GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 78, NO. 3 (MAY-JUNE 2013); P. D135–D142, 11 FIGS., 8 TABLES.
10.1190/GEO2012-0279.1
Downloaded 05/17/13 to 78.39.184.233. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
The effect of confining pressure on elastic wave velocities
and dynamic to static Young’s modulus ratio
Mohammad Reza Asef1 and Ali Reza Najibi1
ABSTRACT
We carried out laboratory experiments under dry conditions
on limestone core specimens of Sarvak formation obtained from
an oil well in the southwest of Iran. Our objective was to study
the effect of confining pressure on the compressional and shear
wave velocities (V P , V S ), and on the dynamic to static Young’s
modulus ratio (Ed ∕Es ). Furthermore, we made attempts to pre-
dict V P and V S at atmospheric pressure based on the same ve-
locities at various confining pressures. These analyses revealed
that, below a critical pressure with an increase in confinement
V P and V S increased exponentially, representing a poroelastic
regime. Above a critical pressure, however, the trend was linear.
Likewise, we observed that with an increase in confinement,
INTRODUCTION
Young’s modulus (E) is a key rock mechanical parameter, and the
most frequently used in estimating in situ stresses, hydrocarbon re-
servoir compaction evaluation, and wellbore stability analysis
(Chang et al., 2006). For its measurement based on standard labora-
tory experiments, a uniaxial static load is gently applied on the rock
specimen. Simultaneously, the elastic deformation is measured and
recorded. The slope of the stress-strain curve is known as the mod-
ulus of elasticity or the static Young’s modulus (Es ). Likewise,
compressional and shear waves (also known as elastic, sound, or
ultrasonic waves) depend explicitly on the elastic moduli of rock.
This is obviously because rock material will experience similar
stresses (with lower amplitude) when an acoustic wave passes
by (Fjaer et al., 2008). Accordingly, dynamic Young’s modulus
(Ed ) is determined, knowing the compressional and shear wave
velocities (V P and V S , respectively) as well as the rock density
(ρ) expressed in the form of equation 1
Manuscript received by the Editor 20 July 2012; revised manuscript received 9 December 2012; published online 10 April 2013.
1
Kharazmi University, Department of Geology, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: asef@khu.ac.ir; najib.alirezai@gmail.com.
© 2013 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
D135
Ed ∕Es initially decreased exponentially, followed by a linear
decreasing trend above the critical pressure. This indicated that
Es is more responsive than Ed . Accordingly, these observations
infer that it is possible to predict Es based on Ed at different
confining stresses. This is an important improvement for geo-
mechanical modeling of hydrocarbon and geothermal reservoirs
because static parameters are more realistic input parameters.
Besides, we derived the coefficients of the velocity-pressure
equation for Sarvak limestone using least square regression
analysis. More interestingly, we predicted V P and V S at atmo-
spheric pressure based on these coefficients. Good agreement
was observed between measured and predicted velocities at
atmospheric pressure. Analysis of similar published experi-
ments on oceanic basalts strongly confirmed these observations.
3V 2P − 4V 2S
Ed ¼ ρ:V 2S : (1)
V 2P − V 2S
Input parameters of this equation (V P , V S , and ρ) may be mea-
sured in the lab and in the field using the well-established sonic and
density logs. Nevertheless, Ed is generally different from Es (Fjaer
et al., 2008). One of the most important reasons for this phenom-
enon is the lower strain amplitude encountered in the process of
dynamic experiments (Zimmer, 2003). In fact, during the static
loading, a large stress level is applied to the rock grains, such that
in turn it can close pore spaces and microcracks at the initial state of
the applied stress. Accordingly, during the static loading, the mea-
sured strain amplitude is typically at the order of 10−2 to 10−3 ,
whereas in case of dynamic loading, a significantly lower level
of stress is applied. Therefore, the strain amplitude measures about
10−6 or 10−7 (Figure 1). However, the static and dynamic moduli
are equal for a homogeneous, elastic material like steel (Ledbetter,
1993). Thus, the physical origin of this discrepancy seems to be
 D136 Asef and Najibi

related to the heterogeneity of microstructures of the rock material Es ¼ 0.0158E2.74

