IPTC 10994
A Modified Purcell/Burdine Model for Estimating Absolute Permeability From Mercury-
Injection Capillary Pressure Data
C.C. Huet, SPE, Texas A&M U.; J.A. Rushing, SPE, Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; K.E. Newsham, SPE, Apache Corp.; and
T.A. Blasingame, SPE, Texas A&M U.
Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper presents the development and validation of a new
semi-analytical, statistically-derived model for estimating
absolute permeability from mercury-injection capillary
pressure data. The foundations of our new model are the
classic Purcell1 and Burdine2 equations which relate absolute
permeability to capillary-pressure/wetting-phase-saturation
properties. We also incorporate characteristic capillary pres-
sure behavior using the Brooks-Corey3 power-law model.
The final form of our proposed model allows us to compute
absolute permeability as a function of effective porosity, irre-
ducible wetting phase saturation, displacement or threshold
pressure, and basic pore size characteristics. We tested and
correlated our model using 89 sets of mercury-injection (Hg-
air) capillary pressure data — including core samples from
both carbonate and sandstone lithologies. In summary, we
found that our model consistently yields accurate results for a
wide range of rock properties.
Introduction
The fundamental relationships between pore size/geometry
and basic rock properties (e.g., effective porosity, absolute
permeability, etc.) are well-documented in the petroleum and
petrophysics literature. Moreover, the literature is replete with
models for estimating or predicting permeability from basic
rock properties. Nelson4 has developed a comprehensive re-
view of the literature, and he has identified five major
categories of permeability models based on the physical rock
attributes used in the model development: The five major
model categories specified by Nelson are:
1. Petrophysical models,
2. Models based on grain size and mineralogy,
3. Models based on surface area and water saturation,
4. Well log models, and
5. Models based on basic rock pore dimensions.
In this paper, we focus on models that incorporate basic rock
pore characteristics and dimensions, and specifically, pore
characteristics as determined from capillary pressure data.
Nelson has further classified these particular models as direct
types since they not only relate rock permeability directly to
the pore dimensions and connectivity, but also incorporate
fundamental theories of fluid flow through porous media.
Most of these direct methods — especially the early models
developed in the 1940s and 1950s — use mercury-injection
capillary pressure data to quantify the rock pore and pore
throat characteristics.
Although the physical basis for the existing direct models is
similar, we have observed varying (even inconsistent) results
among the various "theoretical" models. The primary motiva-
tion for our work is to "close the loop" on relating mercury-
injection capillary pressure data and the simplified "bundle of
tubes" permeability models proposed by Purcell1 and Bur-
dine2 and extended to incorporate the power law pc(Sw) model
by Brooks-Corey.3
Consequently, the principal objective of this work is to deve-
lop and document a "universal" model which provides a more
consistent correlation of permeability with mercury capillary
pressure data for a much wider range of rock types. We begin
with a review of the models developed previously — and we
then document the validation of our generalization of the
Purcell-Burdine-Brooks-Corey k(Hg) model.
Permeability Models—Historical Perspective
Leverett J-Function (J(Sw)): (ref. 5)
One of the first correlation models for petrophysical properties
was proposed by Leverett5 who developed a relationship
between wetting phase saturation and the interfacial curvature
between the wetting and non-wetting fluids in the pore throats
(this relationship is based primarily on a dimensional balance
of the parameters (e.g., k/φ is an "equivalent length")). This
concept (i.e., the "J-function") was proposed by Leverett as a
dimensionless function that could be used to normalize capil-
lary pressure data for a range of rock properties.
