See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323772501

Comparison of Xu-White, Simplified Xu-White (Keys & Xu) and Nur's critical
porosity models in shaley sands

Conference Paper · June 2018

DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609.201801016

CITATIONS READS

6 940

1 author:

Hamed Amini
Aker BP ASA
57 PUBLICATIONS   163 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Edinburgh Time-Lapse Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamed Amini on 04 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comparison of Xu-White, Simplified Xu-White (Keys & Xu) and Nur's critical porosity
in shaley sands

H. Amini, Heriot-Watt University

Summary
Along with applicability to the specific reservoir scenario, calibrability is an indispensable criterion for
selection of the optimum rock-physics model. Calibration becomes of an underdetermined nature and
suffers from non-uniqueness when the parameters in the model outnumber the measured data which is
typically limited to sonic and density. In this article, the calibration method proposed by Amini (2018)
was used to address this challenge by comparing three different models for dry rock elastic moduli (Xu
& White, Keys & Xu, Nur’s critical porosity) on sand-shale mixtures. The performance of these models
in predicting the wireline log velocities and their corresponding fitting parameters were compared. It
was observed that, once calibrated, all the three models could reasonably model the elastic moduli log
data. The optimised critical porosity for high porosity sands were about 0.35-0.4 and the increase in clay
content reduces this value. The critical porosities optimised separately for shear modulus were slightly
higher than the ones for the bulk modulus. The optimised effective aspect ratio from Xu-White model
for high porosity sands were about 0.2 and the increase in clay content reduces this value. The aspect
ratios from Keys-Xu model show a large scatter and do not agree well with Xu-white model.

80th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2018

11-14 June 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark
Introduction
Rock-physics empirical relations, theoretical models and heuristic approaches are used successfully to
aid quantitative characterisation of the sweet spots or monitoring of the production induced changes in
the reservoir. Along with applicability to the specific reservoir scenario, calibrability is an indispensable
criterion for selection of the optimum rock-physics model. Calibration is crucial for any rock-physics
model, but once achieved, it is likely that several models could adequately characterise the link between
the reservoir properties and the observations in the seismic domain. Calibration becomes of an
underdetermined nature and suffers from non-uniqueness when the parameters in the model outnumber
the measured data which is typically limited to sonic (DT, DTS) and density. Most of the theoretical
rock physics models are based on an analytical solution to rationalise the observed variations in the
elastic properties via one or more physical constants (e.g. pore shape or aspect ratio, coordination
number, contact cement, critical porosity, consolidation factor, etc). The theoretical models provide low
order approximations of underlying relations through isolating the physical properties deemed to be the
key controlling factors. However, devising an analytical solution necessitate drastic simplification of
the rock heterogeneity. In addition to aforementioned non-uniqueness issue often associated with
calibration of such models, it is very challenging to gain a data-driven insight into their physical
constants. This challenge is three-fold. Firstly, some of the constants represent a rock quality (e.g.
consolidation factor) that is not measurable. Secondly, the values for the constants that could be
measured (e.g. pore aspect ratio from thin sections) may not necessarily agree with the values required
to fit the model to the observations (e.g. Ruiz & Dvorkin 2010). This is because these models do not
take the actual complexity of the rocks into account due to their simplification and assumptions,
therefore, the constants derived through calibration implicitly capture the variability of the other missing
properties. Thirdly, some of these models in their original form are only applicable to a specific lithology
under specific conditions (e.g. clean arenites) and their extension to more heterogeneous applications is
not straightforward. Therefore, in practice, the rock physics constants that bear a theoretical physical
significance are dealt with as fitting parameters and care must be taken in attributing interpretational
importance to such constants. In this article, the calibration method proposed by Amini (2018) was used
to address the challenges mentioned above by comparing three different models for dry-rock elastic
moduli on sand-shale mixtures. The performance of these models in predicting the wireline log
velocities and their corresponding fitting parameters were compared.

