Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

The Rock Physics of AVO

267
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Water-saturated
40 MPa

Water-saturated
10-40 MPa

Gas and
Water-saturated
10-40 MPa

L8

268
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

N.1

More than 400 sandstone data points, with porosities

ranging over 4-39%, clay content 0-55%, effective
pressure 5-40 MPa - all water saturated.

When Vp is plotted vs. Vs, they follow a remarkably

narrow trend. Variations in porosity, clay, and pressure
simply move the points up and down the trend.

269
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

N.2

Variations in porosity, pore pressure, and shaliness

move data along trends. Changing the pore fluid
causes the trend to change.

270
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

N.2
Different shear-related attributes.

271
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

V P1, VS1, ρ1 φ1
Reflected
θ1 S-wave

Incident Reflected
P-wave P-wave

Transmitted
P-wave

φ2 θ2

Transmitted
VP2, V S2, ρ2 S-wave N.4

In an isotropic medium, a wave that is incident on a

boundary will generally create two reflected waves (one
P and one S) and two transmitted waves. The total shear
traction acting on the boundary in medium 1 (due to the
summed effects of the incident an reflected waves) must
be equal to the total shear traction acting on the boundary in
medium 2 (due to the summed effects of the
transmitted waves). Also the displacement of a point in
medium 1 at the boundary must be equal to the displace-
ment of a point in medium 2 at the boundary.

272
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

By matching the traction and displacement boundary

conditions, Zoeppritz (1919) derived the equations
relating the amplitudes of the P and S waves:

 sin(θ1 ) cos(φ1 ) − sin(θ 2 ) cos(φ 2 ) 

 − cos(θ ) sin(φ1 ) − cos(θ 2 ) − sin(φ 2 )   Rpp  − sin(θ1 ) 
 1 
 VP1 ρ2VS22VP1 ρ2VS 2VP1   Rps  − cos(θ1 ) 
 sin(2θ1 ) V
cos(2φ1 )
ρ1VS12VP 2
sin(2θ 2 ) −
ρ1VS12
cos(2φ 2 )
 Tpp 
=
 sin(2θ1 ) 
 S1 
  Tps   − cos(2φ1 )

 VS1 ρ 2VP 2 ρ2VS 2
 − cos(2φ1 ) − sin(2φ1 ) − cos(2φ2 ) − cos(2φ 2 ) 
 VP1 ρ1VP1 ρ1VP1 

273
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

AVO - Shuey's Approximation

P-wave reflectivity versus angle:

Intercept Gradient
 Δ ν  1 ΔVP
R(θ ) = R0 +  ER0 + 2
 sin2
θ +
2 V
[ tan 2
θ − sin 2
θ]
 (1− ν )  P

1  ΔVP Δ ρ 
R0 ≈  +
2  VP ρ 
1− 2ν
E = F − 2(1 + F )
1− ν
ΔVP / VP
F=
ΔVP / VP + Δρ / ρ

ΔVP = (VP 2 − VP1) VP = (VP 2 + VP1) / 2

ΔVS = (VS 2 − VS1 ) VS = (VS2 + VS1 ) / 2
Δρ = ( ρ2 − ρ1 ) ρ = (ρ 2 + ρ1 ) / 2

274
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

AVO - Aki-Richard's approximation:

P-wave reflectivity versus angle:

Intercept Gradient

 1 ΔVP VS2  Δρ ΔVS   2

R(θ ) = R0 +  −2 2 +2   sin θ
 2 VP VP  ρ VS  
1 ΔVP
+
2 VP
[ tan2 θ − sin2 θ ]