(Fjaer et al., 2008). These observations suggest that, under high
confining stresses, the difference between static and dynamic mod-
uli of rock would reduce (Macini and Mesini, 1998). This is because
high confinement stresses smoothly close most of the microcracks
(Kranz, 1983). After closure of microcracks, the mechanical
Downloaded 05/17/13 to 78.39.184.233. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
d : (2)
Many other authors have developed similar prediction equations.
However, they do not consider the impact of confining pressure on
dynamic-to-static conversion relationships. Further clarification on
this issue is one of the major concerns of our research. Nevertheless,

behavior of rock tends to resemble an elastic material rather than
plastic. Therefore, heterogeneity of rock, anisotropy, and nonlinear
characteristics may reduce substantially (Zimmerman, 1991; Sun
et al., 2012).
Because of coring restrictions, measurement of Es along the well-
bore is often discontinuous. On the other hand, sonic and density
logs (V P , V S , and ρ, respectively) in the petroleum industry are
widely available throughout the well length. These data can then
be translated into Ed based on equation 1. Nevertheless, the dy-
namic mechanical properties obtained from well logs are typically
too optimistic and often larger than the corresponding static ones.
Hence, the static moduli are used for geomechanical modeling of
hydrocarbon and geothermal reservoirs because they are more rea-
listic input parameters (Gu et al., 2011). However, dynamic moduli
can be converted to static moduli, if a reliable correlation is estab-
lished. Several correlations were suggested to estimate static elastic
parameters from dynamic elastic properties. Equation 2 is a recent
one established for shale formations at the Gulf of Mexico (Ohen,
2003)
remember that this phenomenon is well-known in terms of its phys-
ical induction (Kaselow and Shapiro, 2004). In situ stresses at deep
well obviously would affect the rock velocity measurements.
Laboratory experiments indicated that P- and S-wave velocities in-
crease with uprising confining stresses (Kern et al., 2001; Ji et al.,
2007). An increase in rock velocity under confining stresses can be
attributed mainly to the closure of microfractures (Carlson and
Gangi, 1985; Holt et al., 2005; Pervukhina et al., 2010). Essentially,
more rapid closure of microcracks under low confining pressure
leads to exponential increase in rock velocity (Wang et al.,
2005a, 2005b). It is interesting to note that, with an increase in con-
fining stress, static Young’s modulus will increase, too (Jizba, 1991;
Asef and Reddish, 2002). However, this trend on the static
parameters is different from the dynamic ones. Therefore, static
parameters are misestimated, if the effect of confining pressure
on dynamic-to-static conversion is ignored.
In this research, we carry out experimental investigations on
some core specimens to measure elastic wave velocities at different
confining pressures. Simultaneously, we determine static Young’s
modulus for the same rock specimens at different confining pres-
sures. Laboratory experiments reveal that confining pressure could
strongly affect V P , V S , and Ed ∕Es . These findings are very useful
for reliable estimating of static Young’s modulus from dynamic
wellbore data. Moreover, we estimate the value of V P and V S at
atmospheric pressure based on V P and V S data at different confining
pressures that is a step forward in elastic wave velocities survey.
Further investigation based on published data confirm experimental
observations of this research.

LITERATURE REVIEW
In the past decades, many attempts were made to study the impact
of confining stress on the elastic wave velocities. These studies
progressively illuminated various aspects of this issue. Eberhart-
Phillips et al. (1989) carry out confined ultrasonic tests on 64 sand-
stone specimens, and measured elastic wave velocities at pressures
up to about 50 MPa. They observed that, below 20 MPa, the trend of
the velocity-pressure curves is exponential, followed by a linear
segment. They introduced equation 3 for linear and nonlinear
regimes
Figure 1. Strain magnitude under static and dynamic loading
(Zimmer, 2003). V ¼ A þ KP − Be−DP ; (3)

Table 1. The values of coefficients of equation 3 for some sandstone (Eberhart-Phillips et al., 1989).

