GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 2, 1089, doi:10.
1029/2002GL016143, 2003
Saturation, pore pressure and effective stress from sandstone acoustic
properties
Anthony F. Siggins and David N. Dewhurst
CSIRO Petroleum, Australian Petroleum Co-operative Research Centre, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia
Received 21 August 2002; revised 3 October 2002; accepted 27 November 2002; published 30 January 2003.
[1] Acoustic velocity and Vp/Vs ratio show different
responses in saturated and dry rocks under increasing
differential pressures. Velocity is also shown to be sensitive
to pore pressure, not just differential pressure. Under identical
low differential pressure conditions, velocity is higher in
sandstones when pore pressure is high during simulation of
inflationary overpressure conditions. V p /V s ratios of
sandstones with high fluid pressures are shown to lie
between dry conditions and saturated conditions with
constant and low pore pressure. Thus the velocity-
differential pressure relationship is not unique. However,
the use of the measured Biot effective stress coefficient results
in a unique relationship. It is postulated that higher velocity
and different Vp/Vs ratios are caused by loss of compliance
in microfractures due to stiffening by increasing fluid
pressure. INDEX TERMS: 5102 Physical Properties of Rocks:
Acoustic properties; 5194 Physical Properties of Rocks: Instru-
ments and techniques; 5112 Physical Properties of Rocks:
Microstructure; 5114 Physical Properties of Rocks: Permeability
and porosity; 5104 Physical Properties of Rocks: Fracture and flow.
Citation: Siggins, A. F., and D. N. Dewhurst, Saturation, pore
pressure and effective stress from sandstone acoustic properties,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(2), 1089, doi:10.1029/2002GL016143,
2003.
1. Introduction
[2] Acoustic properties of sandstones under differential
pressure have been the focus of a considerable amount of
research dating from the early work of the 1950’s through to
more recent efforts aimed at separating the influences of
porosity, clay content and pore pressure. Pore pressure
prediction techniques assume that there is a unique veloc-
ity-differential pressure law for individual sediments and
that this law is:
Vp;s ¼ f ðPd Þ
where f (Pd) is often an empirical relation of the form,
A þ KPd  BeDPd
[e.g., Eberhardt-Phillips et al., 1989]. The differential
pressure, Pd, is defined as the difference between total stress
(sc) and the pore pressure, Pp [e.g., Terzaghi, 1943]. A and
K define the linear portion and B and D define the relative
strength and rate of the non-linear portion respectively.
Copyright 2003 by the American Geophysical Union.
0094-8276/03/2002GL016143
Brandt [1955] suggested that velocity depends on the net or
effective pressure, P0 defined by a linear relation,
P0 ¼ sc  nPp ð2Þ
For soft sediments such as clays, n = 1 and Terzaghi’s Law
applies, but for cemented rocks, n is observed to be <1 [e.g.,
Todd and Simmons, 1972; Christensen and Wang, 1985;
Prasad and Manghnani, 1997]. The pore pressure weight-
ing factor ‘n’ is known now as the Biot effective stress
coefficient and can be calculated by static or dynamic
means from the following equations:
Kb
Static : n¼1 ðfrom Biot; 1955Þ ð3Þ
Kg
 
½@Vp =@Pp Pd
Dynamic : n¼1
½@Vp =@Pd Pp ð4Þ
ðfrom Todd and Simmons; 1972Þ
In the static case, Kb and Kg are bulk and grain modulus
respectively. In the dynamic case, the numerator of the
fraction is the gradient of the pore pressure-velocity curve at
constant differential pressure and the denominator is the
gradient of the velocity-differential pressure curve at
constant pore pressure. Most research on sandstones has
followed the assumption of a unique effective stress law
and as such, experiments have generally been conducted
by keeping pore pressure constant and increasing confin-
ing pressure. However, this may not accurately simulate
how overpressure conditions develop in nature. This paper
aims to more accurately simulate conditions relating to
normal compaction, disequilibrium compaction and fluid
expansion type mechanisms with a view to a better under-
standing of the influence of pore pressure on acoustic
properties.
ð1Þ
2. Methodology
[3] These reservoir sandstone lithologies were recovered
from the Northwest Shelf of Australia between depths of
1700 – 2000 m. Cores for triaxial testing were cut with
diameters of 38 mm and lengths of 76 mm. Lithologies were
homogeneous over the length of the cores. Ambient porosity
and Klinkenberg-corrected permeability determinations were
carried out on the cores. More details of these analyses can be
found in Siggins et al. [2001].
