13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023].

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
Geophysical Prospecting, 2020, 68, 955–967 doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12898

Rock physics modelling of porous rocks with multiple pore types:

a multiple-porosity variable critical porosity model
Jiajia Zhang1,2∗ , Yingyao Yin1,2 and Guangzhi Zhang1,2
1 Schoolof Geosciences, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, Shandong, China, and 2 Laboratory for Marine
Mineral Resources, Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology, Qingdao 266071, Shandong, China

Received October 2018, revision accepted October 2019

ABSTRACT
A critical porosity model establishes the empirical relationship between a grain matrix
and a dry rock by the concept of critical porosity. The model is simple and practical
and widely used. But the critical porosity in the model is a fixed value that cannot
relate to pore structure. The aim of this paper is to establish the theoretical relationship
between critical porosity and pore structure by combining Kuster–Toksöz theory with
the critical porosity model. Different from the traditional critical porosity model,
critical porosity is not an empirical value but varied with pore shape and the ratio
of bulk modulus versus shear modulus of the grain matrix. The substitution of the
theoretical relationship into Kuster–Toksöz theory will generate the formulae for the
bulk and shear moduli of multiple-porosity dry rocks, which is named the multiple-
porosity variable critical porosity model. The new model has been used to predict
elastic moduli for sandstone and carbonate rock. We compare the modelling results
for P- and S-wave velocities and elastic moduli with the experimental data. The
comparison shows that the new model can be used to describe the elastic properties
for the rocks with multiple pore types.

Key words: Critical porosity model, Elastic moduli, Kuster–Toksöz theory, Multiple-
porosity, Pore shape.

1 INTRODUCTION those of the dry rock, by using the hard rock data of Raymer,
Hunt and Gardner (1980). Nur (1992) proposed the concept
The elastic moduli of a dry rock are indispensable part in
of critical porosity, which established a linear relationship
the process of rock physics modelling by using Gassmann
between the bulk and shear moduli of the grain matrix and
equations (Gassmann 1951), Biot theory (Biot 1956), squirt
that of the dry rock. Mavko and Mukerji (1998) pointed out
flow theory (Mavko and Jizba 1991) and Biot–squirt theory
there are similarities between the critical porosity models of
(Dvorkin and Nur 1993). At present, the common method of
Nur (1992) and Krief et al. (1990). Pride, Berryman and Har-
dry-rock modelling mainly includes empirical models, theo-
ris (2004) opined that the relationship between the bulk and
retical models and heuristic models.
shear moduli of the grain matrix and those of the dry rock can
Empirical models often construct empirical formulae be-
be established by a consolidation parameter. The consolida-
tween porosity, elastic moduli of a grain matrix and those of
tion parameter relates not only to pore shape but also to the
a dry rock by some appropriate assumptions or statistical re-
ratio of bulk modulus versus shear modulus of the grain ma-
lationships (Li, Zhang and Yao 2013). Krief, Garat, Stelling-
trix. Lee (2006) generalized and modified Pride’s formula for
werff and Ventre (1990) obtained a nonlinear relationship
shear modulus. Zhang, Li, Liu and Cui (2009) applied Krief,
between the bulk and shear moduli of the grain matrix and
Nur and Pride models to Gassmann equations (Gassmann
1951) and checked their accuracy and applicability.
∗ E-mail: zhangjj@upc.edu.cn


C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers 955

956 J. Zhang, Y. Yin and G. Zhang
Theoretical models mainly include the inclusion models
of effective-medium theory. The effective elastic moduli of a
dry rock with different shapes of inclusions (pores) are cal-
culated by different theoretical methods in those inclusion
models. Those models often have strict theoretical basis.
Kuster and Toksöz (1974) derived the expressions for
the bulk and shear moduli of multiple-porosity rock by us-
ing first-order wave scattering theory. It takes account of the
effects of elasticity, volume content and pore shape of inclu-
sions (pores). It has an assumption that a dilute distribution
of randomly oriented non-interacting ellipsoidal inclusions is
injected in background medium. So Kuster–Toksöz theory re-
quires that φ/α has to be much smaller than 1 (where φ is the
concentration or porosity and α is the aspect ratio). To over-
come the limitation on porosity, Xu and White (1995) applied
differential effective-medium (DEM) theory (Berryman 1980)
to it by introducing the pores in steps, each step injecting a
concentration small enough to satisfy the condition φ/α1.
Self-consistent approximations (SCA) model is another pop-
ular method of effective-medium theory. O’Connell and
Budiansky (1974) have given the appropriate equations for
effective medium with higher concentrations of inclusions. In
the approach, one still uses the mathematical solution for the
deformation of isolated inclusions, but the interaction of inclu-
sions is approximated by replacing the background medium
with the as-yet-unknown effective medium. Berryman (1980,
1995) have given a more general form of the SCA for N-phase
composites. The DEM theory models two-phase composites
by incrementally adding inclusions to the matrix phase. And it
is often used to the determination of effective elastic properties
of porous rocks through the numerical solution of differen-
tial equations (Berryman 1980; Norris, Sheng and Callegari
1985; Zimmerman 1985; Berryman et al. 2002). Since the
ordinary differential equations for the bulk and shear mod-
uli are coupled, it is more difficult to integrate them to yield
accurate analytical formulae for the bulk and shear moduli.
In order to decouple the differential equations, Li and Zhang
(2010, 2012) derived analytical solutions of the bulk and shear
moduli for a dry rock with the three specific pore shapes by
applying an analytical approximation for a dry-rock modu-
lus ratio. Similarly, Li and Zhang (2011) obtained analytical
formulae for the bulk and shear moduli of a dry rock with
ellipsoidal pores based on DEM theory. Li and Zhang (2014)
proposed the DEM model of multiple-porosity rock and its
analytical approximations for the dry rock.
Heuristic models mainly combine theoretical models with
empirical ones to take into account both the robust theoret-
ical bound and the physical/geological constraint. A critical

