GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 81, NO. 4 (JULY-AUGUST 2016); P. L27–L33, 3 FIGS., 2 TABLES.
10.1190/GEO2015-0625.1
Downloaded 07/13/16 to 178.250.250.21. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Biot coefficient is distinct from effective pressure coefficient
Tobias M. Müller1 and Pratap N. Sahay2
ABSTRACT
Within the Biot poroelasticity theory, the effective pres-
sure coefficient for the bulk volume of a fluid-saturated
rock and the Biot coefficient are one and the same quantity.
The effective pressure coefficient for the bulk volume is
the change of confining pressure with respect to fluid-
pressure changes when the bulk volume is held constant.
The Biot coefficient is the fluid volume change induced
by bulk volume changes in the drained condition. How-
ever, there is experimental evidence showing a differ-
ence between these two coefficients, arguably caused
by microinhomogeneities, such as microcracks and other
compliant pore-scale features. In these circumstances,
we advocate using the generalized constitutive pressure
equations recently developed by Sahay wherein the effec-
tive pressure coefficient and the Biot coefficient enter
as distinct quantities. Therein, the difference is attributed
to the porosity effective pressure coefficient that serves
as a measure for the deviation from the Biot prediction
and accounts for microinhomogeneities. We have con-
cluded that these generalized constitutive pressure equa-
tions offer a meaningful alternative to model observed
rock behavior.
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge of the effective pressure coefficient for the bulk vol-
ume of consolidated rocks is important for reservoir geomechanics
analyses. It is often used in formation evaluation and sand produc-
tion prediction (Klimentos et al., 1998), hydrocarbon reserve recov-
ery calculations (Miskimins et al., 2004), and reservoir stress
path modeling (Altmann et al., 2010). In general, the effective pres-
sure coefficient is key for understanding and quantifying tectonic
Manuscript received by the Editor 13 November 2015; revised manuscript received 14 March 2016; published online 15 June 2016; corrected version pub-
lished online 7 July 2016.
1
CSIRO Energy, Kensington, Australia. E-mail: tobias.mueller@csiro.au.
2
CICESE, Department of Seismology, Ensenada, Mexico. E-mail: pratap@cicese.mx.
© 2016 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
L27
stresses (Schmitt and Zoback, 1989; Jaeger et al., 2007). The Biot
coefficient in turn is key for seismic analysis of porous media and
fluid substitution problems (Mavko et al., 2009).
The effective pressure coefficient for the bulk volume originates
in the principle of effective stress formulated by Terzaghi (1923,
1926). He defines the pressure seated in the solid frame of a porous
matrix as the effective pressure for the bulk volume and suggests it
to be the weighted difference of the confining or total pressure pc
and the pore or interstitial fluid pressure pf . He postulates that the
volumetric deformation ϵ of a fluid-saturated porous matrix is gov-
erned by this effective pressure as
pc − Npf ∝ −ϵ: (1)
|fflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflffl}
Effective pressure for bulk volume
Clearly, the parameter N is ð∂pc ∕∂pf Þjϵ¼0 , i.e., the ratio of the
changes in confining to fluid pressure provided the bulk volume
of porous matrix remains unchanged. This gives its name “effective
pressure coefficient for the bulk volume.” Terzaghi speculates that
this nondimensional parameter is close to one (see Bishop and
Blight [1963] and section 2.8 in Wang [2000]).
Biot (1941) formulates a poroelasticity theory based on an equi-
librium thermodynamics approach involving the concept of an elas-
tic energy potential. His first constitutive relation implies that
volumetric changes induced by changes in the confining pressure
and fluid pressure are governed by their weighted difference (Biot
[1941] — his equation 2.8 is reproduced here adopting the notation
used in Wang [2000]):
pc − αpf ¼ −K 0 ϵ; (2)
where K 0 is the bulk modulus of the drained porous frame. In the
light of Terzaghi’s effective pressure (equation 1), the Biot coeffi-
cient α emerges as effective pressure coefficient for the bulk vol-
ume, ð∂pc ∕∂pf Þjϵ¼0 . The second of Biot’s constitutive relations
asserts that the bulk volume changes if the fluid pressure and/or
the increment of fluid content ζ change (Biot [1949], equation 2.9):
 L28 Müller and Sahay
1 f
− p ¼ αϵ − ζ; (3)
M dal et al. (2009) measure the bulk volume effective pressure coef-
where M is the fluid-storage coefficient. The increment of fluid con-
tent ζ is a kinematic measure of deformation and signifies the fluid
volume imported into a control volume normalized by the control
Downloaded 07/13/16 to 178.250.250.21. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
volume (Wang, 2000). Equation 3 implies that the volume of ex-
pelled fluid is proportional to the bulk volume change when the
porous material is compressed in drained condition (pf ¼ 0), and
ð∂ζ∕∂ϵÞjpf ¼0 yields the Biot coefficient α. Therefore, from the very
outset, in Biot’s poroelasticity theory, the effective pressure coeffi-
cient for the bulk volume read off from equation 2 is the same as the
Biot coefficient defined through equation 3. The cause for this
coincidence is rooted in Biot’s specific choice for the elastic energy
potential which renders the equality ð∂pc ∕∂pf Þjϵ¼0 ¼ ð∂ζ∕∂ϵÞjpf ¼0
(Biot [1941], equation 2.7; see also Wang [2000], p. 19).
The form of Biot’s constitutive pressure equations is thought to
hold true for microinhomogeneous porous media, as can be inferred
from the work of Berryman and Milton (1991) and in accordance
with the notion of microinhomogeneity introduced earlier by Brown
and Korringa (1975). This stipulates that the Biot coefficient is the
bulk volume effective pressure coefficient regardless of the presence
or absence of microinhomogeneities. This coincidence is also sup-
ported by some laboratory experiments (Laurent et al., 1993). How-
ever, more recent experimental investigations have repeatedly
revealed that depending on the measurement protocol, different val-
ues for the Biot coefficient and the effective pressure coefficient are
obtained (Hettema and de Pater, 1998; Wu, 1999; Al-Tahini et al.,
2005; Omdal et al., 2009; Blöcher et al., 2014). Such observed
differences have led to the conclusion that the Biot poroelasticity
framework does not well describe the pore-volume changes in rocks
Table 1. Definitions of the various poroelastic constants. A porous sample is
composed out of a solid phase occupying in its undeformed state, the solid
volume V s0 , and a fluid phase residing in the pore volume V p0 so that the
unperturbed bulk volume is V b0
V s0  V p0 . The moduli are defined in terms
of the confining pc and fluid pressure pf , and the kinematic measures of
deformation are the bulk strain ϵ, the increment of fluid content ζ, and
porosity η.
Poroelastic constants Symbol
Porosity of undeformed rock η0
Solid-phase bulk modulus 1
Ks − V1s
Drained frame bulk modulus 1
K0 − V b ∂pc 
Unjacketed bulk modulus 1
K s0 − V1b ∂V∂pf  c f
Decrement of elasticity δKs 1 − ð1−ηK00ÞKs
Microinhomogeneity parameter n Equation 15