The Leverett J-function is defined as
pc
J (S w ) = k/φ ..................................................... (1)
σcosθ
Where:
k = permeability, cm2 (1 D = 9.86923x10-9 cm2)
2 IPTC 10994

J(Sw) = dimensionless capillary pressure-saturation function meability as a function of effective porosity, adhesive tension,
σ = interfacial tension, dynes/cm capillary displacement pressure, and the value of the J-Func-
θ = contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians tion at 100 percent wetting phase saturation. Calhoun, et al's7
φ = porosity, fraction of pore volume semi-empirical relationship is given as:
Sw = wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
1
pc = capillary pressure, dynes/cm2 k= [J ( S w )1.0 ]2 (σcosθ ) 2 φ ....................................... (3)
k/φ = equivalent length, cm pd2
Purcell Permeability Relation: (ref. 1)
where:
In 1949, Purcell1 developed an equation relating absolute
permeability to the area under the capillary pressure curve k = permeability, cm2 (1 D = 9.86923x10-9 cm2)
generated from mercury injection. We note that Purcell's J(Sw)1.0 = dimensionless capillary pressure function at Sw =1.0
equation assumes that fluid flow can be modeled using σ = interfacial tension, dynes/cm
Poiseuille's Law where the rock pore system is represented by θ = contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians
a bundle of parallel (but tortuous) capillary tubes of various φ = porosity, fraction of pore volume
Sw = wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
radii. Further, the range of tube radii are characterized by the
pd = capillary displacement pressure, dynes/cm2
pore size distribution as computed from the area under the
capillary pressure curve. We note that Eq. 3 was validated by Calhoun, et al only for
high permeability rocks.
Purcell's original permeability model is given by:
11 Burdine et al Permeability Relation: (ref. 2)
k = 10.66 (σ Hg − air cosθ ) 2 FP φ
∫0 p 2
c
dS w .....................(2) In 1950, Burdine et al2 extended the Purcell1 model for a
bundle of capillary tubes and showed that the absolute
permeability of a particular rock is a function of pore entry
where: radii and the mercury-filled pore volume. The Burdine equa-
k = permeability, md tion is given by:
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)2/(dynes/cm)2
FP = Purcell lithology factor, dimensionless
n 4
Vi R i
σHg-air = mercury-air interfacial tension, dynes/cm k = 126 φ ∑ 2 2
...................................................... (4)
θ = contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians i = 0 X i Ri
φ = porosity, fraction of pore volume
Sw = wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume where:
pc = capillary pressure, psia k = permeability, md (1 D = 9.86923x10-9 cm2)
126 = units conversion constant (Poiseuille → Darcy units)
We note that FP is the Purcell "lithology factor" which is used
Vi = incremental pore volume filled by mercury, cm3
to represent the differences between the hypothetical model
Ri = incremental pore entry radius, cm
and actual rock pore system. The FP "lithology factor" is an = average pore entry radius, cm
Ri
empirical correction that Purcell determined for several differ- Xi = tortuosity factor (Xi=Li/Ltot), fraction
ent core samples over a range of absolute permeability values. Li = effective length of flow path, cm
Rose and Bruce Study: (ref. 6) Ltot = actual length of flow path, cm
In 1949, Rose and Bruce6 conducted a sensitivity study of rock We note that the Burdine et al relation is fundamentally simi-
properties and their impact on the shape of mercury-injection lar (in derivation) to the Purcell relation — the interested
capillary pressure curves. They showed that the measured reader is also directed to an additional reference article (ref. 8)
capillary pressure depends on pore configuration, rock surface by Burdine et al where additional detail and clarity of nomen-
properties and fluid properties. Rose and Bruce also found clature are provided for Eq. 4.
that capillary pressure curves can be used to characterize the
Wyllie-Spangler Permeability Relation: (ref. 9)
distribution, orientation, shape and tortuosity of the pore
system — as well as the interfacial and interstitial surface In 1952, Wyllie and Spangler9 developed a model using the
area. Although Rose and Bruce did not propose a perme- Purcell/Burdine concept, but Wyllie and Spangler used electric
ability relation, they did demonstrate the use of the Leverett J- log properties to determine the tortuosity factor (specifically,
Function (Eq. 1) (with extensions of their own) to generate this is given in terms of the formation factor which is defined
relative permeability-saturation profiles. as the ratio of the resistivity of the formation at 100 percent
wetting phase saturation to the resistivity of the formation
Calhoun, et al Permeability Relation: (ref. 7) brine).