Dry rock characterization

Studies on dry-rock characterisation can be classified into two categories. The first category addresses
the lithologic dependence of dry-rock moduli by characterising its variations with porosity and - to a
lesser extent - clay content. It should be noted that if the porosity/lithology dependence of dry-rock
moduli is ignored, the porosity term in Gassmann’s equations in conjunction with effective medium
theories for minerals is not enough to capture detailed variability of sonic data. Effective medium
models, theories on granular media, or empirical relations are used to characterise the porosity
dependence of the dry-rock elastic moduli. It is found that the consolidation history is a critical
parameter, and different models should be adapted for consolidated and unconsolidated sandstones.
Table 1 lists a few of the dry rock models and their constants that are considered as fitting parameter
here. The second category of methods address the dependence of dry-rock moduli on variations of
effective stress and is not discussed here. In 4D applications, both dependencies should be captured
simultaneously to ensure realistic estimations of the seismic response to both fluid saturation and pore
pressure changes. In this study, wireline log data was used to characterise the lithologic dependence of
the dry-rock elastic moduli with the focus on the first category of the methods. Here, I used the
calibration algorithms proposed by Amini (2018) in which both the solid minerals and dry rock elastic
moduli in sand-shale mixtures were calibrated simultaneously. This approach allowed me to correlate
the dry rock fitting parameters with lithology. Models proposed by Xu & White (1995), Key & Xu
(2002), and Nur (1995) were calibrated over 10 wells in a turbidite sandstone reservoir in the West of
Shetland Basin. The data comprises of total of 2500 m logged interval within the reservoir. The fitting
parameter for these models are effective aspect ratio (Sams and Andrea, 2003) for the first two models
and critical porosity for the latter. The aspect ratios were linked to bulk and shear moduli through shape
factors P and Q. The relationship between P and Q and aspect ratio for different pore shapes are given
in Rock Physics Handbook (Mavko, Mukerji, Dvorkin, 2009). Considering that the values for P & Q
are different, this leads to the ratio of 𝜅𝑑𝑟𝑦 ⁄𝜅𝑚 being different from 𝜇𝑑𝑟𝑦 ⁄𝜇𝑚 . In most of the rock

80th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2018

11-14 June 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark
 Table 1 Three models for dry rock elastic moduli. The equations for shear modulus are not shown.
Fitting parameter
Equation Reference
Symbol Values for sand(S) / shale(SH)

𝜅𝑑𝑟𝑦 = 𝜅𝑚 (1 − 𝜙⁄𝜙𝑐 ) Nur (1995) 𝜙𝑐 𝜙𝑐𝑆 = 0.35 − 0.4

(1 − 𝜙) 𝑑𝜅𝑑𝑟𝑦 ⁄𝑑𝜅𝑑𝑟𝑦 = 𝑃(𝛼)(𝜅𝑚 − 𝜅𝑑𝑟𝑦 ) Xu & white (1995) 𝛼 𝛼 𝑆 = 0.12, 𝛼 𝑆𝐻 = 0.02 − 0.05

𝜅𝑑𝑟𝑦 = 𝜅𝑚 (1 − 𝜙)𝑃(𝛼) Keys & Xu (2002) 𝛼 𝛼 𝑆 = 0.1, 𝛼 𝑆𝐻 = 0.04

physics applications, the normalised bulk and shear modulus ratios are assumed to be equal (Smith
2011). Vernik and Kachanov (2010) also suggest that the shaping factors P and Q are very similar. To
assess the implications of these assumptions, I extended Nur’s model by assigning two independent
critical porosities for bulk and shear moduli (fourth model).

Results and discussion

The calibration method (Amini 2018) makes use of Hashin-Shtrikman mixing between non-clay and
wet-clay components. This is followed by the application the four dry rock models mentioned above
using effective porosity. Finally, Gassmann’s model was used to calculate the saturated bulk modulus.
In addition to calibration of the fitting parameters of the dry rock models, this algorithm allows
calibrating the solid mineral elastic moduli for non-clay and wet-clay components. The outputs of this
calibration algorithm is a combination of mineral’s elastic moduli that gives the best match to measured
bulk and shear moduli its corresponding fitting parameter could be correlated with lithology. A piece-
wise linear correlation between the fitting parameters and effective porosity was calculated. The misfit
is evaluated between the modelled and observed saturated bulk and shear moduli. Table 2 shows the
output of the calibration model over 10 wells. Compared to Nur’s model, models based on the aspect
ratio tend to give the best match using higher bulk modulus and lower shear modulus for sand fraction.
It should be noted that the optimised values for sand are different from elastic moduli of quartz (κ=37,
μ=44 GPa) that are typically assigned to sand fraction (see Amini 2018 for more details).

Figure 1shows the application of parameters from Table 2 to one of the wells. Note that only one well
was shown here due to space limitations, and if the calibration algorithm was ran over this individual
well, the quality of the predicted curves would have been further improved. It is observed that once the
four models were calibrated, all could predict the observed bulk and shear moduli reasonably well.
However, the results of the critical porosity model were slightly better. The extension of Nur’s model
to independent critical porosities for bulk and shear moduli somewhat enhances the match. The
optimised critical porosity for high porosity sands are about 0.35-0.4 and the increase in clay content

Bulk modulus Shear modulus Density c1, c2, c3, c4, c5

(GPa) (GPa) (gr/cc)
sand wet-clay sand wet-clay sand wet-clay
Xu-White 44 12 17 4 2.65 2.34 0.026, 0.915, 0.192, 0, 0.183
Keys-Xu 40 12 14 3 2.65 2.34 0.033, 1.745, 0.352, 0, 0.183
Nur [ϕC] 35 12 24 4 2.65 2.34 0.05, 1.54, 0.26, 0.38, 0.182
Nur[ϕCκ,ϕCμ ] 32 12 18 3 2.65 2.34 Κ: 0.114, 1.475, 0.384, 0, 0.183
μ: 0.193, 1.292, 0.429, 0, 0.183