C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967
13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
porosity model is very widely used and has certain physi-
cal/geological implications (Nur, Mavko, Dvorkin and Gal-
mudi 1998; Dvorkin and Nur 2000). Critical porosity can
be seen as a depositional porosity (related to sorting/texture),
where suspensions have just turned into a sediment with grains
that are load bearing and express rigidity (Mavko, Mukerji
and Dvoskin 1998). Mukerji, Berryman, Mavko and Berge
(1995) derived a modified differential effective-medium model
with critical porosity constraints to incorporate percolation
behaviour, which is consistent with the Hashin–Shtrikman
bounds (Hashin and Shtrikman 1963). Vernik and Kachanov
(2010) proposed a new interesting model for elastic prop-
erty determination that includes both the critical porosity ef-
fect and the consolidation effect. If porosity is less than the
consolidation porosity, a rock can be described as a continu-
ous material containing pores and cracks. From consolidation
porosity to the critical porosity, the rock is transitioning to a
granular material unconsolidated regime. And the experimen-
tal data that Vernik and Kachanov (2010) obtain demonstrate
a sharp bend near the consolidation porosity (about 0.3).
Markov, Kazatchenko, Mousatov and Pervago (2012, 2013)
proposed a generalized differential effective-medium method
(GDEM) for simulating the elastic properties of porous rocks
taking into account the critical porosity phenomena. They
compared the modelling results for the elastic moduli with
known empirical models and also with the experimental data
for sandstones (Murphy, Reischer and Hsu 1993; Vernik and
Kachanov 2010). Indeed, for most rocks there is a critical
porosity that is the critical value when the porosity is large
enough, the grains must lose contact and the rock must lose
its rigidity. Nur (1992) presented that critical porosity of the
rock is fixed value, and that of the rock of the same lithology
is the same, for example, sandstone ϕc = 0.4. Zhang, Li and
Yao (2012) found that S-wave velocities of Han’s sandstones
(1986) under low pressure are overestimated by taking empiri-
cal critical porosity value. While those under high pressure are
also estimated well by taking empirical critical porosity value,
in practice it is hard to obtain an accurate critical porosity
value. And it may cause errors when simply taking an em-
pirical critical porosity value. Zhang et al. (2012) proposed
a method to obtain the critical porosity value by inverting P-
wave velocity, but the specific function relational expression
is not given.
The purpose of this paper is to obtain formulae for bulk
and shear moduli of a dry rock with multiple pore types based
on a critical porosity model, and to use them to characterize
the dry-rock moduli dependency on porosity and pore shape.
The paper is organized as follows. First, we introduce the
 13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
Multiple-porosity variable critical porosity model 957

critical porosity model and Kuster–Toksöz theory. Next, we porosity of rocks at the critical state is not the same. Even for
derive the theoretical relationship between critical porosity rocks of the same lithology, these factors are also not iden-
and pore shape (pore aspect ratio) by combining the criti- tical. Therefore, critical porosity should be represented by a
cal porosity model and Kuster–Toksöz theory. By substitut- parameter to describe the state of rocks, similar to the consol-
ing the theoretical relationship into Kuster–Toksöz theory, we idation coefficient proposed by Pride et al. (2004), and each
obtain the formulae for the bulk and shear moduli of multiple- specific rock should have its specific critical porosity value.
porosity dry rock, which is named the multiple-porosity vari-
able critical porosity model. Then, the new model is applied
to the experimental data for sandstones (Murphy et al. 1993; 2.2 Kuster and Toksöz theory
Vernik and Kachanov 2010) and carbonate (Anselmetti and By using a long-wavelength first-order scattering theory, based
Eberli 1993). The comparison between the modelling results on the assumption that the displacement field generated by the
for the elastic moduli by the new model with experimental elastic wave through the equivalent medium is the same as the
data is discussed. displacement field caused by the scattering of each inclusion
(pore), Kuster and Toksöz (1974) derived the expressions for
∗
2 THEORY AND METHODOLOGY the effective bulk modulus KKT and shear modulus μ∗KT of the
rock with N inclusions (pores):
2.1 Critical porosity model
Km + 43 μm 
N
∗
Critical porosity is proposed by Nur (1992), which is based (KKT − Km ) ∗
= xi (Ki − Km )P mi (αi ), (3)
KKT + 43 μm i=1
on the observation that for many granular rocks there exists
a critical porosity, ϕc . Critical porosity separates two distinct
mechanic and acoustic domains: for porosities lower than ϕc , μm + ξm  N
(μ∗KT − μm ) = xi (μi − μm )Qmi (αi ), (4)
mineral grains form a continuous frame-supported medium μ∗KT + ξm i=1
(load-bearing domain), whereas for porosities greater than
where Km and μm are the bulk and shear moduli of the grain
ϕc , mineral grains are ‘falls apart’ and suspended in the fluid
matrix, respectively; Ki and μi are the bulk and shear moduli
(suspension domain).
of the i(1 ≤ i ≤ N) inclusion, respectively; xi is the volume
Using critical porosity, Nur (1992) established the rela-
content of the i inclusion; αi is the pore aspect ratio of the i
tionship between the elastic moduli of the grain matrix and
inclusion; P mi (αi ) and Qmi (αi ) are the so-called polarization
the dry rock:
  factors which describe the effect of an inclusion i in a back-
ϕ ground medium m and are the function of the pore aspect ratio
Kdry = Km 1 − , (1)
ϕc αi (for specific expressions, see Appendix), the summation is
  over the different inclusion types with volume concentration
ϕ μ 9K +8μ
μdry = μm 1 − , (2) xi and ξm = 6m K m+2μ m .
ϕc m m