[4] The sandstones were tested dry and oil saturated
under ambient conditions and stepwise in a triaxial cell to
a maximum differential pressure of 60 MPa. The sandstones
were saturated using a process oil rather than brine in order
61 - 1

61 - 2 SIGGINS AND DEWHURST: PORE PRESSURE AND SATURATION IN SANDSTONES
Figure 1. Differential pressure against P-wave velocity (a)
and S-wave velocity (b) for five Northwest Shelf sand-
stones. Ambient porosity and permeability indicated by
each curve in (a).
to avoid damage to any clays present in the samples.
Saturated samples were tested along three different stress
paths:
Path 1: Constant pore pressure (5 MPa) with increasing
confining pressure (to 65 MPa), followed by unloading (to
10 MPa), simulating normal compaction. The gradient of
the linear portion of this line gives the denominator in
equation 4 above.
Path 2: Constant differential pressure (10 MPa) with
confining and pore pressures rising incrementally from 15
and 5 MPa respectively to 65 MPa and 55 MPa respectively
then decreasing to the initial condition, simulating a
disequilibrium compaction type mechanism. The gradient
of this line during pore pressure increase gives the
numerator in equation 4 above.
Path 3: Constant confining pressure of 65 MPa with pore
pressure rising incrementally from 5 to 60 MPa, then
returning to 5 MPa simulating a fluid expansion type
mechanism (e.g., hydrocarbon cracking in an isolated sand
body).
[5] Ultrasonic transducers were manufactured in-house to
fit within the Titanium end caps of the top and bottom
loading platens. These comprised 1 MHz, PZT-5H piezo-
ceramic elements mounted in a triaxial arrangement, allow-
ing measurement of P- and S-wave arrivals along the long
axis of the core. Full waveforms were recorded for both
transmitted P- and S-waves at nominal centre frequencies of
800 kHz and 400 kHz respectively. Arrival time picks were
based on first breaks estimated from approximately 1% of
19448007, 2003, 2, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL016143, Wiley Online Library on [30/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Figure 2. Differential pressure-velocity curves for path 1
and path 3. Note that at low differential pressure, velocity is
higher when pore pressure is high.
the first peak amplitude. Uncertainties in velocity were
±15 m/s for Vp and ±25 m/s for Vs. The piezo-electric
elements were driven by Panametrics 5055PR Pulser and
Receiver units. Waveforms were recorded with a Tektronix
460A Digitizing Oscilloscope.
3. Results
[6] Velocity-differential pressure curves for both P- and
S-waves on path 1 are shown in Figure 1. P-wave velocities
(Figure 1a) range between 3000 and 4200 ms1 for all the
samples and are reasonably well correlated with porosity.
S-wave velocity (Figure 1b) among these sandstones also
shows a similar correlation with porosity and the curves
have the same form with increasing differential pressure.
Figure 2 illustrates P-wave velocity for one sample compar-
ing results for constant pore pressure ( path 1) and constant
confining pressure ( path 3). It can be noted that where
differential pressure is low, velocity is higher where pore
pressure is higher (i.e., on path 3). Siggins et al. [2001]
showed this was also the case for other samples presented
here. This finding seems counter-intuitive but is backed up
by velocity data at constant differential pressure (path 2;
Figure 3), where velocity is again noted to increase with
increasing pore pressure by between 3 and 8% across the
whole range of samples.
[7] Saturation is also known to have a significant influence
on acoustic velocity [e.g., Sayers et al., 2001], dependent
Figure 3. Velocity against pore pressure for a constant
differential pressure of 10 MPa. Velocity increases as pore
pressure increases.

SIGGINS AND DEWHURST: PORE PRESSURE AND SATURATION IN SANDSTONES
Figure 4. Differential pressure and Vp/Vs ratio for sample
12V, showing the distinction between dry and saturated
states.
on the composition and phase of the saturating fluid (e.g.,
brine, oil, gas). The use of velocity ratios (Vp/Vs) best
illustrates how to distinguish gas-saturated rocks (the dry
tests) from, in this case, oil saturated samples (Figure 4).