∂ζ 
Biot coefficient α ∂ϵ  ¼ η0 þ ð1 − η0 ÞδKs
p ¼0
f

∂pc 
Effective pressure coefficient α⋆ ∂pf 
¼ η0 þ ð1 − η0 ÞδKs n
ϵ¼0
Note: In the framework of Biot’s theory n ¼ 1 and α ¼
3
α⋆ .
with a complex microstructure (Hettema and de Pater, 1998). Om-
ficient for high-porosity (>40%) chalks using constant bulk volume
tests wherein the confining and fluid pressure are varied such that
the bulk volume remains unchanged (i.e., ð∂pc ∕∂pf Þjϵ¼0 ). These
coefficients are significantly smaller than the coefficients obtained
from the measured drained rock bulk modulus and the estimated
solid-phase bulk modulus K s . Do these experimental insights pro-
vide enough evidence to conclude that the Biot coefficient is differ-
ent from the effective pressure coefficient for the bulk volume? If
this is true, then important implications will arise for the modeling
of porous rock behavior using Biot’s constitutive pressure
equations.
It is the purpose of this paper to shed light onto the origin of the
discrepancy between the Biot coefficient and the effective pressure
coefficient for the bulk volume in linear and isotropic poroelasticity.
To do so, we analyze the constitutive pressure equations developed
by Sahay (2013). Within this framework, there is a clear distinction
made between the Biot coefficient and the effective pressure coef-
ficient for the bulk volume. We show that this distinction is required
when the rock does not deform in a self-similar manner during a
hydrostatic compression (so-called unjacketed) experiment. The lat-
ter implies that the underlying porosity change is not only governed
by the differential pressure (pc − pf ) but also by the confining pres-
sure. Such a behavior is expected for rocks wherein microinhomo-
geneities cause a localization of the deformational potential energy
during deformation. Accordingly, we show that the difference be-
tween the Biot coefficient and the effective pressure coefficient is
proportional to the microinhomogeneity parameter.
BIOT POROELASTICITY
FRAMEWORK
Biot coefficient as effective pressure
coefficient for the bulk volume
The Biot constitutive pressure equations re-
lated to bulk volume deformation (volumetric
strain ϵ) for a homogeneous and isotropic poroe-
lastic solid can be presented as (Biot and Willis
[1957]; Wang [2000], equations 2.24, 2.25)
Definition
V p0
−pc ¼ K 0 ϵ − αpf (4)
V b0

∂V s 

∂pf pc ¼pf 1 f
0
 − p ¼ αϵ − ζ; (5)
 M
1 ∂V b 
0
 p ¼0
f
where α is the Biot coefficient, M is the fluid
 storage coefficient, and K 0 is the drained frame
b
0
p ¼p bulk modulus. The definitions of the poroelastic
parameters are provided in Table 1. The incre-
ment of fluid content ζ appears as an additional
deformation variable. The first of these pressure
equations is a statement of the effective stress
principle in poroelasticity and reveals that the ef-
fective pressure coefficient for the bulk volume is
the Biot coefficient. Indeed, if V b0 and V b denote
the bulk volume before and after the deformation
took place and assuming that their difference
 Effective pressure coefficient L29