where Kdry and μdry are the bulk and shear moduli of a dry
rock, respectively; Km and μm are the bulk and shear moduli 2.3 Relationship between critical porosity and pore shape
of the grain matrix, respectively; ϕ is the porosity of the rock; By combining the critical porosity model with the Kuster–
and ϕc is the critical porosity of the rock. Toksöz theory, the relationship between critical porosity and
Nur (1992) observed that critical porosity of the rock is pore structure (i.e. the pore aspect ratio) can be obtained.
a fixed value and that of the rock of the same lithology is In general, pore shape is characterized by the aspect ratio of
the same, for example, sandstone ϕc = 0.4. Nur et al. (1998) pores, which is the ratio of short axis to long axis of pores.
and Dvorkin and Nur (2000) pointed out that the principle For a dry rock, the elastic bulk modulus of the inclusion
of critical porosity implies that it corresponds to the poros- Ki = 0, the bulk modulus formula for Kuster–Toksöz theory
ity at which point the mineral grains are scattered and the becomes KKT ∗
= Kdry , and
rock loses its rigidity and falls apart. For different rocks, min-
⎛ ⎞
eral composition, particle arrangement, sorting and rounding, N mi
x P (α)
cementation degree and buried depth (pressure and temper- Kdry = Km ⎝1 − i=1
3Km
i
N ⎠. (5)
1 + 3K +4μ mi
i=1 xi P (α)
ature) are not the same. All these factors will cause that the m m


C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967
 13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
958 J. Zhang, Y. Yin and G. Zhang

If there is one pore type in the rock, the volume content Similarly from equation (2) we know that critical porosity
of the inclusion (pore) is equal to porosity, that is, x = ϕ, so has such characteristics: when ϕ = ϕc , μdry = 0. Assuming that
equation (5) becomes equation (10) is equivalent to the critical porosity model, when
⎛ ⎞ ϕ = ϕc in equation (10), μdry also equals to zero.
ϕ P mi
(α) Substituting φ = φcμ to equation (10), we can get
Kdry = Km ⎝1 − 3Km
⎠. (6)
1 + 3K +4μ ϕ P mi (α)
m m
ϕcμ Qmi (α)
From equation (1) we know that critical porosity has 1− μm = 0, (11)
1+ ϕ Qmi (α)
μm +ξm cμ
such characteristics: when ϕ = ϕc , Kdry = 0. By assuming that
equation (6) is equivalent to the critical porosity model, when where φcμ is defined as the critical porosity for shear modulus,
ϕ = ϕc in equation (6), Kdry also equals to zero. then equation (11) can be written as
Substituting φ = φcK to equation (6), we can get μm + ξm 1
ϕcμ = . (12)
φc P (α)
mi ξm Qmi (α)
1− 3Km
= 0, (7)
1+ φ P mi (α)
3Km +4μm c This is the relationship between critical porosity for shear
modulus, ϕcμ , and pore shape, α. From equation (12), it can
where ϕcK is defined as the critical porosity for bulk modulus,
be seen that critical porosity for shear modulus is not fixed
then equation (7) can be written as
but variable, which is a function of pore shape (pore aspect
3Km + 4μm 1
ϕcK = . (8) ratio) and the ratio of bulk modulus versus shear modulus of
4μm P mi (α)
the grain matrix.
This is the relationship between critical porosity for bulk Figure 1 shows the relationship between critical porosity
modulus ϕcK and pore shape α. From equation (8), it can be and pore shape (pore aspect ratio) for clean sandstone, and
seen that critical porosity for bulk modulus is not fixed but the bulk and shear moduli of quartz used in the analysis were
variable, which is a function of pore shape (pore aspect ratio) taken to be 38 and 44 GPa, respectively. In Fig. 1, the solid
and the ratio of bulk modulus versus shear modulus of the line represents critical porosity for the bulk modulus, and the
grain matrix. Critical porosity is a parameter that character- dashed line represents that for the shear modulus. As shown in
izes the mechanics and elastic properties of rocks. It is very Fig. 1, critical porosity is not a fixed value, but changes with
similar to the consolidation parameter postposed by Pride pore shape (pore aspect ratio). Moreover, critical porosity
et al. (2004) that represents the degree of consolidation be- for the bulk modulus is not equal to that for shear modulus,
tween grains. When a rock has stiff pores, that means the because critical porosity is also related to the ratio of bulk
critical porosity value of the rock is high, for example, lime- modulus versus shear modulus of the grain matrix. The spe-
stones and chalks. When a rock has soft pores, that means cific number result is also shown in Fig. 1, the square point
the critical porosity value of the rock is low, for example, represents when pore aspect ratio α = 0.12, critical porosity
cracked igneous rocks. Indeed equation (8) is derived when for bulk modulus ϕcK = 0.36, and the diamond point repre-
the rock is in its critical state. We consider the critical state sents when pore aspect ratio α = 0.12, critical porosity for
is just to derive the relationship between critical porosity for shear modulus ϕcμ = 0.45. These values are very close to the
bulk modulus ϕcK and pore shape α. critical porosity empirical value of sandstone defined by Nur
Similarly for a dry rock, the elastic modulus of the inclu- (1992) of around 0.40 and suggest that the relationship be-
sion μi = 0, the shear modulus formula for Kuster–Toksöz tween critical porosity and pore shape (pore aspect ratio) is
theory becomes μ∗KT = μdry , and reasonable.
⎛ ⎞
N mi
x Q (α)
μdry = μm ⎝1 − μm
i=1 i
N ⎠. (9) 2.4 Multiple-porosity variable critical porosity model
1 + μ +ξ mi
i=1 xi Q (α)
m m

