GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 73, NO. 2 共MARCH-APRIL 2008兲; P. E35–E39, 8 FIGS., 1 TABLE.
10.1190/1.2820604
Yet another Vs equation
Jack P. Dvorkin1
ABSTRACT
The classical Raymer-Hunt-Gardner functional form V p
⳱ 共1 ⳮ ␾ 兲2V pS Ⳮ ␾ V pF, where V pS and V pF denote the
P-wave velocity in the solid and pore-fluid phases, respec-
tively, and ␾ is the total porosity, can also be used to relate the
S-wave velocity in dry rock to porosity and mineralogy as
VsDry ⳱ 共1 ⳮ ␾ 兲2VsS, where VsS is the S-wave velocity in the
solid phase. Assuming that the shear modulus of rock does
not depend on the pore fluid, Vs in wet rock is VsWet
⳱ VsDry冑␳ bDry /␳ bWet, where ␳ bDry and ␳ bWet denote the bulk
density of the dry and wet rock, respectively. This new func-
tional form for Vs prediction reiterates Nur’s critical porosity
concept: The V p /Vs ratio in dry rock equals that in the solid
phase. It accurately predicts Vs in consolidated clastic and
carbonate rock. Two motivations for using it are 共1兲 it is sim-
ple, and 共2兲 it predicts Vs not from V p but directly from ␾ and
mineralogy.
INTRODUCTION
The P-wave velocity versus porosity
It can be argued that the first-ever velocity-porosity equation was
introduced by Wyllie et al. 共1956兲 as the famous time-average equa-
tion 共WTA兲. It states that the total traveltime through rock is the vol-
ume-weighted sum of the traveltimes through the solid phase and the
fluid phase considered independently of each other. That is, Vⳮ1
p
⳱ 共1 ⳮ ␾ 兲Vⳮ1 pS Ⳮ ␾ V pF , where ␾ is the total porosity, V p is the
ⳮ1
P-wave velocity in the rock, and V pS and V pF are the P-wave velocity
in the solid and pore-fluid phases, respectively.
The original work of Wyllie et al. 共1956兲 was based on laboratory
measurements of ultrasonic wave propagation through a pile of al-
ternating Lucite and aluminum disks set parallel to one another. The
individual disk thickness varied from 0.063 to 0.05 inches. As ex-
pected, the total traveltime through such a layered system was the
sum of the traveltimes through Lucite and aluminum considered in-
Manuscript received by the Editor 24 May 2007; revised manuscript received 4 September 2007; published online 10 January 2008.
1
Department of Geophysics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A. E-mail dvorkin@stanford.edu.
© 2008 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
E35
dependently of each other. Next, by examining a large data set of ar-
tificial and natural liquid-saturated porous samples, Wyllie et al.
共1956兲 established a remarkable and somewhat unexpected fact: The
velocity data can be approximately described by the time average, as
if the mineral grains and the pore space in rock were arranged in rela-
tively thick layers normal to the direction of wave propagation. Ob-
viously, this is not what the pore-space structure of many natural sed-
iments appears to be, which means that WTA is a useful and simple,
but physically deceptive, way of summarizing extensive experimen-
tal data 共as acknowledged by the authors of this equation in the origi-
nal publication兲.
Raymer et al. 共1980兲 modestly named their Raymer-Hunt-Gard-
ner 共RHG兲 empirical equation V p ⳱ 共1 ⳮ ␾ 兲2V pS Ⳮ ␾ V pF 共RHG兲
“an improvement to WTA.” RHG has at least two advantages over
WTA: It provides a more accurate V p prediction in the medium-po-
rosity range 共Dvorkin and Nur, 1998兲 and it is Gassmann-consistent
共Spikes and Dvorkin, 2005兲, i.e., it can be applied to rock with any
fluid, including perfectly dry rock, as long as V pF is assigned a con-
sistent value 共zero for dry rock兲. Clearly, WTA is not Gassmann-con-
sistent because it fails at V pF ⳱ 0. In addition, RHG in its original
form implicitly predates the critical porosity concept of Nur et al.
共1998兲. It recognizes the need to divide the entire porosity range into
physically meaningful intervals that fall between zero and 0.37 for
consolidated rock, 0.47 and 1 for suspension, and a transitional inter-
val between these two endpoints 共Figure 1兲.
Both WTA and RHG were introduced during the time when the
reservoirs of interest were mostly consolidated mature clastics and
carbonates. This is why these models fail to predict velocity in soft,
unconsolidated clastics 共Schlumberger, 1991; Dvorkin and Nur,
1998兲. To fill this gap, Dvorkin and Nur 共1996兲 developed the unce-
mented 共or “soft”兲 sand model, which uses the Hashin and Shtrik-
man 共1963兲 lower bound functional form to connect the high-porosi-
ty elastic modulus endpoint with the zero-porosity endpoint at which
the modulus of rock becomes that of the mineral phase. A host of oth-
er empirical and theoretical velocity-porosity transforms relevant to
specific lithologies and rock textures are discussed and compared to
field and laboratory data in Mavko et al. 共1998兲 and Avseth et al.
共2000兲.
E36 Dvorkin