The example shown illustrates that with gas-saturated
samples, Vp/Vs increases with increasing differential pres-
sure from approximately 1.22 to 1.44. However, in the case
of oil-saturated samples, Vp/Vs drops from 1.65 to 1.55 as
differential pressure increases (path 1) and the two curves
are clearly separated at all differential pressures. Further to
this though is that when path 3 (i.e., the fluid expansion
path) is compared to the dry and constant pore pressure
results, significant differences are noted among all the
samples tested (Figure 5). All the samples shown in Figure
5 have a distinct separation between the gas-saturated and
oil-saturated state, with lower Vp/Vs ratios for the former.
However, also clear is that the Vp/Vs ratios for path 3 lie
above those of the dry state. At high differential pressure
(i.e., low pore pressures), path 1 and path 3 velocity ratios
are generally coincident. However, when differential pres-
sure is low, comparison of path 1 and path 3 shows that the
Vp/Vs ratio is lower at any given differential pressure when
pore pressure is high (i.e., on path 3).
4. Acoustic Response to Pore Pressure
[8] The use of compressional wave velocity analysis
alone as a method to predict overpressure can lead to
erroneous identification of high fluid pressures as anom-
alously low velocity can be associated with many other
factors besides pore pressure. Recent examples given by
Sayers et al. [2001] and Dvorkin et al. [1999] show that gas
saturation can produce low P-wave velocities similar to that
shown by overpressured sediments. The latter authors also
showed similar velocities in sandstones overpressured to
different degrees. Hence, the use of compressional wave
velocity as a means to predict pore pressure should be
regarded as a first step in a longer process. The velocity data
presented above and by Siggins et al. [2001] shows that under
high pore pressure conditions, both compressional and shear
wave velocities are faster than under low pore pressure
conditions at low differential pressures (e.g., Figure 2). In
other words, a change in pore pressure has a different effect
on velocity than the same change in confining pressure. The
Vp/Vs ratio data indicate that not only can the fluid phase be
19448007, 2003, 2, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL016143, Wiley Online Library on [30/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
61 - 3
determined (Figure 4) but that again when pore pressure is
high, such rocks can be distinguished from those where pore
pressure is moderate to low (Figure 5). The largest differ-
ences between paths 1 and 3 generally occur at differential
pressures under 30 MPa (Figures 2 and 5), where pore
pressure/differential pressure ratios (l) lie between 0.5 and
0.85 (i.e. above hydrostatic in nature which generally ranges
from 0.43 to 0.50 dependent on fluid density).
[9] The dependence of the Vp/Vs ratio (and by proxy,
dynamic Poisson’s ratio) on the saturating fluid is well
explained by Gassmann’s [1951] fluid substitution equa-
tions. Bulk modulus and thus P-wave velocities are
expected to be higher in fluid saturated samples whereas
the shear modulus and shear-wave velocity are relatively
unaffected by changing the fluid phase. With high pore
pressures the rock frame should be softer and thus the Vp/Vs
ratio should be higher. However, the results obtained in this
work appear to be contrary to current theory. Our results
show that in all cases where a fluid expansion overpressure
generating mechanism (path 3) is operative, the Vp/Vs ratio
is lower than that on path 1, where pore pressure is low and
constant. To explain the differences between velocities and
Vp/Vs ratio at equivalent differential pressure but differing
pore pressure conditions, we suggest that the key lies in the
presence of high aspect ratio compliant microfractures
which commonly occur in sandstones [Eberhardt-Philips
et al., 1989].
[10] It is generally assumed, from experiments where
pore pressure is held constant and differential pressure is
varied, that increasing differential pressure closes high
aspect ratio microfractures and that this results in a unique
velocity- and Vp/Vs ratio-differential pressure dependence
(e.g. Figures 1, 2 and 5). However, our experiments suggest
that this unique dependence is not maintained when differ-
ential pressure reduces through increasing pore pressure
rather than decreasing confining pressure. This is most
likely the result of pressure-induced changes in compliance
within the high aspect ratio microfractures. When pore
pressure is low and confining pressure increases (path 1),
cracks can close and result in the rapid velocity increase at
low differential pressure. However, when confining pres-
sure is constant and pore pressure is increased, it is likely
Figure 5. Differential pressure and Vp/Vs ratio for four
Northwest Shelf sandstones illustrating the difference
between samples when dry, saturated with constant pore
pressure of 5 MPa and saturated with pore pressure
increasing from 5 – 60 MPa.