1  ΔVP Δ ρ 
R0 ≈  +
2  VP ρ 

ΔVP = (VP 2 − VP1) VP = (VP 2 + VP1) / 2

ΔVS = (VS 2 − VS1 ) VS = (VS2 + VS1 ) / 2
Δρ = ( ρ2 − ρ1 ) ρ = (ρ 2 + ρ1 ) / 2

275
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

AVO Response

P-Velocity Poisson ratio AVO response

contrast contrast

negative negative increase

negative positive decrease
positive negative decrease
positive positive increase

276
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Vp-Vs Relations

There is a wide, and sometimes confusing, variety of

published Vp-Vs relations and Vs prediction techniques,
which at first appear to be quite distinct. However, most
reduce to the same two simple steps:
1. Establish empirical relations among Vp, Vs, and porosity
for one reference pore fluid--most often water saturated or
dry.
2. Use Gassmann’s (1951) relations to map these empirical
relations to other pore fluid states.
Although some of the effective medium models predict both P
and S velocities assuming idealized pore geometries, the fact
remains that the most reliable and most often used Vp-Vs
relations are empirical fits to laboratory and/or log data. The
most useful role of theoretical methods is extending these
empirical relations to different pore fluids or measurement
frequencies. Hence, the two steps listed above.

277
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
7
Sandstones
6 Water Saturated

5 Mudrock
mudrock
Vp (km/s)

VVs = .86
s = Vpp --1 1.17
.8621V .1724
4

3
Han(1986)
Han (1986)
2 VVs
s == .7936V
.79 Vpp - .-70.79
868

1 Castagnaetetal.al.(1993)
Castagna (1993)
V s = .8042Vp - . 8 5 5 9
Vs = .80 Vp - 0.86 (after Castagna et al., 1993)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Vs (km/s)
7
Shales
6 Water Saturated
5 Mudrock
mudrock
VVs
s == .8621
.86 Vp
Vp -- 1.17
Vp (km/s)

1.1724
4

3
Han
Han (1986)
(1986)
2 Vss = .79
V = Vpp-- .0.79
.7936V 7868

1 Castagna
Castagna etetal.
al.(1993)
(1993)
V s = .8042Vp - . 8 5 5 9
Vs = .80 Vp - 0.86 (after Castagna et al., 1993)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
N.5

Vs (km/s) N.5

278
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
8
Limestones
7 Water Saturated
6
Castagna et al. (1993)
5 Castagna et al. (1993)
Vp (km/s)

Vs = -.055 Vp2
V s = -.05508 VP 2
4 + 1.02 Vp
+ 1.0168 Vp
- 1.03
- 1.0305
3
2
VPickett(1963)
s = Vp / 1 . 9
1
water Vs = Vp(1963)
Pickett / 1.9 (after Castagna et al.,1993)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Vs (km/s)
8
Dolomite Pickett(1963)
Pickett (1963)
7 Water Saturated Vs V=s Vp
= V/p /1.8
1.8
6
Vp (km/s)

5
4 Castagna et al. (1993)
Castagna et al. (1993)
V s = .5832Vp - . 0 7 7 7 6
3 Vs = .58 Vp - 0.078

2
1
(after Castagna et al., 1993)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
N.6

Vs (km/s)

279
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
6
Shaly Sandstones
5 Water Saturated
Mudrock
mudrock
4 Vs =V s.86
= . 8Vp
6 2 1-V1.17
p-1.1724
Vp (km/s)

clay >
Clay > 25%
25 %
Vs=.8423Vp-1.099
3 Vs = .84Vp-1.10
clay < 25 %
Clay < 25%
2 Vs=.7535Vp-.6566
Vs = .75 Vp - 0.66
Vp-sat c>.25
1
Vp-sat c<.25
(Data from Han, 1986)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Vs (km/s)

6
Shaly Sandstones
5 Water Saturated (hf)
Mudrock
mudrock
Vs ==.86
Vs .8621Vp-1.1724
Vp - 1.17
4
porosity<<15
porosity 15%%
Vp (km/s)

Vs = .85 Vp - 1.14
Vs = .8533Vp-1.1374
3
porosity
porosity>>15 %
15%
2 Vs = .7563Vp-.6620
Vs = .76Vp - 0.66

1 Vp-sat Phi>.15
Vp-sat Phi<.15 (Data from Han, 1986)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
N.7
4
Vs (km/s)

280
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Dry Poisson’s Ratio Assumption