Gal et al. 共1998兲 introduced a counterpart to the soft-sand model,
the “stiff-sand” model, which uses the Hashin-Shtrikman upper
bound functional form to connect the same end points. It is remark-
able that the purely analytical porosity-velocity trend given by the
stiff-sand model is very close to the empirical RHG 共Figure 2兲. This
fact assures the robustness of both transforms and encourages us to
use the RHG functional form for Vs modeling.
S-WAVE VELOCITY PREDICTORS
Historically, the input to S-wave velocity equations has been V p
rather than porosity. Almost all such equations are empirical and de-
rived for wet sediment. Pickett 共1963兲 showed that in limestone Vs
⳱ V p /1.9, although in dolomite Vs ⳱ V p /1.8. Later, Castagna et al.
共1993兲 modified these relations as Vs ⳱ ⳮ0.055V2p Ⳮ 1.017V p
ⳮ 1.031 for limestone and Vs ⳱ 0.583V p ⳮ 0.078 for dolomite,
where the velocity is in kilometers per second. In the same paper, the
equation for clastic rock reads Vs ⳱ 0.804V p ⳮ 0.856.
The famous Castagna et al. 共1985兲 “mudrock line” gives Vs
⳱ 0.862V p ⳮ 1.172. Han 共1986兲 used a large experimental data set
of sandstones with wide ranges of porosity and clay content varia-
tion to obtain Vs ⳱ 0.794V p ⳮ 0.787. These measurements were
conducted on wet rock at ultrasonic frequency. Mavko et al. 共1998兲
added to these measurements a number of data points from high-po-
rosity unconsolidated sands: Vs ⳱ 0.79V p ⳮ 0.79. Further analysis
of Han’s 共1986兲 data provides Vs ⳱ 0.754V p ⳮ 0.657 for rock
where the clay content is below 0.25 and Vs ⳱ 0.842V p ⳮ 1.099
where it exceeds 0.25. If the same data set is parted according to po-
rosity ranges, it gives Vs ⳱ 0.853V p ⳮ 1.137 for porosity below
0.15 and Vs ⳱ 0.756V p ⳮ 0.662 for porosity exceeding 0.15.
Williams 共1990兲 used well-log data to arrive at Vs ⳱ 0.846V p
ⳮ 1.088 for water-bearing sands and Vs ⳱ 0.784V p ⳮ 0.893 for
shales. Greenberg and Castagna 共1992兲 combined relations for vari-
ous lithologies to provide a unified empirical transform in multimin-
eral brine-saturated rock composed of sandstone, limestone, dolo-
7 a)
6 6
5
4
Vp (km/s)
3
2 3
Brine
Gas
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Porosity
Figure 1. The P-wave velocity in pure quartz rock versus porosity ac-
cording to the RHG empirical equation 共bold curves兲 and the Wyllie
time-average equation 共fine curves兲. The upper set of curves is for
brine-saturated rock and the lower set is for gas-saturated rock. The
properties of the fluid and mineral are listed in Table 1.
mite, and shale. Their prediction can also be used for rock with any
pore fluid, if we assume that the shear modulus is not influenced by
the pore fluid and apply Gassmann’s fluid substitution to the bulk
modulus.
A different, theoretically derived, approach to Vs prediction sim-
ply assumes that in dry rock, the ratio of the bulk to shear modulus is
exactly the same as in the solid 共mineral兲 phase. This automatically
means that VsDry /V pDry ⳱ VsS /V pS. This result approximately matches
Pickett’s 共1963兲 data and was first utilized by Krief et al. 共1990兲. Ex-
pressions for saturated rock can be obtained simply by combining
this relation with Gassmann’s equations. Instead, Krief et al. 共1990兲
suggested 共V2pWet ⳮ V2pF兲/VsWet
2
⳱ 共V2pS ⳮ V2pF兲/VsS2
, where V pWet and
VsWet are the P- and S-wave velocity in saturated rock, respectively;
V pS and VsS are those in the solid phase; and V pF is the velocity in the
pore fluid.
For completeness, we have to mention the Xu and White 共1995兲
model for velocity prediction in shaley sediment, which follows an
intricate scheme of assuming that the quartz and clay components of
rock are materials with ellipsoidal pores of prescribed aspect ratios.
The model calculates the elastic moduli of these components using
an inclusion effective-medium theory and then calculates the elastic
moduli of the rock by an iterative differential-effective-medium
scheme. Later, Keys and Xu 共2002兲 published an “approximation for
the Xu-White model” using the same approach and giving it a com-
prehensive mathematical treatment. Another “simple” S-wave ve-
locity predictor 共Lee, 2006兲 amounts to relating the dry-rock shear
modulus to its bulk modulus via a “consolidation constant,” which
itself has to be somehow preassigned.
RAYMER-HUNT-GARDNER
FOR S-WAVE VELOCITY
The original RHG equation provides for the P-wave velocity cal-
culation only. Here, we add an ad hoc RHG equation for the S-wave
b)
Brine 6 Gas
5 Stiff 5 Stiff
Vp (km/s)
Vp (km/s)
4 4
RHG
RHG
3
Soft Soft
2 2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Porosity Porosity
Figure 2. The P-wave velocity in pure quartz rock versus porosity ac-
cording to the soft-sand and stiff-sand models 共bold curves兲 and
RHG 共open symbols connected by fine curves兲. 共a兲 Rock with brine.
共b兲 Rock with gas. The properties of the fluid and mineral are listed in
Table 1.
 RHG Vs equation E37