V b − V b0 is sufficiently small so that linear poroelasticity applies, K0

then the volumetric strain is ϵ ¼ ðV b − V b0 Þ∕V b0 . Hence, the pres-
1− ≡ α⋆ ; (10)
K s0
sure equation 4 can be rearranged as
where we used the superscript star to distinguish it from α defined in
V b − V b0 1 equation 7. Some authors refer to it as αind because it is determined indi-
− ¼ ðpc − αpf Þ; (6) rectly from measurements of K 0 and K s0 (Al-Tahini et al., 2005; Blöcher
V b0 K0
Downloaded 07/13/16 to 178.250.250.21. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

et al., 2014). Noting the definitions 8 and 9, α⋆ can be represented as

from where the effective pressure coefficient of the bulk volume can
be directly read off.
Porous media that are heterogeneous at the pore-scale level and
nonetheless homogeneous and isotropic at the macroscale are be-
lieved to be described within the above macroscopic poroelasticity
framework too. Microinhomogeneity could be caused by rock
frames that are made out of different grains, by pore walls with com-
plex morphology, or by microscopic particles residing in the fluid
phase. For such microinhomogeneous porous media, Brown and
Korringa (1975) deduce the corresponding poroelastic moduli.
Then, the coefficients α and M in equations 4 and 5 change, but
the form of the constitutive pressure equations remains unaltered
(Berryman and Milton, 1991; Lopatnikov and Cheng, 2002; Cheng
and Abousleiman, 2008). Specifically, the Biot coefficient changes
in both pressure equations in the same way (Berryman and Milton
[1991], equations 5, 6, and 17; Lopatnikov and Cheng [2002],
equations 88 and 89; Cheng and Abousleiman [2008], equations
38 and 39). This means that the Biot coefficient is identical with
the effective pressure coefficient for the bulk volume even if the
poroelastic solid is deemed to be microinhomogeneous (Berryman,
1992; Cheng and Abousleiman, 2008).
Biot coefficient from direct and indirect measurements
In view of equation 5, the Biot coefficient is defined as the ratio of
changes in the increment of fluid content due to volumetric strain
changesinadrainedexperiment(seealsoWang,[2000],equation2.26):
 K s could be obtained by applying the same load on the inner and
∂ζ 
≡ α: (7)
∂ϵpf ¼0
Determining α under this drained condition is sometimes referred to as
direct measurement, and some authors denote this as αdir (Al-Tahini
et al., 2005; Blöcher et al., 2014). Correspondingly, there exists an indi-
rect measurement for α. It consists of determining the drained frame
bulk modulus K 0 and the unjacketed bulk modulus K s0 . The former
isobtained by monitoring the change of the bulkvolume duetoa change
in the differential pressure (pd ¼ pc − pf Þ in the drained condition
 equation 12 results into a single, macroscopic solid-phase bulk
1 ∂V b  1 modulus (Brown and Korringa [1975], p. 614). Taken altogether,
− ≡ (8)
V b0 ∂pd pf ¼0 K 0
and the latter is obtained from the hydrostatic compression test wherein
the differential pressure vanishes
 from a hydrostatic compression experiment wherein the change of
1 ∂V b  1
−  ≡ 0: (9)
V b0 ∂p pd ¼0 K s
f
These two measurements are then used to define (Wang [2000], equa-
tion 3.67)


∂ϵ 
∂pf 
∂ðpd ;ϵÞ  
pd ¼0 ∂ðpd ;pf Þ ∂pd  ∂pc 
α⋆ ¼1−  ¼1þ ¼ 1 þ f ¼ :

∂ϵ 
∂ðpf ;ϵÞ ∂p ϵ¼0 ∂pf ϵ¼0
∂ðpd ;pf Þ
∂pd  f
p ¼0
(11)
Here ∂ðu; vÞ∕∂ðx; yÞ denotes the functional determinant and we
made use of its properties ∂ðu; yÞ∕∂ðx; yÞ ¼ ∂u∕∂xjy¼const and
∂ðv; uÞ∕∂ðx; yÞ ¼ −∂ðu; vÞ∕∂ðx; yÞ (Landau and Lifshitz [1980],
§ 16). Equation 11 implies the changes in the confining pressure due
to a change of fluid pressure while keeping the bulk volume constant
yields to the Biot coefficient (equation 10). Determining the Biot co-
efficient, this way is consistent with the constitutive pressure equation 4
from which we deduced the effective pressure coefficient for the bulk
volume (see previous subsection). Hence, α⋆ is identified as the effec-
tive pressure coefficient for the bulk volume.
Biot coefficient and Gassmann’s self-similarity
assumption
Another insight into the Biot coefficient comes from the work of
Gassmann (1951). Equation 7 implies that a change of the incre-
ment of fluid content due to a change in the bulk volume at zero
fluid pressure can only depend on the mechanical properties of the
porous frame and on the solid grains that constitute this frame. The
bulk modulus associated with the porous frame is the drained frame
bulk modulus K 0 (equation 8). The bulk modulus of the solid-phase
outer surfaces of the porous frame. It is thus determined in hydro-
static compression experiment (pc ¼ pf , i.e., pd ¼ 0) wherein the
change of the solid volume V s is monitored