In 1949, Calhoun, et al7 showed that the Purcell1 lithology The Wyllie-Spangler equation, which relates absolute perme-
factor (FP) is inversely proportional to the formation tortuosity
ability to mercury-injection capillary-pressure curve proper-
factor (τ). Their study also determined that the internal rock ties, is given by
surface area could be defined in terms of the fluid interfacial
1 1
∫0 p
tension, rock-wetting phase fluid contact angle, and the area 1 1
under the capillary pressure curve. Additionally, Calhoun, et k = 10.66 (σ Hg −air cosθ ) 2 dS w ......... (5)
FWS F 2 φ 2
al developed a semi-empirical relationship for absolute per- c
IPTC 10994 3

where F is the Archie10-11 formation factor, defined by
Ro
a
F= = ..................................................................(6)
m Rw
φ metric factor:
where:
k = permeability, md
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)2/(dynes/cm)2
FWS = Wyllie-Spangler shape factor, dimensionless
θ = contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians
φ = porosity, fraction of pore volume
Sw = wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
pc = capillary pressure, psia
F = Archie formation factor, dimensionless
Ro = resistivity of formation at Sw=1.0, ohm-m
Rw = resistivity of formation brine, ohm-m
m = empirical constant (cementation factor), dimensionless
a = empirical constant, dimensionless
In Eq. 6, a is an empirical constant (a is often assumed to be
1) and m is the cementation factor (m is often assumed to be 2)
Note that m is a function of pore type, pore geometry and
lithology. Wyllie and Spangler also demonstrate that the
tortuosity factor can be related to the formation factor deter-
mined from electric log measurements (Wyllie and Spangler
actually made their developments in terms of the tortuosity
factor, then "converted" their result into a formulation which
uses the formation resistivity factor).
Thomeer Permeability Relation: (ref. 12)
In 1960, Thomeer12 observed that a log-log plot of capillary
pressure could be approximated by a hyperbola. Thomeer
described the hyperbola location on the x-y coordinate system
by the position of the two end-point curve asymptotes, and he
defined the extrapolated asymptotes on the x- and y-axes as
the displacement pressure and the bulk volume occupied by
mercury at an infinite pressure, respectively.
In addition, Thomeer hypothesized that the shape of the
hyperbola reflects the pore geometry, so he used the curve
shape to define a pore geometrical factor. We note that
Thomeer assigned the pore geometric factor a value between 0
and 10, where low values represent large well-sorted pore
openings and high values represent high levels of variation in
pore opening sizes. As a result of these definitions, Thomeer
proposed an empirical equation relating air permeability to
capillary pressure, displacement pressure, non-wetting phase
saturation, and pore geometric factor.
The Thomeer model is given as:
Sb − F / [log( pc /pd )]
=e g ...................................................(7)
Sb ∞
where:
k = permeability, md
pc = capillary pressure, psia
pd = capillary displacement pressure, psia
Sb = Hg saturation, fraction of bulk volume
Sb∞ = Hg saturation at pc = ∞, fraction of bulk volume
Fg = pore geometrical factor, dimensionless
Using laboratory measurements from 165 sandstone and 114
carbonate samples, Thomeer13 formulated the following equa-
tion that relates absolute permeability to effective porosity,
capillary displacement or threshold pressure, and the pore geo-
2
⎡ Sb ⎤
k = 3.8068 Fg −1.3334 ⎢ ∞ ⎥ ......................................... (8)
⎣ pd ⎦
Swanson Permeability Relation: (ref. 14)
As a follow-up effort to Thomeer,12,13 Swanson14 developed an
equation to compute absolute permeability based on specific
capillary pressure curve characteristics. The form of Swan-
son's equation is: (using the same nomenclature as Thomeer)
a
⎡S ⎤ 2
k = a1 ⎢ b ⎥ .................................................................. (9)
⎣ pc ⎦ A
where:
k = permeability, md
[Sb/pc]A = Hg saturation/capillary pressure "apex," fraction/psia
A = "apex" point on log(pc) vs. log(Sb) curve at which a 45o
line becomes tangent
The subscript "A" (or apex) refers to the maximum ratio of the
mercury saturation to the capillary pressure. Swanson
hypothesized that the maximum ratio occurs at the point at
which all of the major connected pore space is filled with
mercury. Further, the capillary pressure at the apex reflects
the dominant inter-connected pores and pore throats con-
trolling most of the fluid flow characteristics.
The constants a1 and a2 in Eq. 9 represent various rock
lithologies and fluid types, respectively, in the system.
Swanson used regression analysis and correlated the constants
in Eq. 9 with properties from 203 sandstone samples from 41
formations and 116 carbonate samples from 330 formations.