velocity by assuming that, in dry sediment, VsDry ⳱ 共1 ⳮ ␾ 兲2VsS,
where VsS is the S-wave velocity in the solid phase. The S-wave ve-
locity in the wet sediment is then obtained from VsDry by assuming
that the rock’s shear modulus is not affected by pore fluid 共Gas-
smann, 1951兲:
the predictions are off-mark for one high-porosity pure quartz sam-
ple, which is unconsolidated Ottawa sand 共the dark-blue symbol of
porosity 0.33兲. Nevertheless, we display this sample in Figure 3 to
further emphasize that neither the original RHG nor equation 1 are
suitable for soft sediment.

冑 冑
An important aspect of Han’s data set is that the reported clay con-
␳b Dry 共1 ⳮ ␾ 兲␳ s tent is the fractional volume of porous clay in the unit rock volume
Vs ⳱ Vs Dry ⳱ 共1 ⳮ ␾ 兲2VsS ,
␳b 共1 ⳮ ␾ 兲␳ s Ⳮ ␾ ␳ f 共c兲 rather than that of mineral clay in the unit solid-phase volume
共C兲. The relation between the two is C ⳱ c共1 ⳮ ␾ clay兲/共1 ⳮ ␾ 兲,
共1兲
where ␾ clay is the intrinsic porosity of clay. Figure 4 shows how C re-
where ␳ bDry and ␳ b are the bulk densities of dry and wet sediments, re- lates to c for varying ␾ clay and ␾ . Clearly, for a large clay content, the
spectively; and ␳ s and ␳ f are the densities of the solid and fluid phas- deviation between these two values must be considered when com-
es, respectively. VsS 共as well as V pS兲 can be calcu-
lated from the elastic moduli and density of the Velocity vs. porosity for brine (top) and gas (bottom)
appropriate mineral mix as the square root of the a) Brine Brine Brine Brine
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
modulus divided by the density. The value ␳ s is 6 4
GC
4
Krief
4
Raymer