1 1 ∂V s 
≡− : (12)
Ks V s0 ∂pf pd ¼0
Even if individual grains constituting the rock frame possess differ-
ent stiffnesses (thereby rendering the rock microinhomogeneous),
then the deformation experiment described by the right side of
this stipulates that the Biot coefficient obtained from the direct mea-
?
surement would be α¼1 − K 0 ∕K s . Conversely, the experiment
described by the right side of equation 11 implies that the confining
and the fluid pressure change, and both phases take part in the de-
formation process. Hence, the unjacketed bulk modulus is obtained
the bulk volume is monitored (equation 9). Therefore, the outcomes
of hydrostatic compression tests depend on which volume change is
monitored. In general, K s ≠ K s0 . The only exception is a self-similar
deformation wherein the relative changes in the bulk and solid
volume are identical,
 L30 Müller and Sahay

V b − V b0 V s − V s0 tinuum. These fundamental pressure equations for the solid and

¼ ;
V b0 V s0
and thus, K s ¼ K s0 . This is precisely the assumption Gassmann
(1951) makes in the development of his theory for the undrained
Downloaded 07/13/16 to 178.250.250.21. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
(13)
fluid phases contain a porosity perturbation term (Sahay, 2013,
equations 8 and 9). Eliminating this porosity perturbation term
by making use of the porosity perturbation, equation 15 gives
the pressure equations

bulk modulus (his equation 45). Nur and Byerlee (1971) also assert
that their expression for bulk volume effective pressure coefficient −pc ¼ K 0 ϵ − ðη0 þ ð1 − η0 ÞδKs nÞpf (16)
is only valid if the unjacketed bulk modulus coincides with the
solid-phase bulk modulus.
1 f
Based on the above considerations, the following picture − p ¼ ðη0 þ ð1 − η0 ÞδKs Þϵ − ζ: (17)
emerges. The way the Biot coefficient is embedded in the constit- M⋆
utive pressure equations 4 and 5 is a consequence of the specific
form of the elastic energy potential and imposes that α ¼ α⋆ . In Herein, the fluid storage coefficient is ð1∕M⋆ Þ ¼ ðη0 ∕K f Þ þ
the light of Gassmann’s theory, it means that this coincidence ð1 − η0 ÞδKs n∕K s . By setting n ¼ 1, the Biot framework is recov-
can also be understood as a consequence of the self-similar defor- ered. We note that the porosity perturbation equation 15 and the
mation assumption. On the other hand, relaxing the assumption of subsequent pressure equations 16 and 17 are rooted in the vol-
self-similar deformation (equation 13) implies that K s ≠ K s0 and ume-averaging-based framework of poroelasticity originally devel-
thus, α ≠ α⋆ . This is not reconcilable with the pressure equations 4 oped by de la Cruz and Spanos (1985) and further developed by
and 5. Therefore, two questions arise: First, is there any experimen- Sahay et al. (2001).
tal evidence that falsifies the coincidence α ¼ α⋆ (i.e., are there
differences in the Biot coefficients obtained from direct and indirect Connection with α and α⋆
measurements), or is the self-similarity assumption generally valid
It remains to establish a connection between the pressure equa-
for porous rocks? Second, because a non-self-similar deformation is
tions 16 and 17 and α⋆ and α. Using equations 11 and 16, it follows
possible in general, what would be the corresponding poroelastic
that
framework in which α and α⋆ enter the constitutive pressure equa-
tions as distinguishable quantities? 
⋆∂pc  equation 16
α ≡ f ¼ η0 þ ð1 − η0 ÞδKs n: (18)
∂p ϵ¼0
THE GENERALIZED POROELASTICITY
FRAMEWORK However, using the definition 7, α can be directly obtained from the
The Sahay (2013) constitutive pressure equations pressure equation 17:

According to Sahay (2013), the decrement of the solid-phase ∂ζ  equation 17
bulk modulus δKs and the microinhomogeneity parameter n are fun- α≡  ¼ η0 þ ð1 − η0 ÞδKs : (19)
∂ϵ pf ¼0
damental parameters of the quasi-static poroelasticity theory (i.e.,
for hydrostatic deformations of a poroelastic solid). The δKs param-
eter links the drained frame bulk modulus to the solid-phase bulk Furthermore, it is expedient to express α⋆ and α in terms of the
modulus relevant bulk moduli. To do so, we note that the right side of equa-
tion 18 is obtained by using the expression for the unjacketed bulk
K 0 ¼ ð1 − η0 Þð1 − δKs ÞK s where 0 ≤ δKs ≤ 1: (14) modulus (equation 20 in Müller and Sahay, 2013),
 