Porosity Sample VP VS
-4 -2 4 -4
A (km/s) K 10 km/s/MPa B (km/s) D 10 MPa A (km/s) K 10 km/s/MPa B (km/s) D 10-2MPa4

Beaver 0.064 5.47 0.199 0.503 9 3.44 0.381 0.399 11

Berea 350 0.227 3.91 0.307 0.622 22 2.31 0.197 0.537 19
Indiana1 0.266 3.20 0.353 0.308 12 1.92 0.152 0.305 10
 Confining pressure and elastic waves D137

where P is the confining pressure, V is the elastic wave velocity (V P
or V S ), and A, K, B, and D are the coefficients of the equation. The
values of these coefficients for some sandstone specimens are listed
in Table 1.
Wepfer and Christensen (1991) apply up to about 800 MPa
confining pressure on some gneiss specimens and measured V P
Downloaded 05/17/13 to 78.39.184.233. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
experiments. After a critical point, a linear segment represents
the trend for high confining pressure. The exponential trend at
low pressure implies a poroelastic regime where most microcracks
and pore spaces are closed. After a critical pressure (Pc ), rock
material turns out to be more compacted, and therefore, the
velocity-pressure curve resembles a linear elastic trend. They de-

and V S at different pressure increments. They developed equation 4 clared that the maximum rock compression would take above
as follows the critical pressure and suggested equation 5 for this regime
 a
P V ¼ V o þ DP; P ≥ Pc : (5)
V¼A þ Bð1 − e−bP Þ; (4)
100
Where V 0 is the projected velocity of rock without porosity
where A, a, B, and b are the coefficients of the equation. They in- (V P or V S ) at room pressure, and D is a coefficient referring to an
troduced a “knee regime,” where the velocity-pressure curve from intrinsic pressure derivative of velocity. As illustrated in Figure 2,
exponential switched to linear. Table 2 lists the values obtained for P0 is the pressure at V ¼ V 0 , whereas V B and V C are velocities at
coefficients in the equation 4 for different rock types. atmospheric and critical pressure, respectively. Moreover, the V B to
Brereton et al. (1992) focus on the elastic properties of oceanic V 0 regime reflects the closure of microcracks and pore spaces. Also,
basaltic rocks and measured V P and V S at various confining the V 0 to V C regime infers to “lattice compression,” that is
pressures. Accordingly, above 25 MPa confining pressure, they when rock velocity slightly increases even after closure of all
observed slight increase in rock velocities. Anselmetti and Eberli
(1993) induct up to about 100 MPa confining pressure on some
carbonates and measured V P and V S at different pressure levels.
They reported that the critical pressure is about 15 MPa and rock
fracturing would occur above 100 MPa.
Wang et al. (2005a, 2005b) particularly study the impact of con-
finement on some metamorphic rocks. They suggested that the
velocity-pressure curve consists of two segments (Figure 2). The
first part is an exponential curve that is valid at low-pressure

Table 2. The values of coefficients of equation 4 for different

rocks (Wepfer and Christensen, 1991).

Sample VP VS
A a B b A a B b
(km/s) (km/s) (1∕MPa) (km/s) (km/s) (1∕MPa)
Figure 3. Velocity-pressure curve (Ji et al., 2007).
Dolomite 5.44 0.017 1.05 0.025 3.58 0.011 0.16 0.028
Sandstone 3.76 0.072 1.64 0.0198 2.61 0.071 1.06 0.021
Limestone — — — — 3.17 0.011 0.17 0.019

Figure 2. Ideal velocity-pressure curve and its different parts (Wang Figure 4. Illustration of K d ∕K s versus pressure in clean sandstone
et al., 2005a). containing 2% clay (from Jizba [1991] with some amendments).
 D138 Asef and Najibi

microcracks. Wang et al. (2005a, 2005b) recommend equation 6 for where C is the velocity when P is 1 MPa, and a and b are the equa-
nonlinear regimes tion coefficients. Ji et al. (2007) reanalyze equation 6 and develop
equation 7
V ¼ aðLnðPÞÞ2 þ bLnðPÞ þ C; (6) B ¼ B0 e−kP ; (7)
Downloaded 05/17/13 to 78.39.184.233. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

where B is called “velocity drop” referring to difference in velocity

between porous and nonporous variety of the same rock specimen at
given confining pressure. As it is noticed in Figure 3, B takes
a maximum value of B0 at P ¼ 0. Likewise, k is called “decay
constant” and expressed by equation 8

dB
¼ −kB: (8)
dP

Ji et al. (2007) promote equations 5 and 7 and suggested equa-

tion 9 that is schematically illustrated in Figure 3

V ¼ V 0 þ DP − B0 e−kP : (9)

