Rock Physics Model for Tight Sandy Conglomerates
CPS/SEG Beijing 2014 International Geophysical Conference
Rock Physics Model for Tight Sandy Conglomerates
Hongmei Luo*1,2, Xiaorong Luo1, Shuhui Liu2, Changjiang Wang2, Xiangyang Wu1
Downloaded 09/28/16 to 182.253.150.143. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
1. Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
2. Geoscience Research Institute of Shengli Oilfield, SINOPEC
Summary
Fine gravels, pebbles, boulders and even thick
and massive gravels, which are of different
granularity and compositions can be found in tight
sandy conglomerates core. And the complex
compositions such as granite gneiss and carbonate
rock can make the rock hard with a high density and
high transverse wave velocity, which is very different
from conventional sandstone and mudstone. This
paper puts forward a model to predict the rock
physics parameters of tight sandy-conglomerates.
Based on the Gassmann equation, the model first
determines the rock physical properties at critical
porosity with the application of the contact theory,
then interpolates between mineral points and critical
porosity using the bound theory (upper bound) of
Hashin-Shtrikman. Comparing with the test results of
logging data in compact glutenite development area,
this model can well describe the gravel mass rock.
Introduction
Tight sandy-conglomerate is widely developed in
rift basin, especially in the downthrown of steep
boundary faults, and it is of high heterogeneity (Xian
et al., 2007). Compared with loose sandstone, it has
the characteristics of lower porosity, large single-
layer thickness, and fast lateral facies change. And in
different sedimentary facies, its properties are of
great difference.
For ordinary reservoir rocks such as sandstones,
the relationship among the elastic velocity, matrix
mineral，porosity , pore fluid saturation have been
studied for years . Many rock physics models of
sandstone reservoir have been developed and used in
target areas (Biot, 1956, Wyllie, 1956, Raymer,et.al.,
1980, Han,1986, Xu ,1995,Avseth et al.,2005). For
example, an effective-medium model (Dvorkin and
Nur, 1996) based on Gassmann equation is widely
used at present, the principle of which is from the
Nur’s (Nur, 1992; Nur etc al., 1995) critical porosity
theory. The petrophysical parameters at the critical
porosity is calculated using the Hertz-Mindlin contact
theory (Mindlin, 1949). And the lower bound of
Hashin-Shtrikman (1963) used for the interpolation is
adopted . This model has been widely used in
sandstones and shales.
But these models seem to be not applicable for
the tight sandy-conglomerates, especially for which
996
with higher content of gravels developed in the root
of the nearshore subaqueous fans because they do not
consider the influence of the gravels. The tight sandy-
conglomerates contains large amounts of gravels with
different granularity and different components. The
granularity varies from fine gravel, pebbles, coarse
gravel, boulders to block gravel. The existence of
those gravels makes the transverse wave velocity of
the rock quite different from that of the conventional
sandstones and mudstones. The porosity of tight
sandy-conglomerates is extremely low and the rock
hardness is very great with a high density and
velocity. Models about the properties of tight sandy-
conglomerates were rarely seen in previous studies.
Therefore, a model for tight sandy-conglomerates
was established .
Construction of Rock-physics model
The model to be built assumes that the studied
geological material is a homogeneous and isotropic
porous media, of which there are only three
independent parameters, i.e. rock density, P-wave
velocity and S-wave velocity.This model is similar to
the effective medium model(Dvorkin and Nur 1996).
The difference is that this model is interpolated by
means of the upper bound of Hashin-
Shtrikman(Hashin and Shtrikman, 1963), but the
effective medium model by the lower bound.
According to the theory of elasticity, the
relationship between the rock density(ρr)，P-wave
velocity (Vp) and S-wave velocity(Vs) can be
expressed as:
ρ r = (1 − φ ) ρ s + φρ f
K sat + ( 4 3) Gsat
Vp =
ρr
Gsat
Vs =
ρr
The bulk modulus (Ksat) calculated using the
Gassmann relations(1951) is:
2
⎛ K dry ⎞
⎜ 1- ⎟
⎝ Ks ⎠
K sat = K dry + .
⎛ φ 1- φ K dry ⎞
⎜⎜ K ⎟
+ -
⎝ f K s K s 2 ⎟⎠
where ρr is the density of the rock(g/cm3); φ is
the porosity; ρs is the density of mineral (g/cm3); ρf is
the fluid density (g/cm3); Vp and Vs are the P-wave
 Rock Physics Model for Tight Sandy Conglomerates
CPS/SEG Beijing 2014 International Geophysical Conference

