Poisson’s ratio — an interdisciplinary link?
By NORM DOMENICO
Tulsa, Oklahoma
T he collaboration of geophysicists, geologists, and reservoir
engineers is of utmost importance in hydrocarbon reservoir
evaluation and development. An important aspect of this col-
laboration is the derivation of critical rock properties, such as
Poisson’s ratio, from seismic velocities obtained from well
logging. Unfortunately, applicability of velocity-based rock
properties to reservoir evaluation is suspect. Response of a
rock layer to the dynamic stresses imparted by the passage of
a seismic wave may differ significantly from the response to
static stresses due to overburden and pore fluid. It is, of
course, the response to static stresses that is critical in reser-
voir development.
However, comparisons of rock properties derived from
laboratory dynamic (velocity) with static measurements -
the data needed to confirm the applicability of properties de-
rived from well log velocities - are sorely lacking. Indeed,
a major purpose of this article is to prompt such studies. The
dearth is so great that figures resulting from research that I did
in the 1970s (published in GEOPHYSICS in 1976 and 1977)
are still regularly cited as, for example, the basis for AVO ap-
plications. It is quite flattering to see your own research rou-
tinely cited in professional literature nearly 20 years after its
initial publication. But those relying on the figures which em-
anated from those laboratory experiments should realize that
work was meant to be the beginning, not the end, of research
in this very important area. For example, that study involved
only one set of static measurements.
The need for additional work was made obvious by Peter
Gretener’s article in TLE in October 1994. In the appendix to
the article, Gretener took exception to Poisson’s ratio values,
nominally .l and .4, respectively, for the gas- and brine-satu-
rated specimens, which were derived from compressional-
and shear-wave velocities which I had measured in the labo-
ratory. This is hardly a minor objection because these figures
are regularly cited as the basis for, among other things, AVO
applications. Gretener’s argument is that the ratio of com-
pressional-wave to shear-wave velocity (Vp/Vs) is not an in-
dicator of Poisson’s ratio and he attempted to demonstrate
that Poisson’s ratio must be the same for dry and wet sands.
This, if true, is devastating to AVO theory (as developed, for
example, by W.J. Ostrander in GEOPHYSICS in 1984) and
probably kills the usefulness of Poisson’s ratio as a link
between the related work of various geoscience disciplines.
Thus, I feel that the role, the legitimacy, and even the mea-
surement of Poisson’s ratio in the geosciences should be the
subject of additional research and discussion. I hope this
article will help inaugurate such efforts.
Poisson’s ratio, named after the eminent French mathe-
matician Simeon Poisson who first analyzed it in 1829, is the
ratio of lateral to axial strain in a solid rod subjected to axial
stress only. It has long been accepted that Poisson’s ratio can
be derived from Vp/Vs) The pertinent mathematics can be
found in most basic references (such as SEG’s Encyclopedic
Dictionary).
As stated above, Gretener feels that Vp/Vs is not an indica-
tor of Poisson’s ratio. These differing views are the result of
the discrepancy between rock properties derived wholly or in
part from velocities (dynamic measurements) and the same
properties derived from static stresses (static measurements).
Unfortunately, rock characteristics (e.g., fractures and pore
fluids) affect dynamic and static measurements differently.
So, as emphasized above, comparisons of rock properties
derived from laboratory dynamic and static measurements
are sorely needed.
The primary purpose of the research that I conducted in
the 1970s was to establish the effect of gas, brine, and
gas/brine pore fluids on seismic velocities. This information
was then used to determine Poisson’s ratios which could be
used, for example, with (preferably) statically determined
bulk compressibility to obtain subsurface horizontal stress
versus depth. Horizontal stress is of prime importance in hy-
drocarbon production. It determines the well fluid pressure
required for fracturing tight reservoirs or, alternately, that
which must not be exceeded to avoid fracturing other layers
and losing fluid circulation prior to setting casing.
The experimental details and mathematical underpinning
are described in the 1976-77 articles in GEOPHYSICS. Major
basic data were:
1) Compressional- and shear-wave velocities were
measured at confining (external axial and radial) pres-
sures from 400 to 5OOOpsi for brine-saturated and gas-
saturated pores.
2) The volume of brine squeezed out from the brine-
saturated pore space to determine the reduction in pore
volume as confining pressure was increased.
Characteristics under standard conditions of the sand
specimen (known as the Ottawa sand), including the pore flu-
ids, are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Ottawa sand characteristics under
standard conditions (68° F, atm pressure)
Table 2 gives laboratory measured velocities for brine
saturations (Sw) of 0 (total gas saturation) and 1 (total brine
saturation), normalized pore volume, and porosity at each
pressure. Because the pore fluid pressure was atmospheric,
the differential pressure (Pd, difference between confining
SEPTEMBER 1995 THE LEADING EDGE 983
 Table 2. Ottawa-sand specimen velocity, pore volume, and porosity versus differential pressure.