Equation 9 is similar to equation 3. The physical meaning

of “V 0 − B0 ” (in Figure 3) is the value of V B in Figure 2 that is
the rock velocity at atmospheric pressure.
The effect of the confining pressure on the static and dynamic
Figure 5. Thin section image of typical microcracks in Sarvak elastic moduli of rocks is another concern and many studies asserted
limestone filled with hematite. that these parameters increase due to the confinement, too (Cheng
and Johnston, 1981; Jizba, 1991; Zimmer, 2003). Cheng and John-
ston (1981) measure static and dynamic bulk modulus (K d and K s ,
Table 3. Physical properties of Sarvak limestone. respectively) for granite, sandstone, limestone, and oil shale speci-
mens. They observed that K d ∕K s reduced from 2 (at low pressure)
Sample Rock Depth Density gr∕cm3 Porosity Permeability to about 1 when the pressure increased to about 200 MPa. Addi-
type m % mD tionally, they assert that the difference between dynamic and static
moduli is due to deformation. They suggested that deformation is
LM.1 Limestone 4591.90 2.676 0.214 0.328 nonelastic in the static experiments, whereas it is linear elastic in
LM.2 Limestone 4621.15 2.678 0.484 0.365 dynamic tests. Also, they stated that microcracks have some con-
LM.3 Limestone 4586.20 2.669 0.284 0.217 tribution in discrepancy between K d and K s . Jizba (1991) measure
K d and K s for some sandstone specimens at various confining
pressure levels. The author claims that K d and
K s increased with an increase in confinement,
Table 4. V P (km/s) at various confining pressures for Sarvak limestone.
but the impact on K s is more pronounced than
on K d . Also, Jizba (1991) observes that, in case
Sample Density gr∕cm3 Pressure (MPa) of sandstones with low clay content, K s and K d
will be equal at the pressure of about 50 MPa
0.1 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 (Figure 4).
LM.1 2.676 4.392 NA 5.637 5.658 5.777 5.867 5.959 6.007
LM.2 2.678 5.199 5.754 5.893 5.990 6.015 6.091 6.168 6.194 SAMPLES AND EXPERIMENTAL
LM.3 2.669 5.32 6.008 6.043 6.097 6.115 6.151 6.151 6.188 PROCEDURES
In this research, we conducted laboratory experi-
ments under dry conditions at room temperature on
Table 5. V S (km/s) at various confining pressures for Sarvak limestone. Sarvak limestone. This is a cream-to-brown mas-
sive limestone of Cenomanian–Turonian age. Spe-
Sample Density gr∕cm3 Pressure (MPa) cimens were obtained from an oil reservoir in the
southwest of Iran at depths of about 4600–4700 m.
0.1 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 Thin section studies reveal that there are highly fre-
quent microcracks in the specimens filled with he-
LM.1 2.676 2.485 NA 3.015 3.070 3.115 3.154 3.187 3.214 matite (Figure 5). Also, Sarvak limestone is dense
LM.2 2.678 2.527 3.130 3.206 3.220 3.227 3.249 3.264 3.271 and has low porosity. More information on poros-
LM.3 2.669 2.870 3.229 3.239 3.270 3.280 3.291 3.291 3.296 ity, density, and permeability of the studied samples
is presented in Table 3. In the first step of laboratory
 Confining pressure and elastic waves D139

experiments, we measured V P and V S at atmospheric pressure for all

specimens. The frequency was 63 kHz and 33 kHz for P and S waves,
respectively. In the next step, using ultrasonic testing machine and
pulse transmission technique (Birch, 1960; Christensen, 1974), we
measured V P and V S over a range of confining pressure from 5–
50 MPa. This apparatus consists of three units: First is the Transducer
Downloaded 05/17/13 to 78.39.184.233. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Interface Unit including confining pressure cell, pore pressure sensor,

and axial deformation sensor. Next, is the Acoustic Transducer Instru-
mentation Unit (ATIU) assigned to the acoustic P and S signal switch-
ing. The third unit is Oscilloscope for displaying wave trains before
being transferred and stored in computer. After calibration, each
specimen was placed inside the cell, and the static load was gently
applied. Acoustic signal was sent/received by ATIU unit, displayed
on Oscilloscope, and logged on computer. Wave transit times were
recorded at the desired pressures, and wave velocities were calculated
Figure 6. V P versus confining pressure for Sarvak limestone.
form equation 10