It can be viewed as a measure of decrement of elasticity. The param- 1 1 δK s
¼ 1 þ ð1 − nÞ : (20)
eter n arises as an effective pressure coefficient for the porosity. In- K s0 K s 1 − δK s
deed, the underpinning porosity perturbation equation for quasi-
static deformations of linear and isotropic poroelastic materials If n ≠ 1, this expression yields to K s ≠ K s0 , as is the case for porous
in this framework is (Sahay [2013], equation 30) media undergoing a non-self-similar deformation possibly caused
  by microinhomogeneities. Therefore, n is called the microinhomo-
ð1 − η0 ÞδKs
η − η0 ¼ − p − ðη0 þ ð1 − η0 ÞnÞp ; (15)
c f geneity parameter. Eliminating K s from equation 20 using equa-
K0 |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} tion 14 yields to η0 þ ð1 − η0 ÞδKs n ¼ 1 − K 0 ∕K s0 , i.e., the right-
χ
hand side of equation 18. Thus, we obtain
from where the effective pressure coefficient χ for the porosity can
be read off. This points to the origin of n as the rescaled effective
K0
α⋆ ¼ 1 − : (21)
pressure coefficient for porosity, n ¼ ðχ − η0 Þ∕ð1 − η0 Þ. For hydro- K s0
static deformations, the positivity of K s0 requires that nδKs ≤ 1, as
can be inferred from equation 20 in Müller and Sahay (2013). This coincides with equation 10, the indirect measurement. In con-
Therefore, n has a narrower upper bound n ≤ 1∕δKs in addition trast, comparing the right side of equation 19 with equation 14, we
to its known range of values 0 ≤ n ≤ K s ∕K f (Sahay, 2013). find that the Biot coefficient determined by the direct measurement
To derive pressure equations, Sahay (2013) uses the macroscopic ∂ζ∕∂ϵjpf ¼0 is composed out of the drained frame and solid-phase
continuity equations specialized to a biphasic solid-fluid con- bulk modulus
 Effective pressure coefficient L31

K0 In the reminder of this paper, we analyze experimental data in which

α¼1− : (22) a difference between α and α⋆ has been found. Equation 23 enables
Ks
us to directly compute the microinhomogeneity parameter from
Therefore, we have established that the poroelastic framework given measurements of α, α⋆ , and porosity η0.
by the pressure equations 16 and 17 contains the indirect and direct
Biot coefficients as distinguishable quantities. Because α⋆ has been
Downloaded 07/13/16 to 178.250.250.21. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

LABORATORY DATA MODELING

identified as the bulk volume effective stress coefficient, it follows
that the Biot coefficient α can be indeed distinct from the bulk vol-
ume effective pressure coefficient. This is different from the Biot
framework wherein α ¼ α⋆ always holds true. However, it has be-
come apparent that such a distinction is necessary if the porous
material undergoes a non-self-similar deformation. The violation
of a self-similar deformation is typically associated with microin-
homogeneous porous materials. Thus, the microinhomogeneity
parameter n (which makes α and α⋆ different) can be used to quan-
tify the difference.
Violation of the self-similarity assumption and the
microinhomogeneity parameter
Without specifying any microgeometry, we note that a self-sim-
ilar deformation requires that the deformational potential energy is
uniform within the deformed rock sample. Any localization of the
deformational potential energy implies a non-self-similar deforma-
tion and hence a difference between α and α⋆ . We can envisage
many microinhomogeneity scenarios that lead to a violation of
the self-similarity assumption. For example, because microinhomo-
geneities can be present in the form of stiffness fluctuations in the
pore space of the rock (say, solid particles dispersed at pore scale),
K s0 is expected to depend on the fluid bulk modulus K f , whereas K s
cannot depend on K f .
A measure for the degree of microinhomogeneity is the micro-
inhomogeneity parameter n. From the above discussion, we expect
that the difference between α and α⋆ is proportional to the degree of
microinhomogeneity and thus n. Subtracting α⋆ (equation 18) from
α (equation 19) and solving for n yields (see also Müller and Sahay
[2014], equation 12)
α − α⋆
n¼1− : (23)
α − η0
The microinhomogeneity parameter from static
deformation experiments
Al-Tahini et al. (2005) measure the direct and indirect Biot co-
efficients (i.e., αdir ¼ α and αind ¼ α⋆ ) for a suite of Berea sand-
stone samples. They find instances where αdir ≠ αind and in 9
out of 10 samples αind > αdir . The largest difference is αind − αdir ¼
0.25 for a sample with porosity η0 ¼ 20.2% (their measurement val-
ues are reproduced in Figure 1). They observe that the difference
increases with porosity. For the high-porosity samples, n becomes
as large as 1.63.
Blöcher et al. (2014) measure a comprehensive set of poroelastic
parameters for Bentheimer sandstone in the differential pressure
range between 0 and 70 MPa. Their direct measurement of the Biot
coefficient (αdir ¼ α) involves measurements of the pore volume
change in connection with bulk volume changes in drained condi-
tion and thus is in accordance with definition 7. Their indirect meas-
urement involves the drained and unjacketed bulk modulus, and,
according to definition 10 correspond to αind ¼ α⋆ . Most notably,
αdir and αind differ over the whole range of applied differential pres-
sure. This difference is largest at low (<10 MPa) and high
(>60 MPa) differential pressures (see Figure 2, where the mean val-
ues of the Blöcher et al. data are reproduced; for the measurement
error estimation, we refer to Figure 4 in Blöcher et al., 2014). They
point out that the largest uncertainty is associated with αdir due to
the measurement error of the pore volume obtained from the amount
of fluid expelled due to bulk volume changes.
In Figure 3, we show the estimated microinhomogeneity param-
eter for four different sandstones. The n-values for Fontainebleau
sandstone (purple dots) are obtained from the measurements of
Sulem and Offroukh (2006). The n-values for Felser sandstone (or-
ange dots) are based on the measurements of Hettema and de Pater
(1998). The relatively large difference at pc − pf ≈ 23 MPa and
pc − pf ≈ 36 MPa is due to the use of different samples and due to