61 - 4 SIGGINS AND DEWHURST: PORE PRESSURE AND SATURATION IN SANDSTONES
Figure 6. (a) Variation of Biot effective stress coefficient,
n, with differential pressure, (b) Velocity-effective stress
plot for one sample (12-07) showing how the use of the Biot
effective stress coefficient restores a unique velocity-
effective stress relationship to sandstones under different
pore pressure conditions.
that the microfractures are inflated by the increasing pore
pressure and as such, may lose some (or all) of their
compliance, thus stiffening the rock. Thus as acoustic waves
pass through the porous sandstones, the less compliant
cracks allow faster acoustic velocities at low differential
pressure when pore pressure is high as compared to low
differential pressure conditions where pore pressure is low.
As Vp/Vs ratios only increase slightly as pore pressure
increases on path 3, it appears that the rigidity of the rock
framework is less affected by inflated non-compliant frac-
tures than would be the case on the constant pore pressure
path.
5. The Effective Stress Law
[11] The results presented above clearly show that at a
given low level of differential pressure, the acoustic
velocity depends on the pore pressure and is higher when
pore pressure is higher (e.g. Figure 3; Siggins et al., 2001).
Our experimental data indicates that the Biot effective
stress coefficient, n, is a function of effective stress
(Figure 6a). Application of the Biot effective stress coef-
ficient (equation 2) to the differential pressure data from
stress paths 1 and 3 results in the coalescence of the separate
curves on to one line (Figure 6b). A unique relation between
velocity and the Biot effective stress is thus preserved.
6. Conclusions
[12] These data, from a suite of Australian North West
shelf sandstones, show that Vp/Vs ratio is a good determi-
19448007, 2003, 2, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL016143, Wiley Online Library on [30/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
nant of the saturation state of these rocks, especially under
low differential pressure conditions. Vp/Vs is shown to be
high in oil-saturated rocks, but low in the same rocks when
gas-saturated (i.e. dry). This experimental data also chal-
lenges the common assumption of unique velocity-Terzaghi
effective stress dependence in sandstones. Rather, the
velocity-effective stress relation appears to be pore pressure
history dependent. The Vp/Vs ratio also shows a marked
dependence on pore pressure history. These departures are
most probably due to the changing compliances with
pressure of the microcrack populations that exist in these
sandstones. This is manifested in the greater influence of
pore pressure changes on velocity than equivalent changes
in confining pressure. This can be quantified with the use of
the Biot effective stress coefficient that restores all velocity
data to a unique relation for each lithology.
[13] Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the Australian
Petroleum Cooperative Research Centre and generously sponsored by
BHP-Billiton, Chevron, Schlumberger and JNOC. We are indebted to the
technical expertise of Greg Lupton and Geoff Carson for their creativity and
design of the rig used in these tests. GRL anonymous reviewers are thanked
for constructive comments that improved on the original manuscript.
References
Brandt, B. S., A study of the speed of sound in porous granular materials,
J. Appl. Mech., 22, 479 – 486, 1955.
Christensen, N. I., and H. F. Wang, The influence of pore and confining
pressure on dynamic elastic properties of Berea sandstone, Geophysics,
50, 1163 – 1176, 1985.
Dvorkin, J., G. Mavko, and A. Nur, Overpressure detection from compres-
sional and shear wave data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26(22), 3417 – 3420,
1999.
Eberhardt-Phillips, D., D.-H. Han, and M. D. Zoback, Emprical relation-
ships among seismic velocity, effective pressure, porosity and clay con-
tent in sandstones, Geophysics, 54(1), 82 – 89, 1989.
Gassmann, F., Über die Elastizität poröser Median, Vier. der Natur. Gessell-
shaft in Zurich, 96, 1 – 23, 1951.
Sayers, C., M. J. Woodward, and R. C. Bartman, Predrill pore-pressure
prediction using 4-C seismic data, The Leading Edge, 1056 – 1059, 2001.
Siggins, A. F., D. N. Dewhurst, and P. R. Tingate, Stress path, pore pressure
and microstructural influences on Q in Carnarvon basin sandstones, Pro-
ceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. OTC 13043,
935 – 944, 2001.
Terzaghi, K., Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York, 1943.
Todd, T., and G. Simmons, Effect of pore pressure on the velocity of
compressional waves in low porosity rocks, J. Geophys. Res., 77(20),
3731 – 3743, 1972.

A. F. Siggins and D. N. Dewhurst, CSIRO Petroleum, Australian
Petroleum Co-operative Research Centre, P.O. Box 1130, Technology Park,
Bentley, Western Australia, 6102, Australia.