the volume-weighted arithmetic average of the 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

5
densities of the components although the elastic
Vp (km/s)

Vs (km/s)

Vs (km/s)

Vs (km/s)
0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3

Clay

Clay

Clay

Clay
moduli of the mix are given by Hill’s 共1952兲 aver- 4
age. 0.2 2 0.2 2 0.2 2 0.2
3
To check the quality of this prediction, consid- 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
er a subset of Han’s 共1986兲 velocity data collected 2 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
from room-dry mature clastic samples at 30 MPa 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
differential pressure. We use Gassmann’s 共1951兲 Porosity Porosity Porosity Porosity
equations to calculate the velocity in these sam- b) Gas Gas Gas Gas
ples saturated with brine and gas using the fluid 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
GC Krief Raymer
properties listed in Table 1. 6 4 4 4
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
We also calculate V p from RHG and employ it 5
Vp (km/s)

Vs (km/s)

Vs (km/s)

Vs (km/s)
to predict Vs according to Greenberg and Casta- 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3
Clay

Clay

Clay

Clay
gna 共1992兲 and Krief et al. 共1990兲 共arguably the 4
0.2 2 0.2 2 0.2 2 0.2
two most widely used Vs predictors兲. Finally, we 3
calculate Vs from porosity and clay content ac- 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
2 1 1 1
cording to equation 1. These model curves are 0 0 0 0
produced for quartz/clay sediment with the clay 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Porosity Porosity Porosity Porosity
content zero, 0.5, and 1.0, saturated with the same
brine and gas, and superimposed on the data in Figure 3. Han’s 共1986兲 data color-coded by the clay content 共porous clay in the unit rock
Figure 3. The elastic constants and densities of volume兲. Velocity versus porosity at 30 MPa for 共a兲 brine and 共b兲 gas-saturated rock. Left
the minerals used in this model are listed in column is for the P-wave velocity according to RHG. The remaining three columns are
Table 1. for the S-wave velocity. The model S-wave velocity curves are according to 共from left to
RHG accurately models V p. All Vs predictors right兲 Greenberg and Castagna 共1992兲, Krief et al. 共1990兲, and equation 1, labeled “GC,”
“Krief,” and “Raymer,” respectively. The upper curves are for pure quartz, the middle
employed here, including the newly introduced curves are for 0.5 clay content, and the bottom curves are for pure clay. The properties of
equation 1, produce accurate estimates. RHG the fluid and mineral are listed in Table 1.
slightly underestimates V p in a few pure-quartz
samples and so do the Vs predictors. In Figure 3,
Mineral clay in solid vs. porous clay in rock for various clay porosities
Table 1. Elastic moduli and density of rock and fluid 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
components. The properties of quartz, clay, calcite, and
Mineral clay in solid