The best fit of the air permeability data was obtained with
1.691
⎡S ⎤
k = 389 ⎢ b ⎥ .......................................................... (10)
⎣ pc ⎦ A
Wells and Amaefule Permeability Relation: (ref. 15)
In 1985, Wells and Amaefule15 modified the Swanson ap-
proach for low-permeability or "tight gas sands." Wells and
Amaefule found that by plotting the logarithm of mercury
saturation (Sb, percent of bulk volume) against the square root
of capillary pressure-mercury saturation ratio (Sb/pc), they
could observe a well-defined minimum — which represents
the inflection point of the capillary pressure curve. Conse-
quently, (Sb/pc) could be calculated as the inverse of the
squared minimum value. Wells and Amaefule then correlated
the Swanson13 parameter with air permeabilities for 35 low-
permeability sandstone samples and developed the following
equations for calculating absolute permeability:
1.56
⎡S ⎤
k = 30.5 ⎢ b ⎥ ................................................ (11a)
⎣ pc ⎦ A,Hg − air
4 IPTC 10994

1.61 The final form of the Nakornthap and Evans result, solved for
⎡S ⎤
k = 1.22 ⎢ b ⎥ .............................................(11b) formation permeability, is given as:
⎣ pc ⎦ A,brine−air ω 1 1 1
where:
k = 10.66
n 2
(σ Hg − air cosθ ) 2 (1 − S wi ) 3φ 3
∫ 2
0 pc
dS *w

k = permeability, md ......................................................................................... (13)

pc = capillary pressure, psia
Sb = non-wetting saturation, fraction of bulk volume
[Sb/pc]A = non-wetting saturation/cap. pressure "apex," fraction/psia
A = "apex" point on log(pc) vs. log(Sb) curve at which a 45o
line becomes tangent
Winland Permeability Relation: (ref. 16-17)
A methodology attributed to Winland (no reference other than
company) was documented initially by Kolodzie16 and extend-
ed by Pittman17 where regression analysis was used to develop
an empirical relationship that is conceptually similar to Swan-
son.14 The "Winland" equation describes the relationship for
absolute permeability, effective porosity, and a capillary pres-
sure parameter (R35) as follows:
log R35 = 0.732 + 0.588 log k − 0.864 log φ .....................(12)
where:
k = permeability, md
φ = porosity, fraction of pore volume
R35 = pore throat radius at an Hg saturation of 35 percent, µm
R35 is the capillary pressure parameter used in the Winland
study — specifically, R35 is the pore throat radius (in µm) at a
mercury saturation of 35 percent, where this value is a
function of both pore entry size and the sorting of pore throat
sizes. According to Nelson,4 the R35 parameter quantifies the
largest and best-connected pore throats. We note from refs.
16-17 that other capillary pressure parameters (i.e., R30, R40
and R50 values) were considered, but the R35 capillary pressure
curve parameter provided the best statistical fit.
The Winland data set includes 56 sandstone and 26 carbonate
samples with permeability measurements corrected for gas
slippage or Klinkenberg18 effects. This data set also includes
another 240 samples of various lithologies but without
permeabilities corrected for gas slippage effects. We note that
the permeability computed by Eq. 12 is not the Klinkenberg-
corrected permeability.
Development and Validation of New Model
The foundations of our correlation model are the classic
Purcell1 and Burdine2 equations — which assume that the
porous medium can be modeled as a bundle of parallel (but
tortuous) capillary tubes of various radii. Further, the range of
tube radii are characterized by the pore size distribution as
computed from the area under the capillary pressure curve.
The classic Purcell-Burdine k-model (Eqs. 2 and 4, respect-
ively) has been re-derived by Nakornthap and Evans19 — and
this "redevelopment" includes considerations by Wyllie and
Spangler9 and Wyllie and Gardner.20
where: (written for an Hg-air system (i.e., Sw=Sair)
k = permeability, md
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)2/(dynes/cm)2
ω = pore throat "impedance" factor, dimensionless
n = number of entrances/exits in a pore, dimensionless
σHg-air = mercury-air interfacial tension, dynes/cm
θ = contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians
φ = porosity, fraction of pore volume
pc = capillary pressure, psia
Sw = wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
Swi = irreducible wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore
volume
S*w = (Sw-Swi)/(1-Swi), "effective" (or normalized) wetting
phase saturation function, dimensionless
The definition of the "effective" (or normalized) wetting phase
saturation function was first proposed by Burdine2 and later
utilized directly by Wyllie and Gardner.20 This definition is
given as:
S − S wi
S*w = w ............................................................... (14)
1 − S wi
In this approach, we incorporate the capillary pressure curve
characteristics using the Brooks-Corey3 power-law model
which is given by:
1
−
⎡ S − S wi ⎤ λ
pc = p d ⎢ w ⎥ ................................................ (15)
⎣ 1 − S wi ⎦
Where: (writing for an Hg-air system (i.e., Sw=Sair))
pc = capillary pressure, psia
pd = displacement pressure, psia
Sw = wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
Swi = irreducible wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore
volume
λ = Brooks-Corey index of pore-size distribution, dimen-
sionless
Where pd is the capillary displacement (or threshold) pressure,
and λ is the index of pore-size distribution. Combining Eqs.