The relationship between critical porosity and pore shape was

If there is one pore type in the rock, the volume content
established; then by substituting it into Kuster–Toksöz theory,
of the inclusion (pore) is equal to porosity, that is, x = ϕ, so
the critical porosity model for the rock with multiple pores
equation (9) becomes
types was obtained.
ϕ Qmi (α) When the rock contains a variety of pore types, xi is the
μdry = μm 1 − μm . (10)
1 + μ +ξ ϕ Qmi (α) volumetric content of the ith pore type, and φcKi (αi ) is the
m m


C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967
 13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
Multiple-porosity variable critical porosity model 959

Figure 1 The relation between critical porosity and pore shape (pore aspect ratio) for clean sandstone.

critical porosity for bulk modulus of the ith pore type and the critical porosity for the shear modulus of the ith pore type
function of the pore aspect ratio αi , so and the function of the pore aspect ratio αi , so
3Km + 4μm 1 μm + ξm 1
φcKi (αi ) = , (13) φcμi (αi ) = , (17)
4μm P mi (αi ) ξm Qmi (αi )
then where ξm =
μm 9Km +8μm
.
6 Km +2μm
3Km + 4μm 1 Then
P mi (αi ) = , (14)
4μm φcKi (αi )
μm + ξm 1
N Qmi (αi ) = , (18)
then the term i=1 xi P mi (αi ) in equation (5) can be written ξm φcμi (αi )
as N
then the term i=1 xi Qmi (αi ) in equation (9) can be written

N
3Km + 4μm 
N
xi as
xi P mi (α) = . (15)
4μm φcKi (αi )
i=1 i=1 
N
μm + ξm 
N
xi
xi Qmi (αi ) = . (19)
Substituting equation (15) into equation (5), we can get
i=1
ξm i=1
φ cμi (αi )
the expression for the bulk modulus of a dry rock with multi-
ple pore types: Substituting equation (19) into equation (9), we can get
N xi
the expression for the shear modulus of a dry rock with mul-
1 − i=1 φcKi (αi ) tiple pore types:
Kdry = Km 3K  N xi
, (16)
1 + 4μ m i=1 φ (α )
N xi
m cKi i 1 − i=1 φcμi (αi )
where the summation is over different pore types with volume μdry = μm μ N xi , (20)
1 + ξ m i=1 φ (α )
m cμi i
content xi , andN is the number of pore types.
Similarly, when the rock contains a variety of pore types, where the summation is over the different pore types with
xi is the volumetric content of the ith pore type, and ϕcμi is volume content xi , and N is the number of pore types.


C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967

960 J. Zhang, Y. Yin and G. Zhang
Equations (16) and (20) can be named the multiple-
porosity variable critical porosity model. The new model con-
tains various pore types which can be characterized by dif-
ferent critical porosity values. And critical porosity values for
different pore types are variable and related to pore aspect
ratio and the ratio of bulk modulus versus shear modulus of
the grain matrix.
The model is valid only for rocks containing pores with a
porosity less than critical porosity. This means that the volu-
metric content of the various pores xi must be less than critical
porosity, xi < ϕcKi and xi < ϕcμi .
More importantly, another implicit condition that equa-
N xi
tions (16) and (20) have physical meaning is i=1 φcKi (αi )
<1
N xi
and i=1 ϕ (α ) < 1. When the condition is not satisfied, the
cμi i paction coefficient (pressure is in MPa); and σ is the effective
elastic moduli of a dry rock cannot be calculated simply and
directly by equations (16) and (20). In this case, following
Xu and White (1995)’s scheme, the elastic moduli are calcu-
lated by introducing the pores in steps, each step injecting a
very small concentration. So the calculation process of equa-
tions (16) and (20) needs to be iterative. That is, the effective
elastic moduli are updated using equations (16) and (20) and
the updated moduli input to the next step, the process being
repeated until the total porosity is reached.
Figure 2 shows the elastic modulus of clean sandstone
variation with critical porosity and porosity, and the bulk
and shear moduli of quartz used in the analysis were taken to
be 38 and 44 GPa, respectively. From Fig. 2 it can be seen that
the elastic modulus of a dry rock, both bulk and shear moduli,
is related to both porosity and critical porosity. When critical
porosity is the same, the bulk and shear moduli of the dry rock
both decrease with porosity increases, and when porosity is
the same, the bulk and shear moduli of the dry rock both
decrease with critical porosity increases. Moreover, critical
porosity values for bulk and shear moduli are variable.
3 COMPARISON WITH LABORATORY
DATA
First, we used the experimental data published by Vernik and
Kachanov (2010) for the dry P- and S-wave velocities for the
data set of core measurements at 40/70 MPa. Also, we com-
pare our new model with the sand diagenesis model proposed
by Vernik and Kachanov (2010).
The sand diagenesis model is the combination of the em-
pirical model and the Mori–Tanaka model (Mori and Tanaka
1973). In the Vernik and Kachanov (2010) concept, there is
a critical porosity φc and a porosity of consolidation φcon for