Table 2 The optimized minerals’ elastic parameters using 10 wells. Each α,ϕc
model gives the best match to the elastic log data using different
mineral’s elastic properties. C1-C5 are the coefficients of piece-wise
linear regression over the optimized fitting parameter(s) for each dry
rock model.
c5 ϕ

80th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2018

11-14 June 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark
 Saturated Bulk Modulus (GPa) Dry Shear Modulus (GPa)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i)

Xu-White Keys & Xu Nur-1 Nur-2 Xu-White Keys & Xu Nur-1 Nur-2

Fitting Parameter
(j) (k) (l) (m) (n)

Figure 1 (b)-(i) red curves show the

modelled elastic moduli. (j)-(n) the
red circles show the optimised
fitting parameters. The black curves
are the result of piece-wise linear
regression of the optimised fitting
parameters with effective porosity.

Xu-White Keys & Xu Nur-1 Nur-2 Nur-2

αe αe ØC ØC-κ ØC-μ
φC-κ
φC
αXW

φe φe φe
φC-μ
αKX

φe φe
Figure 2 The optimised fitting parameters versus effective porosity. The colour-bar shows the density
of data points in the plots. The white broken line shows the result of piece-wise linear regression. αXW,
αKX, φC, φC-κ, φC-κ are the effective aspect ratio for Xu-White, Keys- Xu, and the critical porosity for
Nur, and individual critical porosities for extended Nur’s models respectively. The dashed line shows
the critical porosity for the bulk modulus for comparison.
80th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2018
11-14 June 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark
 reduces this value. The critical porosities optimised separately for shear modulus are slightly higher
than the ones for the bulk modulus. The optimised effective aspect ratio from Xu-White model for high
porosity sands are about 0.2 and the increase in clay content reduces this value. The aspect ratios from
Keys-Xu model show a large scatter and do not agree well with Xu-white model. The cross plots of the
optimised fitting parameters versus effective porosity are shown in Figure 2. The least scatter is
observed in the fitting parameters of Xu-White and Nur’s model (with single critical porosity). The
calibration algorithm used here also sheds light on the non-uniqueness challenge mentioned earlier.
Figure 3 shows the misfit surface for different combinations of the minerals’ elastic moduli for one of
the wells. While the optimum values are highlighted as white circles, the misfit surface do not have a
localised minimum. In other words, other combinations of elastic moduli within the blue bands could
also match the logs with a reasonable quality. However, another combination implies a different set of
optimised values for the fitting parameters. For example, if the combinations A or B were chosen in
Figure 3b, the optimum aspect ratio for high porosity sands would be 0.28 and 0.15 respectively. This
stresses the point made earlier on the interpretational significance of the fitting parameters using similar
methods. Such parameters should be considered mainly as a fitting parameters instead of attributing
them to the actual microstructure of the rock.
(a) |κ-κ*| (Gpa) (b) |κ-κ*| (Gpa) (c) |κ-κ*| (Gpa) (d) |κ-κ*| (Gpa)
A

(e) |μ-μ*| (Gpa) (f) |μ-μ*| (Gpa) (g) |μ-μ*| (Gpa) (h) |μ-μ*| (Gpa)

Figure 3 (a)-(d) The misfit surface for several combinations of the mineral’s bulk modulus (sand and
wet-clay) for Xu-White, Keys-Xu, Nur, and extended Nur’s models respectively. (e)-(f) similar plots to
(a)-(d) for shear modulus.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank BP for providing the log data and Ambuj Tyagi for the Petrophysical Evaluation and
Edinburgh Time Lapse Project Phase VI sponsors for supporting this research.

References
 Amini, H. (2018). Calibration of mineral and dry rock elastic moduli in sand-shale mixtures. Submitted to 80th
EAGE conference, Copenhagen.
 Ruiz, F. and Dvorkin, J. (2010). Predicting elasticity in nonclastic rocks with a differential effective medium
model. GEOPHYSICS, 75(1), E41-E53.
 Keys, R.G. and Xu, S.Y. (2002). An approximation for the Xu–White velocity model. Geophysics (67).
 Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., & Dvorkin, J. (2009). The Rock Physics Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge
University
 Sams, M.S. and Andrea, M. (2001). The effect of clay distribution on the elastic properties of sandstones
Geophys. Prospect. 49 128–50
 Nur, A.M., Mavko, G., Dvorkin, J. and Gal, D. (1995). Critical porosity: The key to relating physical
properties to porosity in rocks. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1995: pp. 878-881.
 Smith, T.M. (2011). Practical seismic petrophysics: The effective use of log data for seismic analysis. TLE, 30.
 Vernik, L. and Kachanov, M. (2010). Modeling elastic properties of siliciclastic rocks. GEOPHYSICS, 75(6),
 Xu, S. and White, R.E. (1995). A new velocity for clay sand mixtures Geophys. Prospect. 43 91–118

80th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2018

11-14 June 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark

View publication stats