L
V¼ : (10)
t
Where L is the sample length (m), and t is the wave transit time
(s). Tables 4 and 5 list compressional and shear wave velocities at
various confining pressures and room temperature.

DISCUSSION
The effect of confining pressure on V P and V S
The results of laboratory experiments for three limestone samples
(LM.1, LM.2, and LM.3) are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. As it is
perceived, the trend of the velocity-pressure curve consists of two
segments: an exponential curve followed by a linear part which is in
good agreement with Figure 3. The critical pressure (Pc ) for Sarvak
limestone is about 15 MPa that corresponds with findings of Figure 7. V S versus confining pressure for Sarvak limestone.
Anselmetti and Eberli (1993) for carbonates. Also, these observa-
tions confirm previously suggested equations 4
and 9 for this phenomenon. Table 6. The values of coefficients of equation 9 for Sarvak limestone.

Prediction of V P and V S at atmospheric

Sample VP VS
pressure
V0 D B0 K R2 V0 D B0 K R2
As it was explained in the previous para- km∕s 10−4 km∕s 10−2 km∕s 10−4 km∕s 10−2
graphs, the physical meaning of “V 0 − B0 ” in km∕s∕ MPa−1 km∕s∕ MPa−1
equation 9 and Figure 3 is that of P- and S-wave MPa MPa
velocities at atmospheric pressure (V B ). In this
research, we measured V P and V S at atmospheric LM.1 5.58 0.009 1.23 0.34 0.97 3.06 0.003 0.59 0.20 0.99
pressure for Sarvak limestone. Also, they were LM.2 5.90 0.006 0.72 0.27 0.99 3.20 0.0015 0.70 0.44 0.99
estimated based on the coefficients of equation 9 LM.3 6.04 0.003 0.7 0.52 0.94 3.25 0.001 0.40 0.53 0.87
as it is presented in Table 6. An interesting point
is that predicted and measured values were in
good agreement (Table 7). The root mean square
error (rms error) was calculated for V P and V S Table 7. Predicted and measured V P and V S at atmospheric pressure for
for each specimen. The average value of rms er- Sarvak limestone.
ror for thee samples was 0.029 and 0.021 (km/s)
for V P and V S , respectively that is less than 1% Sample Measured Predicted Measured Predicted
of recorded wave velocities. V BP km∕s V BP km∕s V BS km∕s V BS km∕s
To verify consistency of the results obtained
for Sarvak limestone, we accomplished the same LM.1 4.392 4.350 2.485 2.473
analysis on some published data. Brereton et al. LM.2 5.199 5.180 2.527 2.500
(1992) measure V P and V S for some oceanic ba- LM.3 5.320 5.340 2.870 2.850
salt specimens over a range of confinement from
 D140 Asef and Najibi

atmospheric pressure up to 400 MPa. We obtained the coefficients
of equation 9 for these data as it is presented in Table 8. Then, we
could predict V P and V S at atmospheric pressure for these samples.
The average value of rms error was found to be about 0.071 and
0.019 (km/s) for V P and V S , respectively. Figures 8 and 9
illustrate predicted V P and V S against the measured values for ocea-
Downloaded 05/17/13 to 78.39.184.233. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
The effects of confining pressure on Ed ∕Es ratios
During measurement of wave transit time at desired pressures for
one sample (LM.3), axial deformation (εz ) was monitored as a func-
tion of static load (σ z ). Then, at each level of the applied confining
pressure, the static Young’s modulus (Es ) was determined based on