C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967
13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
sandstone. If the porosity is less than φcon , ‘the rock can be de-
scribed microstructurally as a continuous material containing
isolated pores and intergranular cracks in between cemented
grains’. The effective P-wave modulus Mdry and shear modulus
μdry can be calculated by
−1
φ η exp[−dσ ]
Mdry = Mm 1 + p + 1.94 0 , (21)
1−φ 1−φ
−1
φ η exp[−dσ ]
μdry = μm 1 + q + 1.59 0 , (22)
1−φ 1−φ
where Mm and μm are the bulk and shear moduli of the grain
matrix, respectively; p and q are coefficients which reflect pore
shape; η0 is the crack density at zero pressure; d is the com-
pressure (MPa).
If the porosity is in the high-porosity range φcon < φ <
φc , ‘the rock has gradual transition to a granular material
(unconsolidated sand), with effective elasticity controlled by
microcontacts between grains rather than pore geometries’.
The effective P-wave modulus Mdry and shear modulus μdry
can be calculated by
 
φ − φcon n
Mdry = Mcon 1 − , (23)
φc − φcon
 
φ − φcon m
μdry = μcon 1 − , (24)
φc − φcon
where Mcon and μcon are taken as predicted by equations (21)
and (22) at φ = φcon , n and m are the empirical exponents,
and usually n = 2.00 and m = 2.05.
The comparison of our new model results with the ex-
perimental data and the sand diagenesis model of Vernik and
Kachanov (2010) is presented in Fig. 3. The host grains’ elastic
moduli were 33 and 35.6 GPa, respectively. The grain den-
sity was 2.65 g/cm3 . From the figure, we can find that there
is a sharp bend near the consolidation porosity (about 0.3).
Similar to Vernik and Kachanov (2010), we separate the data
into two sets. When porosity is less than consolidation poros-
ity (about 0.3), we use our new model with the pore aspect
ratio value α = 0.12 and φcK = 0.36, φcμ = 0.46, which as-
sumed that the rock can be treated as continuous matter with
intergranular pores and cracks. When porosity is greater than
consolidation porosity (about 0.3), the pore aspect ratio was
changed to α = 0.08 and φcK = 0.25, φcμ = 0.34, which as-
sumed that the rock has a gradual transition to a granular
material (unconsolidated sand), with effective elasticity con-
trolled by microcontacts between grains. And in this case the
critical porosity values are only the equivalent parameter to
13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
Multiple-porosity variable critical porosity model 961

Figure 2 The relation between bulk and shear moduli of dry rock and critical porosity and porosity for clean sandstone (a) bulk modulus of a

2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967
dry rock and (b) shear modulus of a dry rock.


C
 13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
962 J. Zhang, Y. Yin and G. Zhang

Figure 3 Comparison of the P- and S-wave velocities simulated by using the Vernik and Kachanov (2010) approximation (blue line) and our
new model (red line) with the experimental data. P-wave velocity: squares; S-wave velocity: triangles.

describe the mechanical adjustment and initial pressure solu- percolation threshold.’ The effective bulk modulus K and
tion. In the sand diagenesis model, critical porosity is set to shear modulus μ are defined by
φc = 0.4 and consolidation porosity is set to φcon = 0.3. From  
dK(t) dφ1 dφ φ1
the result, we can find that our new model and the sand dia- = (K1 − K)P1 +
dt dt dt 1 − φ
genesis model describe the data well and give practically the  
dφ2 dφ φ2
normalized relative deviation. Changes in micromechanics of + (K2 − K)P2 + , (25)
dt dt 1 − φ
effective elasticity can easily be achieved by changing the pore
aspect value in our new model.  
dμ(t) dφ1 dφ φ1
Second, we used the experimental data published by = (μ1 − μ)Q1 +
dt dt dt 1 − φ
Murphy et al. (1993) for the elastic moduli of pure quartz  
sand and sandstone with dry pores obtained using the stan- dφ2 dφ φ2
+ (μ2 − μ)Q2 + , (26)
dard ultrasonic technique at high effective pressures (around dt dt 1 − φ
50 MPa). Also, we compare our new model with the general- where φ1 and φ2 are the volume content of phases 1 and 2, and
ized DEM (GDEM) model proposed by Markov et al. (2013). they are functions of a parameter t, and φ = φ1 + φ2 . Ki and
To take into account the critical porosity phenomena, μi are the bulk and shear moduli of the ith phase, respectively,
Markov et al. (2013) developed a model that is based on andPi and Qi are polarization factors.
the GDEM method. ‘The rock model consists of a host Figure 4 shows the comparison of our new model results
(phase 0) and inclusions of two types: inclusions of the first with the experimental data and the GDEM model (Markov
type (phase 1) represent pores, and inclusions of the second et al. 2013). The bulk and shear moduli of grains were taken
type (phase 2) contain elastic solid material with the same to be 38.2 and 42.5 GPa, respectively. And the grain density
elastic properties as the host. And the host concentration was 2.65 g/cm3 . Also, we separate the data into two sets by
decreases as porosity increases and tends to zero near the the consolidation porosity (about 0.3). When porosity is less


C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967
 13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
Multiple-porosity variable critical porosity model 963

Figure 4 Comparison of the (a) bulk and (b) shear effective moduli simulated by using the GDEM model (blue line, Markov et al. 2013) and
our new model (red line) with the experimental data. Circles represent the experimental data for sandstone (Murphy et al. 1993).