The modified Voigt Average Predicts linear moduli-porosity relations.
This is a convenient relation for use with the critical porosity model.
 φ  φ
K dry = K0 1−  µdry = µ0 1− 
 φc   φc 
These are equivalent to the dry rock Vs/Vp relation and the dry rock
Poisson’s ratio equal to their values for pure mineral.
 VS   VS 
 V  ≈  V 
P dry rock P mineral

νdry rock ≈ ν mineral

The plot below illustrates the approximately constant dry rock
Poisson’s ratio observed for a large set of ultrasonic sandstone
velocities (from Han, 1986) over a large rance of effective pressures (5
< Peff < 40 MPa) and clay contents (0 < C < 55% by volume).

16
Shaly Sandstones - Dry ν = 0.01
14 ν = 0.1
clay < 10%
12 clay > 10% ν = 0.2
Vs2 dry

10
8 ν = 0.3

6
ν = 0.4
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
2
Vp dry N.8

281
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Krief’s Relation (1990)

The model combines the same two elements:
1. An empirical Vp-Vs-φ relation for water-saturated
rocks, which is approximately the same as the critical
porosity model.
2. Gassmann’s relation to extend the empirical
relation to other pore fluids.
Dry rock Vp-Vs-φ relation:

K dry = K mineral (1− β )

where β is Biot’s coefficient. This is equivalent to:
1 1 φ
= +
where K dry K 0 Kφ
1 1 dv p dv p φKdry
= ; β= =
Kφ v p dσ PP = constant dV PP = constant
Kφ
β and Kf are two equivalent descriptions of the pore space
stiffness. Determining β vs. φ or Kφ vs φ determines the
rock bulk modulus Kdry vs φ.
Krief et al. (1990) used the data of Raymer et al. (1980) to
empirically find a relation for β vs φ:
( )
(1− β) = (1− φ )m φ where m(φ ) = 3 / (1− φ )

282
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Assuming dry rock Poisson’s ratio is equal to the

mineral Poisson’s ratio gives
m(φ )
K dry = K 0 (1− φ )
m(φ )
µdry = µ 0 (1− φ )

N.9

283
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Expressions for any other pore fluids are obtained from

Gassmann’s equations. While these are nonlinear, they
suggest a simple approximation:
VP2− sat − V fl2 VP20 − V fl2
2 =
VS −sat VS02
where VP-sat, VP0, and Vfl are the P-wave velocities of the
saturated rock, the mineral, and the pore fluid; and VS-sat
and VS0 are the S-wave velocities in the saturated rock
and mineral. Rewriting slightly gives
2 2
 VP0 − V fl 
VP2− sat
2 2
= V fl + VS− sat 
 V 2  S0
which is a straight line (in velocity-squared) connecting the
2 2
mineral point ( VP0 , VS0 ) and the fluid point (Vfl2 , 0). A more
accurate (and nearly identical) model is to recognize that
velocities tend toward those of a suspension at high
porosity, rather than toward a fluid, which yields the
modified form 2 2 2 2
VP − sat − VR VP 0 − VR
=
VS2−sat VS02
where VR is the velocity of a suspension of minerals in a
fluid, given by the Reuss average at the critical porosity.
This modified form of Krief’s expression is exactly
equivalent to the linear (modified Voigt) K vs φ and µ vs φ
relations in the critical porosity model, with the fluid effects
given by Gassmann.

284
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Vp-Vs Relation in Dry and

Saturated Rocks

35 Sandstones mineral
point

30

25
saturated
20
Vp2 (km/s)2

15
dry
10

5
fluid point
0
0 5 10 15 20
N.10
2 2
Vs (km/s)