and S-wave velocity (km/s) of the rock, respectively; in which

Kdry is the bulk modulus of the dry rock (GPa); Ks and Z =
G s ⎛ 9 Ks + 8 Gs ⎞
⎜ ⎟
Kf are the bulk modulus of minerals and of fluid 6 ⎝ Ks + 2 Gs ⎠
respectively.
Because the fluid does not transfer the shear where, φ is the porosity less than the critical
stress, the shear modulus Gsat is: porosity, and the critical porosity of sandstone is
Downloaded 09/28/16 to 182.253.150.143. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

generally about 0.4.

Gsat = Gdry .

Gdry is the shear modulus (GPa) of the dry rock. Behavior of the models
The properties of the matrix and fluid can be The comparation of the behavior between the
computed by the methods described in the effective medium model(Dvorkin and Nur,1996) and
Handbooks(Mavko etc, 1998). The key point to this study model was taken in a numerical model，
establish the model is the calculating method for the where the material properties was assumed that the
modulus parameters (Kdry and Gdry) of the rock . critical porosity of rock is 40%, water saturation of
Here the concept of the critical porosity and the rock is 100%, clay as the matrix is 20%, and the
contact theory is introduced. According to Nur (Nur, content of feldspar is 30% in the grains and 70% is
1992; Nur et al,. 1995), there is a critical porosity (φ quartz. The comparison results of the two models are
c) which separates the behavior of porous particle shown in Fig.1.
aggregates into two physical domains. When the
porosity is less than the critical porosity, particles
contact with each other and thus show consolidation
rock properties. On the other hand, when the porosity
is greater than the critical porosity, the particles are
not in contact with each other and show the behavior
of suspended solids. The material properties in a
physical domain could be characterized by re-
calibrating porosity through the interpolation between
two end members, i.e. the properties of the critical
point and that of another end member. Therefore, the
key is to obtain the nature of the critical point and
how to interpolate.
According to the Hertz-Mindlin Theory (Mindlin,
1949), the bulk modulus (KHM) and shear modulus Fig. 1 Comparison of the two models
(GHM) of the dry rock at the critical porosity(φc) are (Red for the hard-rock model, Black for the soft-rock
model )
calculated as follows:
⎡ n 2 (1 − φc ) 2 Gs 2 ⎤ 3
1
As can be seen from Fig. 1, P-wave velocity
KHM = ⎢ Pe ⎥ predicted by this study model is greater than the
⎣ 18 π (1 −ν )
2 2
⎦
1 effective medium model (Dvorkin and Nur,1996) at
5 − 4ν ⎡ 3 n (1 − φ c) G P ⎤
2 2 2 3
GHM = the same porosity, and it means that this study model
5 (2 −ν ) ⎢⎣ 2 π 2 (1 −ν ) 2 e⎥
⎦
is suitable to describe behavior of a class of
where, Gs and v is the shear modulus and relatively hard materials (so called as the hard-rock
Poisson’s ration of the minerals, respectively; n is the model), while the effective medium model is suitable
coordination number (the average number of contacts to describe the behavior of a class of relatively soft
per grain); Pe is the effective pressure, expressed as materials (so called as the soft-rock model).
the difference between the overburden pressure Pc
and the reservoir fluid pressure Pp.
By means of the Hashin-Shtrikman upper
bound，the elastic properties of the dry rock (Kdry
and Gdry) between the mineral point (zero porosity)
and the critical porosity can be interpolated by:
⎛ φc − φ ⎞ ⎛ 4GHM ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟(K − K HM )⎜ K HM + ⎟
⎝ φc ⎟⎠ s ⎝ 3 ⎠
K dry = K HM +
4GHM ⎛ φc − φ ⎞
K HM + + ⎜⎜1 − ⎟(K − K HM )
3 ⎝ φc ⎟⎠ s
⎛ φc − φ ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟(G − GHM )(GHM + Zu )
φ ⎟ s
Gdry = GHM + ⎝ c ⎠
⎛ φ −φ ⎞ Fig. 2 Velocity map of the glutenite segment in Dongying
GHM + Zu + ⎜⎜1 − c ⎟(Gs − GHM )
⎝ φc ⎟⎠ sag