C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967
 13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
964 J. Zhang, Y. Yin and G. Zhang

Figure 5 Comparison of the P- and S-wave velocities simulated by using our new model with the experimental data. Points represent experimental
data for carbonate (Anselmetti and Eberli 1993) with different pore types. Lines correspond to the model with the number of pore types N = 2,
in which the volume concentration of pore type varies.

than consolidation porosity (about 0.3), we use the multiple-
porosity variable critical porosity model with the pore as-
pect ratio value α = 0.11 and φcK = 0.34, φcμ = 0.43, which
assumed that the rock can be treated as continuous matter
with intergranular pores and cracks. When porosity is greater
than consolidation porosity (about 0.3), the pore aspect ratio
was changed to α = 0.05 and φcK = 0.17, φcμ = 0.23, which
assumed that the rock has a gradual transition to a gran-
ular material (unconsolidated sand), with effective elasticity
controlled by microcontacts between grains. And in this case
the critical porosity values are only the equivalent parame-
ters to describe the mechanical adjustment and initial pres-
sure solution. Corresponding to the GDEM model, the as-
pect ratio of phase 2 was considered to be variable and a
function of porosity, critical porosity and consolidation poros-
ity in the high-porosity range φcon < φ < φc , and φc = 0.405,
φcon = 0.3. From the result, we can find that both models
describe the experimental data well. The coincidence of the
predicted and measured data confirms the correctness of our
new model. And we can change the pore aspect ratio value to
correspond to the concept of consolidated porosity and crit-
ical porosity, which are useful for the calculation of elastic
properties of sandstone.
Finally, 77 carbonate data of Anselmetti and Eberli
(1993) were used to analyse the predictions of our new model
with the number of pore types N = 2. The samples include
carbonates from different areas and ages, in which litholo-
gies range from unconsolidated carbonate mud to completely


C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967

lithified limestones and porosity ranges from 0% to 60%. P-
wave velocities (Vp) of the carbonates were measured at a
confining pressure of 10 MPa and a pore-fluid pressure of
2 MPa with a centre frequency of 0.6 to 1.2 MHz. Those
velocities were equivalent to the P-wave velocities of dry sam-
ples because major differences between dry and saturated Vp
only have to be expected in rocks with a dominant crack
porosity (Nur and Simmons 1969), whereas the saturation of
round-shaped pores abundant in samples does not influence
Vp drastically (Anselmetti and Eberli 1993). The data can be
grouped into six categories of predominant pore types, low-
porosity pores, intraparticle pores, moldic pores (less than
30 µm), moldic pores (greater than 30 µm), micropores and
interparticle pores. The bulk and shear moduli of calcite used
in the analysis were taken to be 77 and 32 GPa, respectively.
Following Xu and Payne (2009), we assumed that there are
three different kinds of pores in those carbonates: (1) refer-
ence pores that represent interparticle pores with medium pore
aspect ratio αreference = 0.15; (2) stiff pores that represent
moldic pores with a high pore aspect ratio, αstiff = 0.60, and
soft pores that represent low-porosity and intraparticle pores
with a low pore aspect ratio, αsoft = 0.03. Following Kumar
and Han (2005), we assume that interparticle pores are the
most common pore type in carbonate rocks and give a refer-
ence porosity–velocity trend. For a sample with P-wave veloc-
ity above the trend, we suspect that there is a mix of reference
pores and stiff pores. On the other hand, we suspect that there
is a mix system of soft pores and reference pores if a data point
is below the reference line. Figure 5 shows the variation of the
P-wave velocities of carbonates with porosity in different vol-
ume contents of different pore types, which are predicted by
the dual-porosity variable critical porosity model. In Fig. 5,
the solid line represents the reference porosity–velocity trend
in which the volume concentration of reference pores is 100%.
Dotted lines represent the estimation results with different vol-
ume concentration of soft pores and reference pores, in which
the volume concentration of soft pores is 20%, 40%, 60%
and 80%, respectively, and that of reference pores is the cor-
responding remaining percentages. Dashed lines represent the
estimation results with different volume content of stiff pores
and reference pores, in which the volume concentration of stiff
pores is 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%, respectively, and
that of reference pores is the corresponding remaining per-
centages. It can be found that for a given porosity, stiff pores
make the velocity faster, and soft pores make it slower. The
results indicate that P-wave velocities of carbonate decrease
as porosity increases or the volume content of soft pores in-
creases or the volume content of stiff pores decreases. For the