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

dolomite are from Mavko et al. (1998).
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Bulk modulus Shear modulus Density 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Component 共GPa兲 共GPa兲 共g/cc兲
0.1 0.0 Clay 0.1 0.1 Clay 0.1 0.2 Clay 0.1
0.3 Clay
porosity porosity porosity porosity
Quartz 36.600 45.000 2.650 0 0 0
00 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4
Clay 21.000 7.000 2.580 Porous clay in rock Porous clay in rock Porous clay in rock Porous clay in rock
Calcite 76.800 32.000 2.710
Dolomite 94.900 45.000 2.870 Figure 4. The volume fraction of mineral clay in the solid phase ver-
sus that of porous clay in the unit volume of rock for the assumed in-
Brine 2.330 0.000 1.029 trinsic porosity of clay at zero, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 共from left to right兲.
Gas 0.017 0.000 0.112 The four lines in each frame are for the total porosity of the rock 0.3,
0.2, 0.1, and zero 共from top to bottom兲.
E38 Dvorkin

paring these data and model curves, because the latter use C rather
than c.
Consider next the data set by Rafavich et al. 共1984兲, which in-
cludes the velocity, porosity, and mineralogy of about 30 room-dry
carbonate samples measured at 30 MPa differential pressure. These
low-porosity 共between zero and 0.1兲 samples contain between 0.7
and 1.0 calcite, with the rest being predominantly dolomite. After
fluid substitution for brine and gas, these data are displayed in Figure
5 together with the pure-calcite model curves. RHG slightly overes-
timates the compressional-velocity data; however, the equation 1
curves accurately model Vs. So does the Krief et al. 共1990兲 predictor.
The Greenberg and Castagna 共1992兲 predictor slightly misses the ze-
ro-porosity end-point for calcite.
The open red symbols in Figure 5 are for chalk, courtesy of I. Bre-
vik, 共personal communication, 1995兲. Although these data are at a
low differential pressure, we display them for comparison. RHG
overestimates the P-wave velocity in chalk, which once again under-
scores the fact that it is inappropriate for high-porosity unconsolidat-
ed sediment. However, all three Vs predictors provide fairly close es-
timates for the chalk data. This is somewhat peculiar for the two old-
er methods 共a correct answer from incorrect input兲 but encouraging
for the users of equation 1 because it predicts Vs not from V p but from
porosity, lithology, and fluid.
Velocity vs. porosity in brine (top) and gas (bottom)
a)
Brine Brine
7 1 4 1
6 given by this equation in shaley sediment is essentially the same as
3
5 can be included in the arsenal of rock-physics tools used in reservoir
Vs (km/s)
Vp (km/s)
Finally, let us examine a dolomite-rich subset of the Kenter et al.
共1997兲 ultrasonic velocity data obtained on wet outcrop samples
with dolomite, calcite, quartz, and clay at 30 MPa differential pres-
sure. In Figure 6, these data are compared to the model curves pro-
duced for wet conditions. Once again, RGH, as well as the three Vs
predictors, fairly accurately matches the data, except perhaps the
Greenberg and Castagna 共1992兲 predictor, which misses the zero-
porosity endpoint for dolomite. Here also, a positive feature of the
equation 1 method is that it predicts Vs directly from the rock’s bulk
properties rather than from V p.
DISCUSSION
I recommend that rock physics models based on first principles al-
ways be used to calibrate and understand the velocity-porosity be-
havior, or, in other words, “diagnose” the rock, simply because these
models allow for reasonable selection of such parameters as pres-
sure, contact stiffness, and the number of contacts per grain. Howev-
er, this recommendation does not preclude the use of empirical and/
or ad hoc simple expressions when they match selected data and, in
addition, can be justified by more involved theoretical models.
Equation 1 meets these criteria: It accurately matches data from
mature rock and is justified by the theoretical “stiff-sand” model
共Figures 1 and 7兲. Also, Figure 8 shows that the Vs versus V p trend as
provided by Greenberg and Castagna 共1992兲. Therefore, equation 1

rock as well as in shales.

Calcite

Calcite

GC
4 This equation, if considered in combination with the original
2
RHG, reiterates the critical porosity concept 共Nur et al., 1998兲 that
3
K
the V p /Vs ratio in dry porous rock is the same as in its solid phase.
R
However, it produces a different velocity-versus-porosity curve
2 0.7 1 0.7 共Figure 7兲. Finally, this Vs equation is sensitive to the mineral elastic
0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4
Porosity Porosity constants and density. Those listed in Table 1 are commonly em-
ployed in rock physics analyses but do not preclude the user from se-
b) Gas Gas
7 1 4 1 lecting a reasonable alternative.