nic basalt and Sarvak limestone specimens. All data (oceanic basalt
and Sarvak limestone) are plotted on a 45° symmetry line. If pre-
dicted values matched the observed ones, all points would lie on the
symmetry line. Accordingly, a fairly symmetric scatter of points
along the 45° line in Figures 8 and 9 obviously illustrates the ver-
ification of the prediction. This analysis reveals that it is possible to
estimate V P and V S at atmospheric pressure with a reasonable
accuracy. This is a significant improvement for further analysis
on this issue.
equation 11
σz
Es ¼ : (11)
εz
Figure 10 illustrates the trend of variation of Es at different con-
fining pressure levels. The general trend of the Es –pressure curve is
quite similar to the velocity-pressure curve in Figures 6 and 7. As it
is observed, because of high compressibility below 15 MPa, the
trend of this segment is nonlinear. Moreover, for the same specimen,

Table 8. The values of coefficients of equation 9 for oceanic basalt.

Sample VP VS
V 0 km∕s D 10−4 km∕s∕MPa B0 km∕s K 10−2 MPa−1 R2 V 0 km∕s D 10−4 km∕s∕MPa B0 km∕s K 10−2 MPa−1 R2

BAS01-1 6.048 1.35 × 10−6 0.36 0.005 0.99 3.342 1.27 × 10−6 0.21 0.0042 0.99
BAS01-4 5.553 0.00048 0.15 0.096 0.99 3.309 3.1 × 10−7 0.32 0.0034 0.99
BAS01-5 5.614 0.00033 0.08 0.054 0.97 2.929 0.0047 0.096 0.0014 0.97
BAS04-1 5.939 0.00059 0.01 0.062 0.98 3.054 0.00069 0.065 0.0005 0.99
BAS04-3 5.586 0.00073 0.25 0.052 0.99 3.138 9.65 × 10−5 0.36 0.0016 0.98
BAS08-3 5.706 0.00064 0.1 0.035 0.99 3.411 2.2 × 10−6 0.47 0.0033 0.98
BAS08-4 5.840 0.00076 0.11 0.046 0.99 3.034 4.57 × 10−6 0.18 0.0046 0.96
BAS11-1 5.306 0.00047 0.23 0.0360 0.99 3.028 4.4 × 10−7 0.24 0.0065 0.98
BAS12-4 5.651 0.0006 0.15 0.0640 0.99 3.030 0.0003 0.01 0.004 0.98
BAS15-1 6.108 0.0004 0.26 0.067 0.99 3.464 0.0005 0.068 0.02 0.97