and pore fluid pressure) is essentially equal to confining pres-

sure. For a given pore fluid, velocity and pore volume varia-
tions depend essentially on differential pressure only.
Velocities are graphed in Figure 1 and Poisson’s ratios,
derived from the velocities, are graphed in Figure 2.
Replacement of gas with brine substantially increases com-
pressional-wave velocity, slightly reduces shear-wave veloc-
ity, and increases Poisson’s ratio by factors of 3.5-5. The
increase in compressional-wave velocity and in Poisson’s
ratio results from replacing gas (nitrogen) of very high com-
pressibility with brine of very low compressibility.
Bulk compressibility (Cb) determined from velocities
(dynamic measurements) and that determined from pore
volume reduction (static measurements) are plotted in Figure
3 (curves a and b, respectively). Both decrease appreciably
with increasing differential pressure. At low pressures, the
dynamic values are substantially above the static values. The
values are close at 2000 psi and diverge moderately as pres-
sure increases to 5000 psi. Because the pore fluid is entirely
gas, this difference cannot be ascribed to decoupling of the
fluid from the frame (a function of the wave’s frequency spec-
trum) which is the case for a pore fluid that is entirely liquid
or (more so) is a liquid/gas mixture. Also, because the speci-
men is an unconsolidated sand, the difference cannot be
ascribed to the effect of fracture orientation on velocity. We
might speculate it results from irregular pore geometry which
changes with increasing confining pressure and is affected
differently by static and dynamic stresses.
When the pore fluid is changed from gas to brine, the pore
compressibility and, consequently, bulk compressibility is
reduced substantially. Unfortunately, neither was measured
statically. However, bulk compressibility of the brine-
saturated sand may be determined in two ways from velocity
measurements. One is to compute the bulk compressibility
using Vp and Vs measurements in the brine-saturated speci-
Figure 1. Compressional- and shear-wave velocity versus men. These values, plotted in Figure 3 (curve c), are affected
differential pressure measured in the gas- and (sepa- by decoupling between fluid and frame and, thereby, by the
rately) brine-saturated Ottawa sand specimens. (From wave frequency spectrum. Replacement of gas with brine
“Elastic properties of unconsolidated sand reservoirs” reduces bulk compressibility substantially to a nearly pres-
GEOPHYSICS 1977). sure-invariant state. The second way to determine pore com-

984 THE LEADING EDGE SEPTEMBER 1995

Figure 2. Poisson’s ratio versus differential pressure
for brine- and (separately) gas-saturated Ottawa sand
specimens.
Figure 3. Bulk compressibility from velocity (dynamic)
measurements on gas-saturated (curve a) and brine-
saturated (curve c) specimens, and from Biot-Geertsma
equations for a brine-saturated reservoir (curve d). Also,
bulk compressibility from measurement of pore fluid
expressed as confining pressure is increased (curve b).
Figure 4. Overburden pressure, pore fluid pressure, and
horizontal stresses for a gas-saturated (Sw = 0) and brine-
saturated (Sw = 1) sand reservoir versus depth.
pressibility is to use the Biot-Geertsma velocity equations
modified for perfect fluid-frame coupling. The compres-
sional-wave velocity equation contains the dry-frame (gas-
saturated) bulk compressibility which is derived from
velocities measured in the gas-saturated specimen (curve a,
Figure 3). Thus, the bulk compressibility determined in this
manner for the brine-saturated specimen is not affected by
fluid-frame decoupling and, thus, by the wave frequency
spectrum. These values, plotted as curve d in Figure 3, pre-
sumably approximate those determined from application of
static pressures. They are slightly less than those derived from
the frequency-sensitive velocities measured in the brine-
saturated specimen (curve c). Also, they are not as pressure
insensitive, decreasing modestly with increasing pressure.
The close approximation of curve c to curve d indicates that
brine-frame decoupling has only a modest effect on bulk
compressibilities determined directly from velocities mea-
sured in the brine-saturated specimen (curve c).
The derived bulk compressibilities (curves b and d in Fig-
SEPTEMBER 1995 THE LEADING EDGE 985
 ure 3) and Poisson’s ratios (Figure 2) now may be used to
obtain horizontal stress (in the absence of tectonic stress) as
a function of depth for both gas- and brine-saturated sands.
The differential pressure on a normally-pressured subsurface
reservoir is the difference between the overburden pressure
(normally assumed to increase at the rate of 1.0 psi per foot
of depth) and the hydrostatic pressure exerted by the pore
fluid. For the brine used in this study, hydrostatic pressure
would increase at a rate of .475 psi per foot of depth. Thus,
the differential pressure would increase at the rate of ,525 psi
per foot of depth.
The overburden and pore fluid pressures versus depth are
plotted in Figure 4. Also plotted are horizontal stresses
derived for both gas- and brine-saturated sands. Horizontal
stresses for the gas-saturated sand are appreciably less than
those for the brine-saturated sand due, principally, to the
much lower gas-sand Poisson’s ratios. Complete gas satura-
tion of a reservoir is, of course, unrealistic. The pore fluid in
a natural gas reservoir will be a gas/brine mixture which will
decrease the bulk compressibility and increase Poisson’s ratio
from those for a gas-saturated reservoir. However, because of
the large difference in brine and gas compressibilities (Table
l), the bulk compressibility will remain appreciably greater
986 THE LEADING EDGE SEPTEMBER 1995
and Poisson’s ratio will remain appreciably less than those
for the brine-saturated sand reservoir prior to full brine satu-
ration. Correspondingly, horizontal stress for the gas/brine
reservoir will remain considerably less than for the brine-
saturated sand.
The principal concern in derivation of the horizontal
stresses is the reliability of Poisson’s ratios derived from lab-
oratory velocity measurements. Because velocity-based rock
properties are used widely in the development of hydrocar-
bon reservoirs (as in the horizontal stress example just
described), it is imperative that the validity of this technique
be established by laboratory comparison of those derived
from velocities with those derived from static measurements.
This has not been done and, until it is, the applicability of
velocity-based rock properties to reservoir evaluation will
remain nebulous.
Acknowledgements: The author wished to express his
appreciation to Frank O. Jones Jr., retired Amoco reservoir engi-
neer; for helpful discussions and to Jack Schaffner; Schlumberger
senior geophysicist, for pertinent information on current well log-
ging techniques in reservoir evaluation.