3 Velocity vs. porosity in brine

5
Brine Brine
Vs (km/s)
Vp (km/s)

8 1
Calcite

Calcite

5 1
4 GC
2
7
3 R 4
K
6
V p ( k m /s )

V s (k m / s )
Dolomite

2 0.7 1 0.7
Dolomite

0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 3

Porosity Porosity 5 GC

2
4
Figure 5. The Rafavich et al. 共1984兲 data color-coded by the calcite R K
content. The open red symbols are for chalk 共I. Brevik, personal
communication, 1995兲. Velocity versus porosity at 30 MPa for 共a兲 3 0.8 1 0.8
brine and 共b兲 gas-saturated rock. Left column is for the P-wave ve- 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
locity, and the right column is for the S-wave velocity. The model Porosity Porosity
S-wave velocity curves are according to Greenberg and Castagna
共1992兲, Krief et al. 共1990兲, and equation 1, labeled “GC,” “K,” and
“R,” respectively. The heavy curves in the right column are from Figure 6. The Kenter et al. 共1997兲 data color-coded by the dolomite
equation 1. All model curves are for pure calcite. content. The notations are the same as in Figure 5.
 RHG Vs equation E39

Velocity vs. porosity in brine ACKNOWLEDGMENT

a) Brine b) Brine
7 5 This work was supported by the Stanford Rock Physics Laborato-
ry and Rock Solid Images. I thank Joel Walls and Tad Smith for in-
6 sightful advice. I also thank Dawn Burgess for help and comments.
4

5 CP CP REFERENCES

Vs (km/s)
Vp (km/s)

3
4
Avseth, P., J. Dvorkin, G. Mavko, and J. Rykkje, 2000, Rock physics diag-
nostic of North Sea sands: Link between microstructure and seismic prop-
R R erties: Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 2761–2764.
2 Castagna, J. P., M. L. Batzle, and R. L. Eastwood, 1985, Relationships be-
3
tween compressional-wave and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate
STS STS rocks: Geophysics, 50, 571–581.
2 1 Castagna, J. P., M. L. Batzle, and T. K. Kan, 1993, Rock physics: The link be-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 tween rock properties and AVO response, in J. P. Castagna and M. Backus,
eds., Offset-dependent reflectivity: Theory and practice of AVO analysis:
Porosity Porosity
Investigations in Geophysics No. 8, 135–171.
Dvorkin, J., and A. Nur, 1996, Elasticity of high-porosity sandstones: Theory
Figure 7. The stiff-sand 共slender curves labeled “STS”兲, critical po- for two North Sea data sets: Geophysics, 61, 1363–1370.
rosity 共dashed curves labeled “CP”兲, and RHG and equation 1 veloc- ——–,1998, Time-average equation revisited: Geophysics, 63, 460–464.
ity predictions 共heavy curves labeled “R”兲 for 共a兲 P- and 共b兲 S-wave Gal, D., J. Dvorkin, and A. Nur, 1998, A physical model for porosity reduc-
velocity in pure-quartz brine-saturated rock. tion in sandstones: Geophysics, 63, 454–459.
Gassmann, F., 1951, Elasticity of porous media: Uber die elastizitat poroser
medien: Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesselschaft, 96, 1–23.
Greenberg, M. L., and J. P. Castagna, 1992, Shear-wave velocity estimation
in porous rocks: Theoretical formulation, preliminary verification and ap-
plications: Geophysical Prospecting, 40, 195–209.
a) Quartz
b) 50% Quartz + 50% Clay Han, D.-H., 1986, Effects of porosity and clay content on acoustic properties
4 4 of sandstones and unconsolidated sediments: Ph.D. thesis, Stanford Uni-
versity.
Hashin, Z., and S. Shtrikman, 1963, A variational approach to the elastic be-
Vs (km/s)