C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967
13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
Multiple-porosity variable critical porosity model 965
majority of samples, the prediction is in good agreement with
the measured data, and it shows that pore structure of carbon-
ate can be characterized by the dual-porosity variable critical
porosity model.
4 CONCLUSIONS
A critical porosity model is often used to calculate the elastic
modulus of a dry rock, and critical porosity value is affected
by many factors. In practice, it is hard to obtain an accurate
critical porosity value but rather to take an empirical value.
By combining Kuster–Toksöz theory with the critical poros-
ity model, the theoretical relationship between critical poros-
ity and pore structure (pore shape) is established. Different
from the traditional critical porosity model, critical porosity
not only relates to pore shape but also to the ratio of bulk
modulus versus shear modulus of the grain matrix. More-
over, critical porosity for bulk modulus is not equal to that
for shear modulus. By substituting the theoretical relationship
into Kuster–Toksöz theory, this paper obtained the formulae
for the bulk and shear moduli of a multiple-porosity dry rock,
in which different pore types can be characterized by different
critical porosity values. The model was used for simulating
the elastic moduli variation with porosity and pore aspect ra-
tio. The modelling results were compared for elastic moduli
and acoustic velocities with the experimental data and pub-
lished models. The comparison shows that the new model can
be used to describe the elastic properties for the rocks with
multiple pore types.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the sponsorship of the
National Key S&T Special Project of China (Grant Nos.
2017ZX05049-002 and 2016ZX05027-004-001), the Na-
tional Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos.
41874146 and 41674130), the Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central University (Grant No. 18CX02061A), the In-
novative Fund Project of China National Petroleum Corpo-
ration (Grant No. 2016D-5007-0301) and the Scientific Re-
search & Technology Development Project of China National
Petroleum Corporation (Grant No. 2017D-3504).
ORCID
Jiajia Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9362-4060

966 J. Zhang, Y. Yin and G. Zhang
REFERENCES
Anselmetti F.S. and Eberli G.P. 1993. Controls on sonic velocity in
carbonates. Pure and Applied Geophysics 141, 287–323.
Berryman J.G. 1980. Long-wavelength propagation in composite elas-
tic media II: ellipsoidal inclusions. Acoustical Society of America
Journal 68, 1820–1831.
Berryman J.G. 1995. Mixture theories for rock properties. In Rock
Physics and Phase Relations: A Handbook of Physical Constants
(ed Thomas J. Ahrens), pp. 205–228. American Geophysical Union,
Washington, DC.
Berryman J.G., Pride S.R. and Wang H.F. 2002. A differential scheme
for elastic properties of rocks with dry or saturated cracks. Geo-
physical Journal International 151, 597–611.
Biot M.A. 1956. Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid
saturated porous solid. I. Low frequency range and II. Higher-
frequency range. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 28,
179–191.
Dvorkin J. and Nur A. 1993. Dynamic poroelasticity: a unified model
with the squirt and the Biot mechanisms. Geophysics 58, 524–
533.
Dvorkin J. and Nur A. 2000. Critical porosity models. Stanford Uni-
versity GP170 Report.
Gassmann F. 1951. Über die Elastizität poröser Medien. Vierteljahrs-
schrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich 96, 1–23.
Han D.-H., Nur A. and Morgan D. 1986. Effect of porosity and
clay content on wave velocity in sandstones. Geophysics 51, 2093–
2107.
Hashin Z. and Shtrikman S. 1963. A variational approach to the
elastic behavior of multiphase materials. Journal of the Mechanics
and Physics of Solids 11, 127–140.
Krief M., Garat J., Stellingwerff J. and Ventre J. 1990. A petrophysical
interpretation using the velocities of P and S waves (full-waveform
sonic). The Log Analyst 31, 355–369.
Kumar M. and Han, D.-H. 2005. Pore shape effect on elastic prop-
erties of carbonate rocks. SEG Technical Program Expanded Ab-
stracts 24, 1477–1480.
Kuster G.T. and Toksöz M.N. 1974. Velocity and attenuation of
seismic waves in two media, Part I: Theoretical considerations.
Geophysics 39, 587–606.
Lee M.W. 2006. A simple method of predicting S-wave velocity, Geo-
physics 69, 161–164.
Li H. and Zhang J. 2010. Modulus ratio of dry rock based on differ-
ential effective medium theory. Geophysics 75, N43–N50.
Li H. and Zhang J. 2011. Elastic moduli of dry rocks containing
spheroidal pores based on differential effective medium theory.
Journal of Applied Geophysics 75, 671–678.
Li H. and Zhang J. 2012. Analytical approximations of bulk and
shear moduli for dry rock based on differential effective medium
theory. Geophysical Prospecting 60, 281–292.
Li H. and Zhang J. 2014. A differential effective medium model of
multiple-porosity rock and its analytical approximations for dry
rock. Chinese Journal of Geophysics 57, 835–845.
Li H., Zhang J. and Yao F. 2013. Inversion of effective pore aspect
ratios for porous rocks and its applications. Chinese Journal of
Geophysics 56, 608–615.