Figure 8. Predicted V P versus measured V P at atmospheric Figure 9. Predicted V S versus measured V S at atmospheric
pressure for oceanic basalt and Sarvak limestone. pressure for oceanic basalt and Sarvak limestone.
 Confining pressure and elastic waves
the value of Ed ∕Es at different confining pressures is plotted in
Figure 11. Equation 12 is suggested based on Figure 11
Ed
¼ aP−b : (12)
Es
Here P is the confining pressure, and a and b are the equation
Downloaded 05/17/13 to 78.39.184.233. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
coefficients. For this specimen, it was observed that a ¼ 4.295 and
b ¼ 0.337. The general trend in Figure 11 and equation 12 is ap-
plicable for all lithologies, but the coefficients of a and b may
change. This is an interesting approach to access an Es value based
on dynamic data at different confining pressure levels. This is
especially so in the petroleum industry, where often density
and elastic wave velocity measurements are available, whereas
appropriate core specimens are scarce to obtain static parameters
of rock. The general trend observed in Figure 11 confirms that
Es increased due to the confining pressure more than the Ed ,
and therefore, the Ed ∕Es value decreased. Accordingly, below a cri-
tical pressure of 15 MPa, reduction of Ed ∕Es is exponential. This
means that, over a range from 0 to 15 MPa, Es increased more
quickly than Ed . The physical logic for this phenomenon is partly
related to the strain amplitude as it was explained in the introduc-
tion. Accordingly, it is noticed that with an increase in confining
pressure, most of pore spaces and microcracks are closed, that in
Figure 10. Es versus confining pressure for Sarvak limestone.
Figure 11. Ed ∕Es versus confining pressure for Sarvak limestone.
D141
turn, it will significantly reduce the strain amplitude during the sta-
tic loading. Therefore, as the confining stresses increase, measured
Es will be more close to Ed .
This analysis clearly reveals that the impact of confining stress on
prediction of Es from Ed is significant. Many authors suggested
equations to predict Ed ∕Es relationship based on laboratory experi-
ments at atmospheric pressure. Nevertheless, for practical purpose
to calculate Es , they used in situ Ed obtained from sonic log or VSP
data at different depths (that is in fact Ed under confining pressure)
and they ignored pressure dependency of Ed . For that reason, to
obtain Es from Ed at a specific depth (pressure), Ed ∕Es at particular
pressure should be taken into account. If this phenomenon is not
considered, predicted Es will be underestimated.
CONCLUSION
Ultrasonic experiments on Sarvak limestone revealed that the im-
pact of confining stress on the elastic wave velocities is significant.
Accordingly, below a critical pressure with an increase in confining
stress, V P and V S increased exponentially, followed by a linear in-
creasing trend. In this research, we obtained the coefficients of the
velocity-pressure equation for V P and V S for Sarvak limestone.
Moreover, we demonstrated that it is possible to predict elastic wave
velocities at atmospheric pressure based on the velocity measure-
ments at different confining pressure levels. Analysis of similar
published data on oceanic basalt specimens strongly confirmed
these observations. The average of rms error between predicted
and measured data was less than 1% for Sarvak limestone and Ocea-
nic basalt. Moreover, simultaneous measurement of dynamic and
static Young’s modulus over a range of confining stresses revealed
that, with an increase in confining stress, Ed ∕Es decreased. Accord-
ingly, below a critical pressure of 15 MPa, Ed ∕Es reduced exponen-
tially, followed by a linear decreasing trend. This indicates that, with
an increase in confining pressure from 0 to 15 MPa, Es increased
more quickly than Ed . This is partly because of the high stress level
applied during the static experiment, leading to quick closure of
pore spaces and microcracks. An interesting point is that, knowing
the trend of Ed ∕Es as a function of confining pressure for any rock,
it is possible to estimate Es based on Ed at a specific depth. This is
an important improvement for practical applications in petroleum
geomechanics, especially in case high-quality core specimens are
not available.
REFERENCES
Anselmetti, F. S., and G. P. Eberli, 1993, Contrals on sonic velocity in
carbonates: Pure and Applied Geophysics, 141, 287–323, doi: 10
.1007/BF00998333.
Asef, M. R., and D. J. Reddish, 2002, The impact of confining stress on the
rock mass deformation modulus: Geotechnique, 52, 235–241, doi: 10
.1680/geot.2002.52.4.235.
Birch, F., 1960, The velocity of compressional waves in rocks to 10 kilobar,
Part 1: Journal of Geophysical Research, 65, 1083–1102, doi: 10.1029/
JZ065i004p01083.
Brereton, N. R., P. N. Chroston, C. J. Evans, J. A. Hudson, and R. B.