Vs (km/s)

3 3
havior of multiphase materials: Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Sol-
ids, 11, 127–140.
2 2 Hill, R., 1952, The elastic behavior of crystalline aggregate: Proceedings of
the Physical Society, London, A65, 349–354.
Kenter, J., F. Podladchikov, M. Reinders, S. Van der Gaast, B. Fouke, and M.
1 1 Sonnenfeld, 1997, Parameters controlling sonic velocities in a mixed car-
2 4 6 2 4 6 bonate-siliciclastic Permian shelf-margin 共upper San Andres formation,
Vp (km/s) Vp (km/s)
Last Chance Canyon, New Mexico兲: Geophysics, 64, 505–520.
c) d) Keys, R. G., and S. Xu, 2002, An approximation for the Xu-White velocity
Calcite Dolomite model: Geophysics, 67, 1406–1414.
4 4
Krief, M., J. Garat, J. Stellingwerff, and J. Ventre, 1990, A petrophysical in-
terpretation using the velocities of P and S waves 共full-waveform sonic兲:
Vs (km/s)

Vs (km/s)

3 3 The Log Analyst, 31, 355–369.

2 2
1 1
2 4 6 2
Vp (km/s)
Figure 8. The S- versus P-wave velocity in wet rock according to
equation 1, Greenberg and Castagna 共1992兲 and Krief et al. 共1990兲,
plotted as asterisks, circles, and pluses, respectively. The mineralo-
gies used are 共a兲 pure quartz, 共b兲 50% quartz and 50% clay, 共c兲 pure
calcite, and 共d兲 pure dolomite.
CONCLUSION
The new Vs equation introduced here is nothing more than an ad
hoc extension of the original RHG functional form that links V p to
porosity, mineralogy, and fluid, yet it mimics selected data with rea-
sonable fidelity and calculates Vs directly from porosity, mineralogy,
and fluid, rather than from V p. Therefore, its use may be justified in
consolidated-rock environments once its applicability is verified by
high-quality, site-specific data.
Lee, M. W., 2006, A simple method of predicting S-wave velocity: Geophys-
ics, 71, no. 6, F161–F164.
Mavko, G., T. Mukerji, and J. Dvorkin, 1998, The rock physics handbook:
Tools for seismic analysis in porous media: Cambridge University Press,
329.
Nur, A., G. Mavko, J. Dvorkin, and D. Galmudi, 1998, Critical Porosity: A
4 6
Vp (km/s) key to relating physical properties to porosity in rocks: The Leading Edge,
17, 357–362.
Pickett, G. R., 1963, Acoustic character logs and their applications in forma-
tion evaluation: Journal of Petroleum Technology, 15, 650–667.
Rafavich, F., C. Kendall, and T. Todd, 1984, The relationship between prop-
erties and the petrographic character of carbonate rocks: Geophysics, 49,
1622–1636.
Raymer, L. L., E. R. Hunt, and J. S. Gardner, 1980, An improved sonic transit
time-to-porosity transform: Transactions of the Society of Professional
Well Log Analysts, 21st Annual Logging Symposium, Paper P.
Schlumberger Reference Book, 1991, Log interpretation principles/applica-
tions, http://www.slb. com/content/services/resources/books/lipa. asp, ac-
cessed October 20, 2007.
Spikes, K. T., and J. P. Dvorkin, 2005, Gassmann-consistency of velocity-po-
rosity transforms: The Leading Edge, 24, 581–583.
Williams, D. M., 1990, The acoustic log hydrocarbon indicator: Transactions
of the Society of Professional Well Log Analysts, 31st Annual Logging
Symposium, Paper W.
Wyllie, M. R. J., A. R. Gregory, and L. W. Gardner, 1956, Elastic wave veloc-
ities in heterogeneous and porous media: Geophysics, 21, 41–70.
Xu, S., and R. E. White, 1995, A new velocity model for clay-sand mixtures:
Geophysical Prospecting, 43, 91–118.