C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967
13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
Markov M., Kazatchenko E., Mousatov A. and Pervago E. 2012.
Generalized differential effective medium method for simulating
effective elastic properties of two dimensional percolating compos-
ites. Journal of Applied Physics 112, 026101–026103.
Markov M., Kazatchenko E., Mousatov A. and Pervago E. 2013.
Novel approach for simulating the elastic properties of porous rocks
including the critical porosity phenomena. Geophysics 78, L37–
L44.
Mavko G. and Jizba D. 1991. Estimating grain-scale fluid effects on
velocity dispersion in rocks. Geophysics 56, 1940–1949.
Mavko G. and Mukerji T. 1998. Comparison of the krief and critical
porosity models for prediction of porosity and VP/VS. Geophysics
63, 925–927
Mavko G., Mukerji T. and Dvoskin, J. 1998. The Rock Physics Hand-
book: Tools for Seismic Analysis in Porous Media, pp. 221–225.
Cambridge University Press.
Mori T. and Tanaka K. 1973. Average stress in matrix and average
elastic energy of materials with misfitting inclusions. Acta Metal-
lurgica 21, 571–574
Mukerji T., Berryman J., Mavko G. and Berge P. 1995. Differen-
tial effective medium modeling of rock elastic moduli with crit-
ical porosity constraints. Geophysical Research Letters 22, 555–
558.
Murphy W., Reischer A. and Hsu K. 1993. Modulus decomposition
of compressional and shear velocities in sand bodies. Geophysics
58, 227–239.
Norris A.N., Sheng P. and Callegari A.J. 1985. Effective-medium
theories for two-phase dielectric media. Journal of Applied Physics
57, 1990–1996.
Nur A. 1992. Critical porosity and the seismic velocities in rocks.
EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union 73, 43–66.
Nur A. and Simmons G. 1969. Stress-induced velocity anisotropy in
rocks: an experimental study. Journal of Geophysical Research 74,
6667.
Nur A., Mavko G., Dvorkin J. and Galmudi D. 1998. Critical poros-
ity: a key to relating physical properties to porosity in rocks. The
Leading Edge 17, 357–362.
O’Connell R.J. and Budiansky B. 1974. Seismic velocities in dry
and saturated cracked solids. Journal of Geophysical Research 79,
4626–4627.
Pride S.R., Berryman J.G. and Harris J.M. 2004. Seismic attenuation
due to wave-induced flow. Journal of Geophysical Research 109,
B1, B01201.
Raymer L.L., Hunt E.R. and Gardner J.S. 1980. An improved sonic
transit time-to-porosity transform. 21st Annual Logging Sympo-
sium, SPWLA, paper P.
Vernik L. and Kachanov M. 2010. Modeling elastic properties of
siliciclastic rocks. Geophysics 75, E171–E182.
Wu T.T. 1966. The effect of inclusion shape on the elastic moduli of a
two-phase material. International Journal of Solids and Structures
2, 1–8.
Xu S. and Payne M.A. 2009. Modeling elastic properties in carbonate
rocks. Leading Edge 28, 66–74.
Xu S. and White R. 1995. A new velocity model for sand-clay mix-
tures. Geophysical Prospecting 43, 91–118.
 13652478, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.12898 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [28/02/2023]. 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
Multiple-porosity variable critical porosity model 967

 
Zhang J., Li H., Liu H. and Cui X. 2009. Accuracy of krief, nur and 3
F3 = 1 + A 1 − f + θ + R( f + θ ) , (A7)
pride models in the study of rock physics. SEG Technical Program 2
Expanded Abstracts, 2005–2009.
Zhang J., Li H. and Yao F. 2012. Rock critical porosity in- F4 = 1 + (A/4) [ f + 3θ − R( f − θ )] , (A8)
version and S-wave velocity prediction. Applied Geophysics 9,
57–64.  
4
Zimmerman R.W. 1985. The effect of microcracks on the elastic F5 = A − f + R f + θ − + Bθ (3 − 4R), (A9)
3
moduli of brittle materials. Journal of Materials Science Letters 4,
1457–1460.
F6 = 1 + A[1 + f − R( f + θ )] + B(1 − θ )(3 − 4R), (A10)

APPENDIX F7 = 2 + (A/4) [3 f + 9θ − R(3 f + 5θ )] + Bθ (3 − 4R),

Polarization factors P and Q expressions (A11)

The polarization factors P and Q for ellipsoidal inclusions of

F8 = A[1 − 2R + ( f/2)(R − 1) + (θ/2)(5R − 3)]
arbitrary pore aspect ratio are given by (Kuster and Toksöz
1974): + B(1 − θ )(3 − 4R), (A12)
1
P = Tii j j , (A1)
3 F9 = A[(R − 1) f − Rθ )] + Bθ (3 − 4R), (A13)
 
1 1 with A, B, and R given by
Q= Ti ji j − Tii j j , (A2)
5 3
A = μi /μm − 1, (A14)
where the tensor Tii j j relates the uniform far-field strain field
to the strain within the ellipsoidal inclusion (Wu, 1966). 1
Berryman (1980) gives the pertinent scalars required for com- B= (K /K − μi /μm ), (A15)
3 i m
puting P and Q as
and
Tii j j = 3F1 /F2 , (A3)
R = (1 − 2νm )/2(1 − νm ). (A16)
1 2 1 F F + F6 F7 − F8 F9
Ti ji j − Tii j j = + + 4 5 , (A4) The functions θ and f are given by
3 F3 F4 F2 F4
⎧ α
where ⎨ 2 3/2 [α(α 2 − 1)1/2 − arccoshα]
  θ=
(α −1)
, (A17)
3 3 5 4 ⎩ α
F1 = 1 + A ( f + θ) − R f+ θ− , (A5) 3/2 [arccosα − α(α 2 − 1)1/2 ]
2 2 2 3 (1−α 2 )

for prolate and oblate spheroids, respectively, and

3 α2
F2 = 1 + A 1 + ( f + θ ) − (R/2)(3 f + 5θ) f = (3θ − 2). (A18)
2 1 − α2
+ B(3 − 4R) + (A/2)(A + 3B)(3 − 4R) Note that α < 1 for oblate spheroids and α > 1 for pro-
[ f + θ − R( f − θ + 2θ )],
2
(A6) late spheroids.


C 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 955–967