Whitmarsh, 1992, Anelastic strain recovery and elastic properties of ocea-
nic Basaltic rocks: Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific
Results, 123, 469–491.
Carlson, R. L., and A. F. Gangi, 1985, Effect of cracks on the pressure de-
pendence of P-wave velocities in crystalline rocks: Journal of Geophysical
Research, 79, 407–412.
Chang, C. H., M. D. Zoback, and A. Khaksar, 2006, Empirical relations
between rock strength and physical properties in sedimentary rocks: Jour-
nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 51, 223–237, doi: 10.1016/j
.petrol.2006.01.003.
Cheng, C. H., and D. H. Johnston, 1981, Dynamic and static moduli: Geo-
physical Research Letters, 8, 39–42, doi: 10.1029/GL008i001p00039.
 D142 Asef and Najibi
Christensen, N. I., 1974, Compressional wave velocities in possible mantle
rocks to pressures of 30 kilobars: Journal of Geophysical Research, 79,
407–412, doi: 10.1029/JB079i002p00407.
Eberhart-Phillips, D., D.-H. Han, and M. D. Zoback, 1989, Empirical
relationship among seismic velocity, effective pressure and clay content
in sandstones: Geophysics, 54, 82–89, doi: 10.1190/1.1442580.
Fjaer, E., R. M. Holt, P. Horsrud, A. M. Raaen, and R. Risnes, 2008,
Petroleum related rock mechanics, 2nd ed., Elsevier Scientific.
Downloaded 05/17/13 to 78.39.184.233. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Gu, F., M. Chan, and R. Fryk, 2011, Geomechanical-data acquisition,
monitoring, and applications in SAGD: Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, 50, 9–21, doi: 10.2118/145402-PA.
Holt, R. M., O.-M. Nes, and E. Fjaer, 2005, In situ stress dependence of
wave velocities in reservoir and overburden rocks: The Leading Edge,
24, 1268–1274, doi: 10.1190/1.2149650.
Ji, S., Q. Wang, D. Marcotte, M. H. Salisbury, and Z. Xu, 2007, P-wave
velocities, anisotropy and hysteresis in ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic
rocks as a function of confining pressure: Journal of Geophysical
Research, 112, B09204, doi: 10.1029/2006JB004867.
Jizba, D. L., 1991, Mechanical and acoustical properties of sandstones and
shales: Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Kaselow, A., and S. A. Shapiro, 2004, Stress sensitivity of elastic moduli and
electrical resistivity in porous rocks: Journal of Geophysics and Engineer-
ing, 1, 1–11, doi: 10.1088/1742-2132/1/1/001.
Kern, H., T. Popp, F. Gorbatsevich, A. Zharikov, K. V. Lobanov, and Y. P.
Smirnov, 2001, Pressure and temperature dependence of V P and V S in
rocks from the superdeep well and from surface analogues at Kola and
the nature of velocity anisotropy: Tectonophysics, 338, 113–134, doi:
10.1016/S0040-1951(01)00128-7.
Kranz, R. L., 1983, Microcracks in rocks: A review: Tectonophysics, 100,
449–480, doi: 10.1016/0040-1951(83)90198-1.
Ledbetter, H., 1993, Dynamic vs. Static Young’s moduli: A case study:
Materials Science and Engineering, L9–L10.
Macini, P., and E. Mesini, 1998, Static and dynamic reservoir rock
compressibility at high pressure: International Petroleum Exhibition
and Conference, SPE 49549-MS.
Ohen, H. A., 2003, Calibrated wireline mechanical rock properties method
for predicting and preventing wellbore collapse and sanding: SPE 82236.
Pervukhina, M., B. Gurevich, D. N. Dewhurst, and A. F. Siggins, 2010,
Applicability of velocity-stress relationships based on the dual porosity
concept to isotropic porous rocks: Geophysical Journal International,
181, 1473–1479.
Sun, S., S. Ji, Q. Wang, Z. Xu, M. Salisbury, and C. Long, 2012, Seismic
velocities and anisotropy of core samples from the Chinese continental
scientific drilling borehole in the Sulu UHP terrane, eastern China: Jour-
nal of Geophysical Research, 117, B01206, doi: 10.1029/2011JB008672.
Wang, Q., S. Ji, M. H. Salisbury, B. Xia, M. Pan, and Z. Xu, 2005b, Shear
wave properties and Poisson’s ratios of ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic
rocks from the Dabie-Sulu orogenic belt, China: Implications for crustal
composition: Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, B08208, doi: 10
.1029/2004JB003435.
Wang, Q., S. Ji, M. H. Salisbury, B. Xia, M. Pan, and Z. Xu, 2005a, Pressure
dependence and anisotropy of P-wave velocities in ultrahigh-pressure me-
tamorphic rocks from the Dabie-Sulu orogenic belt (China): Implications
for seismic properties of subducted slabs and origin of mantle reflections:
Tectonophysics, 398, 67–99, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2004.12.001.
Wepfer, W. W., and N. I. Christensen, 1991, A seismic velocity — Confining
pressure relation, with application: International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 28, 451–
456, doi: 10.1016/0148-9062(91)90083-X.
Zimmer, M., 2003, Seismic velocities in unconsolidated sands: Measure-
ments of pressure, sorting and compaction effects: Ph.D. thesis, Stanford
University.
Zimmerman, R. W., 1991, Compressibility of sandstones: Elsevier
Scientific.