1.6 α dir 1
1.5 α ind
1.4 n
0.9
1.3
α dir, α ind, n

1.2
α dir, α ind, n

1.1 0.8
1
0.9 0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6 α dir
0.6
α ind
0.5 n (equation 23)
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.5
Porosity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Differential pressure (MPa)
Figure 1. Measurements for αdir and αind for 10 Berea sandstone
samples of variable porosity (taken from Al-Tahini et al., 2005). Figure 2. Measurements for αdir and αind for Bentheimer sandstone
Also shown is the microinhomogeneity parameter estimation based (taken from Blöcher et al., 2014). The microinhomogeneity param-
on equation 23. eter estimation based on equation 23 is also shown.
 L32 Müller and Sahay
different temperature conditions during the tests (for example, the
drop of n from 0.8 to 0.6 corresponds to an increase of temperature
from 150°C to 200°C). The results for the Berea sandstone (blue
circles) have been discussed in Müller and Sahay (2014, their Fig-
ure 3) and the n-values for Bentheimer sandstone from Figure 2 are
Downloaded 07/13/16 to 178.250.250.21. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
replotted for comparison (green circles).
These data sets suggest that one has to distinguish between αdir
and αind and hence α and α⋆ . Therefore, the above poroelastic
framework in which both quantities are properly embedded and,
most importantly, are treated as independent quantities should be
applicable.
Interpreting the differential pressure dependency
We make an attempt to interpret the difference between αdir and
αind for the data set reported by Blöcher et al. (2014). Using equa-
tion 23, the microinhomogeneity parameter can be evaluated over
the whole range of differential pressures, where we also make use of
the porosity measurements for varying differential pressures. We
obtain values between 0.7 and 0.85 for pd < 60 MPa (see also Fig-
ure 1). Interestingly, the microinhomogeneity parameter shows a
clear differential pressure dependence. It increases with differential
pressure up to pd ≈ 40 MPa. This can be explained as follows. We
assume that microinhomogeneities exist in form of microcracks
causing a deviation from the Biot-Gassmann rock behavior. The
closure of microcracks with the increasing differential pressure also
eliminates the cause of the deviation from the Biot-Gassmann rock
behavior. Thus, n becomes maximum (but still less than unity,
n ≈ 0.85). This microcrack-closure interpretation is supported by
the nonlinear decrease of porosity in the pd range 0–40 MPa ob-
served by Blöcher et al. (2014).
For pd > 40 MPa, the microinhomogeneity parameter decreases
with differential pressure (i.e., the difference between αdir and αind
increases). This means that microinhomogeneities other than the
closed microcracks come into play. One possibility is that compliant
inclusions become load bearing and thus localize the deformational
1.5
Berea
1.4
Felser
1.3 Bentheimer
1.2 Fontainebleau
1.1
1 duced by a bulk volumetric strain will be underestimated. Clearly,
n
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Differential pressure (MPa)
Figure 3. Microinhomogeneity parameter n extracted from static
measurements of poroelastic deformation parameters for different
sandstone (SS) samples. Berea SS from Hart and Wang (2010),
Felser SS from Hettema and de Pater (1998), and Fontainebleau SS
from Sulem and Offroukh (2006). The estimates for the Bentheimer
SS (Figure 2) based on experimental data of Blöcher et al. (2014)
are also shown for comparison. The Biot-Gassmann prediction cor-
responds to n ¼ 1.
potential energy. The existence of compliant features at microscale
would also explain the linear increase of the drained bulk modulus
and linear decrease of porosity for pd > 40 MPa as observed by
Blöcher et al. (2014, their Figure 2).
DISCUSSION
In this paper, we deduce that if the Biot coefficient α is different
from the effective pressure coefficient for the bulk volume α⋆ , then
 