285
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Vp-Vs Relation in Sandstone

and Dolomite

50
mineral
points
40
Dolomite

30
Vp2 (km/s)2

20

Sandstone
10

fluid points
0
0 4 8 12 16

Vs2 (km/s)2 N.11

286
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
Greenberg and Castagna (1992) have given empirical
relations for estimating Vs from Vp in multimineralic, brine-
saturated rocks based on empirical, polynomial Vp-Vs
relations in pure monomineralic lithologies (Castagna et
al., 1992). The shear wave velocity in brine-saturated
composite lithologies is approximated by a simple average
of the arithmetic and harmonic means of the constituent
pure lithology shear velocities:
L Ni L Ni –1 –1
VS = 1 Σ Xi Σ a ijVPj + Σ X i Σ a ijVPj
2 i=1 j=0 i= 1 j= 0
L

i=1
Σ Xi = 1
where
L number of monomineralic lithologic constituent
Xi volume fractions of lithological constituents
aij empirical regression coefficients
Ni order of polynomial for constituent i
Vp, Vs P and S wave velocities (km/s) in composite brine-
saturated, multimineralic rock
Castagna et al. (1992) gave representative polynomial
regression coefficients for pure monomineralic lithologies:
Lithology a i2 a i1 a i0
S a ndstone 0 0 .8 0 4 1 6 -0 .8 5 5 8 8
Lime stone -0 .0 5 5 0 8 1 .0 1 6 7 7 -1 .0 3 0 4 9
D olomite 0 0 .5 8 3 2 1 -0 .0 7 7 7 5
S ha le 0 0 .7 6 9 6 9 -0 .8 6 7 3 5

Regression coefficients for pure lithologies with Vp and Vs

in km/s:
VS = a i2VP2 + ai1VP + a i0 (Castagna et al. 1992)
287
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

5
Vp (km/s)

3
Sandstone
Limestone
2 Dolomite
Shale
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
N.12
Vs (km/s)

Note that the above relation is for 100% brine-saturated rocks.

To estimate Vs from measured Vp for other fluid saturations,
Gassmann’s equation has to be used in an iterative manner.
In the following, the subscript b denotes velocities at 100%
brine saturation and the subscript f denotes velocities at any
other fluid saturation (e.g. this could be oil or a mixture of oil,
brine, and gas). The method consists of iteratively finding a
(Vp, Vs) point on the brine relation that transforms, with
Gassmann’s relation, to the measured Vp and the unknown Vs
for the new fluid saturation. the steps are as follows:

1. Start with an initial guess for VPb.

2. Calculate VSb corresponding to VPb from the empirical
regression.
3. Do fluid substitution using VPb and VSb in the Gassmann
equation to get VSf.
4. With the calculated VSf and the measured VPf, use the
Gassmann relation to get a new estimate of VPb. Check with
previous value of VPb for convergence. If convergence
criterion is met, stop; if not go back to step 2 and continue.

288
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO
Polynomial and powerlaw forms of the Gardner et al. (1974) velocity-density
relationships presented by Castagna et al. (1993). Units are km/s and
g/cm3.
Coefficients for the equation ρ b = aVp2 + bVp + c

Lithology a b c Vp Range
(Km/s)

Shale -.0261 .373 1.458 1.5-5.0

Sandstone -.0115 .261 1.515 1.5-6.0
Limestone -.0296 .461 0.963 3.5-6.4
Dolomite -.0235 .390 1.242 4.5-7.1
Anhydrite -.0203 .321 1.732 4.6-7.4
Coefficients for the equation ρ b = dVpf

Lithology d f Vp Range
(Km/s)

Shale 1.75 .265 1.5-5.0

Sandstone 1.66 .261 1.5-6.0
Limestone 1.50
1.359 .225
.386 3.5-6.4
Dolomite 1.74 .252 4.5-7.1
Anhydrite 2.19 .160 4.6-7.4

N.15

Both forms of Gardner’s relations applied to log and lab shale data, as
presented by Castagna et al. (1993)
289
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

N.16

Both forms of Gardner’s relations applied to

laboratory dolomite data.

290
 Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory - Gary Mavko

AVO

Both forms of Gardner’s relations applied to log and lab sandstone data, as
presented by Castagna et al. (1993).

Both forms of Gardner’s relations applied to laboratory N.17

limestone data. Note
that the published powerlaw form does not fit as well as the polynomial. we
also show a powerlaw form fit to these data, which agrees very well with the
polynomial.

291