997
 Rock Physics Model for Tight Sandy Conglomerates
CPS/SEG Beijing 2014 International Geophysical Conference

S-wave logging data, but the curves of Vp are in good

accordance. So the proposed model in this paper can
not only achieve the precise prediction of Vp but also
get the estimation of S-wave velocity of sandy-
conglomerate in wells without shear wave logging.
Downloaded 09/28/16 to 182.253.150.143. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Fig. 3 Comparison of model prediction and measured data

According to the statistics of the typical wells in

Dongying sag, the transverse wave velocity of
conglomerates was far greater than that of other rocks
Fig. 4 Comparison of model prediction and logging data of
(as shown in Fig. 2). We found a good agreement Tuo764
between the model prediction results and the (The curves in the left 3 columns are input, others are output,red
velocities from laboratory measurements for different curves are calculated and black ones are logging curves)
lithologies in Dongying sag (as shown in Fig.3). This
indicates that the hard-rock model is more suitable
for describing the elastic characteristics of tight rocks.
(The lines are the computation from the model
under different sand content, the points of different
shape are laboratory data.)

Case study
The hard-rock model was used in the computation
of P- and S-wave velocity of two wells in the
downthrown side of the steep boundary faults in the
north slope of Dongying sag. The basic input data of
the target well included curves of sand content,
porosity, water saturation and rock density. Before Fig. 5 Comparison of model prediction and logging data of
the computation, the input data was processed as Tuo128-10
follows. (The curves in the left 3 columns are input, others are output,red
1.Since the critical porosity is different for curves are calculated and blue ones are logging curves)
different lithology , and is related to the size of
Fig. 6 and 7 show the error statistical results
mineral particles, a new interpolation method
between model prediction and logging data of Vp and
according to the lithology was used.
Vs, which further prove the validity of the proposed
Critical porosity φC=A× clay content-B ×sand
model. From the comparison we can see that the
content, results of model prediction is in a suitably range and
where A and B are empirical coefficients. B is 0.9 the error of Vp and Vs are both less than 25%.
and A is 0.38.
2.The input data of porosity , mineral content and
rock density was smoothed by simple moving
average, so the predicted velocity showed a relatively
smoothed behavior.
Fig. 4 shows the calculation results of the well
Tuo764. P and S wave velocities of the actual logging
data and those of the model calculation have been
compared. The shapes of the curves are very similar
and accurately reflect the characteristics of velocity
variation with lithology. In another anatomy well
Tuo128-10, shale content is calculated from natural
gamma ray curve and porosity is estimated by density
curve. The model prediction results and practical Fig. 6 Error curve of Model predicted P-velocity(Vpmodel)
logging data are compared in Fig. 5. This well has no related to logging P-velocity(Vplogging) in well Tuo764

998
 Rock Physics Model for Tight Sandy Conglomerates
CPS/SEG Beijing 2014 International Geophysical Conference
Downloaded 09/28/16 to 182.253.150.143. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Fig. 7 Error curve of Model predicted S-velocity(Vsmodel)
related to logging S-velocity(Vslogging) in well Tuo764
999
Conclusions
In this paper, a hard-rock model is established to
predict the rock physics properties of tight sandy-
conglomerates. The model is based on Gassmann
equation and critical porosity theory, the properties of
the dry rock at the critical points is eastmated by
Hertz-Mindlin contact theory and the properties of
rocks at the porosities less than the critical points are
interpolated by Hashin-Shtrikman’s upper bound.
Compared with currently popular soft-rock model,
this model can well characterize the behavior of
harder rock. The model was applied to predict Vp and
Vs of the two actual wells and showed a related
satisfactory result compared with the logging data.
And this model can be further used to predict the
distribution of favorable conglomerate reservoirs.