∂ζ  ∂pc 
≠ : (24)
∂ϵpf ¼0 ∂pf ϵ¼0
This inequality is a feature of microinhomogeneous rocks. Because
the corresponding equality ∂ζ∕∂ϵjpf ¼0 ¼ ∂pc ∕∂pf jϵ¼0 is used to re-
duce the number of independent poroelastic parameters by one
(Biot, 1941), it follows that the inequality 24 requires the introduc-
tion of an additional poroelastic parameter. We note that, despite the
introduction of an additional poroelastic parameter to model micro-
inhomogeneous rocks, the approaches of Brown and Korringa
(1975), Berryman and Milton (1991), Lopatnikov and Cheng
(2002), and Cheng and Abousleiman (2008) do satisfy the equality
∂ζ∕∂ϵjpf ¼0 ¼ ∂pc ∕∂pf jϵ¼0 . This points to an internal inconsistency
in these approaches.
Within the generalized poroelasticity framework, due to Sahay
(2013), the incurring parameter is called microinhomogeneity
parameter (n). In case the two differential quotients in equation 24
are directly measured then n can be determined using equation 23.
We note, however, that n can be also extracted from combinations of
other poroelastic measurements as shown in Müller and Sahay
(2014, 2016). The difference between the Biot coefficient and
the effective pressure coefficient for the bulk volume has various
implications. Figure 3 shows a compilation of extracted values
for the microinhomogeneity parameter. The bulk of n-values is less
than unity. This means that the Biot coefficient determined from the
direct measurement is larger than the effective pressure coefficient
for the bulk volume determined from the indirect measurement, α >
α⋆ (see also Figure 2). If one mistakenly interprets the Biot coef-
ficient as effective pressure coefficient for the bulk volume, then one
will underestimate the true effective pressure governing the bulk
volume deformation. If one mistakenly substitutes the bulk volume
effective pressure coefficient for the Biot coefficient into the fluid
pressure equation 5, then the resulting fluid pressure variation in-
the Biot pressure equations 4 and 5 are coupled. This means that, in
case, the rock is microinhomogeneous (n ≠ 1), using either α or α⋆
in both pressure equations does not properly account for the cou-
pling between the pressures pc and pf . Therefore, we think that
commonly used geomechanical software packages based on Biot’s
pressure equations do not accurately predict the coupling of solid
stresses and fluid pressure.
Further implications related to the undrained bulk modulus re-
sulting from the generalized poroelasticity framework have been
discussed in Sahay (2013). Therein, the undrained bulk modulus is
K ⋆ud ¼ K 0 þ αα⋆ M⋆ (25)
with 1∕M⋆ ¼ η0 ∕K f þ ðα⋆ − η0 Þ∕K s . This means that the differ-
ence between the Biot coefficient and the effective pressure coef-
ficient for the bulk volume has also a bearing on the seismic P-wave
 Effective pressure coefficient
velocity at low frequencies. It will be larger than the Biot-Gassmann
⋆ properties of a porous rock on the compressibility of a pore fluid: Geo-
prediction K BG
ud ¼ K 0 þ α M if α < α (that is n > 1) and, vice
2
versa, smaller than the Biot-Gassmann prediction if α > α⋆ (that
is n < 1).
Downloaded 07/13/16 to 178.250.250.21. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
CONLUSIONS
In the Biot framework, the Biot coefficient α and the effective
pressure coefficient for the bulk volume α⋆ are one and the same
quantity. It turns out that this coincidence hinges on the assumption
that the rock deforms in a self-similar manner in a hydrostatic com-
pression experiment. Conversely, it implies that the Biot coefficient
and the effective pressure coefficient are different for non-self-sim-
ilar rock deformation and thus impedes the applicability of the Biot
theory. To overcome this shortcoming, we suggest to use the gener-
alized poroelasticity framework due to Sahay. Therein, α and α⋆ enter
as independent quantities. Thus, this generalized poroelasticity frame-
work is not restricted to self-similar deformation processes; however,
it requires knowledge of the microinhomogeneity parameter. The lat-
ter is a proxy for the underlying porosity changes that are then not
only governed by the differential pressure but also by an effective
pressure. This microinhomogeneity parameter can be estimated from
what is typically referred to as direct and indirect measurements of the
Biot coefficient in quasi-static pressure cell experiments. Several ex-
perimental data examples point to the intriguing observation that the
Biot coefficient is different from the effective pressure coefficient of
the bulk volume. More experimental investigations will be needed to
understand if this difference only occurs in exceptional circumstances
or is a more common rock deformation feature than previously
thought.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the financial support of CICESE projects
641174 and 644293.
REFERENCES
Al-Tahini, A. M., Y. N. Abousleiman, and J. L. Brumley, 2005, Acoustic and
quasi-static laboratory measurement and calibration of the pore pressure
prediction coefficient in the poroelastic theory: Presented at the SPE An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers, SPE 95825.
Altmann, J., T. M. Müller, B. I. R. Müller, M. R. P. Tingay, and O. Heidbach,
2010, Poroelastic contribution to the reservoir stress path: International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, 47, 1104–1113, doi:
10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.08.001.
Berryman, J. G., 1992, Effective stress for transport properties of inhomo-
geneous porous rock: Journal of Geophysical Research, 97, 409–417, doi:
10.1029/92JB01593.
Berryman, J. G., and G. W. Milton, 1991, Exact results for generalized Gass-
mann’s equation in composite porous media with two constituents: Geo-
physics, 56, 1950–1960, doi: 10.1190/1.1443006.
Biot, M. A., 1941, General theory of three-dimensional consolidation: Jour-
