the
effective shear and bulk moduli. Then the effective shear and bulk moduli are used to calculate Vp and Vs. After that
Vp and Vs from the KT method would be compared with the real data so the model that is made could be controlled.
Finally, the most representative models are determined by the best correlation between model and real data.

Differential Effective Medium (DEM)

The other method that has been used to study the elastic properties of porous rock is DEM (Differential Effective
Medium) method. The theory of DEM method models two-phase composites by incrementally adding a few of pores
into a matrix. In DEM method, the effective moduli depend on the construction path taken in order to reach the final
composite. The DEM method works by put inclusions into the background models. The models are continuously
changed as the inclusion added. The expression of DEM equation will be shown as (Equation 3 and 4) [2].
d
(1 − y )
dy
[ ]
K * ( y ) = ( K 2 − K * ) P (*2 ) ( y ) (3)

d
(1 − y ) [ µ * ( y )] = ( µ 2 − µ * )Q (*2 ) ( y ) (4)
dy
where
y = Porosity
K *
( y ) = The effective bulk moduli of DEM
K *
= Bulk moduli of matrix (Phase 1); K2 = Bulk moduli of inclusion (Phase 2)
(*2)
P = Geometry factor for an inclusion of material 2 in a background medium with effective moduli K * and
µ*
µ * ( y ) = The effective shear moduli of DEM
µ* = Shear moduli of matrix (Phase 1); µ2 = Shear moduli of inclusion (Phase 2)
(*2)
Q = Geometry factor for an inclusion of material 2 in a background medium with effective moduli K * and µ*
Steps that needed in DEM method are not significantly different than KT method. DEM method also needs a
background or matrix, the geometry factor, the elastic moduli of inclusion and fraction of inclusion as inputs. The
difference lies on how to use this inputs. The first step is made a matrix or background by using Voight-Reuss-Hill
method. Instead of KT looping aspect ratio, DEM method determined the aspect ratio value as an input to gain the
factor geometry. There are three aspect ratio values that need to be defined such as the aspect ratio of interparticle
pores, stiff pores and crack pores. The determination of those three values is based on the Zhao classification [3] who
categorized the value of aspect ratio within three groups. The aspect ratio that represents crack pores is range from
0.01-0.02, the interparticle pores range from 0.12-0.15 and stiff pores vary between 0.7-0.8. The third step is to
calculate the Vpreference with the assistance of DEM equation where consist the aspect ratio of interparticle pores, fraction
of inclusion or porosity, the elastic moduli of matrix and also the elastic moduli of inclusions. This Vpreference is going
to be the controller who decides whether the stiff pores are the one to be included into the process or the crack pores.
If the Vpreference lower than Vpmeasurement or Vp from data, then stiff pores must be added into the process. But if the Vpreference
higher than Vpmeasurement, then crack pores need to be put into account. After the process has done, the effective elastic
moduli are generated and will be compared with the real data to obtain the most representative model. As we can see,
while Kuster-Toksoz method more focus on the final condition of rocks, DEM method not only focus on that but also
the construction path taken to reach the final composite.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The KT method and DEM method are used to make models of porous rocks. From those methods, the type of
pores could be determined as well as the shear wave velocity could be estimated based on the effective moduli of
rocks. Both methods consider more or less the same parameter into account. However, the process or how to gain the
effective moduli is different, therefore, the results of both methods are different. Figure 1 shows Vp result from KT
method on the left side and DEM method on the right side. The DEM method seems to be the one who has a higher

030185-3
correlation coefficient on well YNC-14. The higher coefficient correlation means that the effective moduli of DEM
method more likely to the well data. The similarity of Vpmeasurement and Vpcalculated along depth imply in Fig. 2 where the
blue line almost can not be seen.
The high of correlation coefficient for Vp from both methods is reasonable because Vp is the controller of the
process. Vp is made to approach the real value on purpose so that the models aren’t quite different from the real one.
The same result appears on the other parameter of S-wave which is Vs crossplot. The DEM method comes up to be the
one who has higher correlation coefficient. It’s shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.

FIGURE 1. Vp crossplot from KT method (left) and DEM method (right) in YNC-14. The data shows that
the DEM method has higher correlation coefficient which means DEM is a better method than KT

FIGURE 2. Vp log comparison between measurement and model from KT (left) and
DEM method (right) in YNC-14

030185-4
 FIGURE 3. Vs crossplot from KT method (left) and DEM method (right) in YNC-14. The data also shows that the DEM
method has higher correlation coefficient which means DEM is a better method than KT

FIGURE 4. Vs log data comparison between measurement and model from KT (left) and
DEM method (right) in YNC-14

Based on those results, the correlation between Vp and Vs could be known. Figure 5 and Fig. 6 show that Vp – Vs
tend to has a quadratic correlation as the coefficient correlation of quadratic trend is higher than the linear trend. The
quadratic trend means that the reservoir of this research area is indicated as limestone based on the empiric Vp-Vs
formula by Greenberg and Castagna [4].

030185-5
 (a)

(b)
FIGURE 5. Vp-Vs correlation from KT (a) and DEM modeled (b) in YNC-14 that shows
the quadratic rather than linear correlation

FIGURE 6. Vp-Vs correlation from data measurement in YNC-14 that shows the quadratic
rather than linear correlation

030185-6
 FIGURE 7. Distribution of pore type from KT (left) and DEM method (right) in YNC-14

FIGURE 8. Mineral fraction (left), KT pore types (middle) and DEM pore types (right) in YNC-35. It shows that high clay
content influences pore type analysis of KT and DEM method

Furthermore, type of pores can also be determined. The result is shown in Fig. 7 for YNC-14 well. As the both
methods of DEM and KT have a different approach in divining type of pores, it is assumed to have a slightly different
result. To justify the results, all the process is repeated for two other well, YNC-15 and YNC-35. It turns out has the
same outcome, correlation coefficient of Vp from DEM method has higher value than correlation coefficient from KT
method.
In general, the DEM method generates similar results with KT method, but more accurate. In some cases, both
methods could have a significant different, like the pore types result in YNC-35 well. Based on KT method, the
dominant pore types is crack. On the other hand, DEM method considers stiff as the dominant pore types. This
difference might be happen because of the amount of clay content. It can be seen in Fig. 8 that on several depths where
clay content is high, there is diverse pore types from both methods. Further research should be done.

CONCLUSIONS
DEM and KT method are used to obtain the elastic properties of porous rocks such as bulk modulus and shear
modulus by modeling. Basically, both of methods consider roughly the same parameters but different way to process
it. KT method gains the geometry factor from looping aspect ratio whereas DEM method determined the aspect ratio
at first based on Zhao classification. Besides that, KT method divines the pore types due to aspect ratio value while
DEM method determines it based on comparison between Vpreference and Vpmeasurement. This dissimilarity makes a slightly
different result. In our case, DEM method is considered as a better method than KT method in term of high correlation
coefficient. But in term of pore type the two result must be validated using direct measurement like core or FMI data
method for estimating pore type of carbonate reservoir.

030185-7
 REFERENCES
1. G. T. Kuster and M. N. Toksoz, Geophysics 39, 587-606 (1974).
2. G. Mavko, T. Mukerji, and J. Dvorkin, The Rock Physics Handbook, Second Edition: Tools for Seismic Analysis
of Porous Media (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009).
3. L. Zhao, M. Nasser, and D. Han, Geophys. Prospect. 61, 827-841 (2013).
4. M. L. Greenberg and J. P. Castagna, Geophys. Prospect. 40, 195–209 (1992).

030185-8