nal of Applied Physics, 12, 155–164, doi: 10.1063/1.1712886.
Biot, M. A., and D. G. Willis, 1957, The elastic coefficients of the theory of
consolidation: Journal of Applied Mechanics, 24, 594–601.
Bishop, A. W., and G. E. Blight, 1963, Some aspects of effective stress in
saturated and partly saturated soils: Géotechnique, 13, 177–197, doi: 10
.1680/geot.1963.13.3.177.
Blöcher, G., T. Reinsch, A. Hassanzadegan, H. Milsch, and G. Zimmer-
mann, 2014, Direct and indirect laboratory measurements of poroelastic
properties of two consolidated sandstones: International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 67, 191–201, doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms
.2013.08.033.
L33
Brown, R. J. S., and J. Korringa, 1975, On the dependence of the elastic
physics, 40, 608–616, doi: 10.1190/1.1440551.
Cheng, A. H.-D., and Y. Abousleiman, 2008, Intrinsic poroelasticity con-
stants and a semilinear model: Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech.,
32, 803–831, doi: 10.1002/nag.647.
de la Cruz, V., and T. J. T. Spanos, 1985, Seismic-wave propagation in
porous medium: Geophysics, 50, 1556–1565, doi: 10.1190/1.1441846.
Gassmann, F., 1951, Über die Elastizität poröser Medien: Vierteljahrsschrift
der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich, 96, 1–23.
Hart, D. J., and H. F. Wang, 2010, Variation of unjacketed pore compress-
ibility using Gassmann’s equation and an overdetermined set of volumet-
ric poroelastic measurements:Geophysics , 75, no. 1N9–N18., doi: 10
.1190/1.3277664.
Hettema, M. H. H., and C. J. de Pater, 1998, The poromechanical behaviour
of Felser sandstone: Stress- and temperature-dependent: SPE/ISRM Rock
Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
SPE/lSRM 47270, 347–355, doi: 10.2118/47270-MS.
Jaeger, J. C., N. G. W. Cook, and R. W. Zimmerman, 2007, Fundamentals of
rock mechanics (4th ed.): Blackwell, 475.
Klimentos, T., A. Harouaka, B. Mtawaa, and S. Saner, 1998, Experimental
determination of the Biot elastic constant: Applications in formation
evaluation (sonic porosity, rock strength, Earth stresses, and sanding pre-
dictions): SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, 1, 57–63, doi: 10
.2118/30593-PA.
Landau, L. D., and E. M. Lifshitz, 1980, Statistical physics (3rd ed.): Per-
gamon Press.
Laurent, J., M. J. Bouteca, J. P. Sarda, and D. Bary, 1993, Pore-pressure in-
fluence in the poroelastic behavior of rocks: Experimental studies and re-
sults: SPE Formation Evaluation, 8, 117–122, doi: 10.2118/20922-PA.
Lopatnikov, S. L., and A. H. -D. Cheng, 2002, Variational formulation of fluid
infiltrated porous material in thermal and mechanical equilibrium: Mech.
Mater., 34, no. 11, 685–704, doi: 10.1016/S0167-6636(02)00168-0.
Mavko, G., T. Mukerji, and J. Dvorkin, 2009, The rock physics handbook:
Tools for seismic analysis of porous media (2nd ed.): Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 511.
Miskimins, J. L., B. A. Ramirez, and R. M. Graves, 2004, The economic value
of information and Biot’s constant: How important are accurate measure-
ments?: Presented at the 6th North America Rock Mechanics Symposium
(NARMS): Rock Mechanics Across Borders and Disciplines, 1–9.
Müller, T. M., and P. N. Sahay, 2013, Porosity perturbations and poroelastic
compressibilities: Geophysics, 78, no. 1, A7–A11, doi: 10.1190/
geo2012-0129.1.
Müller, T. M., and P. N. Sahay, 2014, Solid-phase bulk modulus and micro-
inhomogeneity parameter from quasistatic compression experiments:
Geophysics, 79, no. 6, A51–A55, doi: 10.1190/geo2014-0291.1.
Müller, T. M., and P. N. Sahay, 2016, Generalized poroelasticity framework
for micro-inhomogeneous rocks: Geophysical Prospecting, doi: 10.1111/
1365-2478.12392.
Nur, A., and J. D. Byerlee, 1971, An exact effective stress law for elastic
deformation of rocks with fluid: Journal of Geophysical Research, 76,
6414–6419, doi: 10.1029/JB076i026p06414.
Omdal, E., M. Madland, H. Breivik, K. Naess, R. Korsnes, A. Hiorth, and T.
Kristiansen, 2009, Experimental investigation of the effective stress co-
efficient for various high porosity outcrop chalks: Presented at the
43rd US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 4th U.S.-Canada Rock Me-
chanics Symposium, 1–4.
Sahay, P. N., 2013, Biot constitutive relation and porosity perturbation equa-
tion: Geophysics, 78, no. 5, L57–L67, doi: 10.1190/geo2012-0239.1.
Sahay, P. N., T. J. T. Spanos, and V. de la Cruz, 2001, Seismic wave propa-
gation in inhomogeneous and anisotropic porous media: Geophysical Jour-
nal International, 145, 209–222, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2001.00353.x.
Schmitt, D. R., and M. D. Zoback, 1989, Poroelastic effects in the determi-
nation of the maximum horizontal principal stress in hydraulic fracturing
tests: A proposed breakdown equation employing a modified effective
stress relation for tensile failure: International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Science, 26, 499–506, doi: 10.1016/0148-9062(89)91427-7.
Sulem, J., and H. Ouffroukh, 2006, Hydromechanical behaviour of Fon-
tainebleau sandstone: Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 39,
185–213, doi: 10.1007/s00603-005-0065-4.
Terzaghi, K., 1923, Die Berechnung der Durchlässigkeitsziffern des Tones
aus dem Verlauf der hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungen: Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Sitzungsberichte. Mathematisch na-
turwissenschaftliche Klasse, Abt. 2A, 132, 125–138.
Terzaghi, K., 1926, Principles of soil mechanics: McGraw-Hill.
Wang, H. F., 2000, Theory of linear poroelasticity: Princeton University
Press.
Wu, B., 1999, Evaluation of the Biot effective stress coefficient by different
experimental methods and implication in sand production prediction: Pro-
ceedings of the International Symposium on Coupled Phenomena in
Civil, Mining and Petroleum Engineering, 59–75.