13-15 yields the basic form of the permeability equation used
in our study:
ω 1 ⎡ λ ⎤
k = 10.66 (σ Hg − air cosθ ) 2 (1 − S wi ) 3φ 3 ⎢ ⎥ (16)
n p2 ⎣λ + 2 ⎦
d
While we could not find the explicit form given by Eq. 16 in
the literature, it has undoubtedly been derived as Eq. 16 is the
generalized formulation used to derive the relative per-
meability relations of Brooks and Corey,3 the results of which
are also presented by Nakornthap and Evans.19
Nakornthap and Evans assign the ω and n parameters to
address non-ideal flow behavior. To describe the ω-para-
IPTC 10994
meter, Nakornthap and Evans state:
"The ω−parameter is inserted to recognize the fact that flow
through a pore of radius r overemphasizes the impedance
because it ignores the larger areas available for exit-flow at
either side of the constrictions formed where pores abut.
Thus it may be expected that ω > 1 and that the actual
magnitude of ω is a function of the average shape of pores in
the medium that the model represents. ω is assumed constant
for all pore sizes."
Similarly, Nakornthap and Evans describe the n-parameter, as
follows:
"The numerical constant n reflects the manner in which the
available interconnecting pore area is divided. In the most
favorable case for flow, all the exit area is concentrated in
one pore; then n = 1. It may be expected, therefore, that n >
1. It is assumed here that n is constant for all pore sizes."
Ali21 has also suggested the following concept models for
representing ω and n:
1 used mercury-injection capillary-pressure data from the
ω= ..............................................................................(17)
φ literature1,10,20 and industry sources. Furthermore, we have
1 carbonate lithologies. Although we did not evaluate a range of
n= ..................................................................(18)
(1 − S wi )
Substituting Eqs. 17 and 18 into Eq. 16, we can eliminate the
ω and n terms directly, which yields:
k = 10.66 α (σ Hg −air cosθ ) 2 (1 − S 4 2 1 ⎡ λ ⎤ .(19)
wi ) φ ⎢ ⎥
pd2 ⎣ λ + 2 ⎦
Note that we have added an empirical parameter, α, in Eq. 19
to represent any remaining non-idealities that have not been
accounted for by any other terms. If we were to attempt to
utilize Eq. 19, we would likely assume α = 1, or attempt a
calibration of the α-parameter for a particular data set. In fact,
we did use Eq. 19 in some of our early correlation efforts as a
"test function," where we plotted permeability computed using
Eq. 19 versus measured permeability on a log-log plot to
assess significant outlying data.
Perhaps the most significant contribution of this work will be
presentation of Eq. 16 — as this relation clearly states that
permeability should be a power law function of displacement
pressure, index of pore-size distribution, irreducible wetting
phase saturation, and porosity. Recasting Eq. 16 as a power
law correlation model gives us:
a3
k = a1 1 ⎡ λ ⎤ (1 − S wi ) a4 φ a5 ........................(20)
a2 ⎢⎣ λ + 2 ⎥⎦
( pd )
where a1, a2, a3, a4, and a5 are correlation constants — coeffi-
cient a1 incorporates all of the "constant" terms (i.e., 10.66,
ω/n, and (σHg-aircos(θ))2).
The form of Eq. 20 (or a simplified modification) permits us to
create other relations — specifically, we can make model sub-
stitutions for other parameters (in our case, pd and λ) and
create a "universal" (albeit simplified) model for permeability
based solely on porosity (φ) and irreducible wetting phase
saturation (Swi). This effort is presented in Appendix B.
5
We also utilize the power-law model form as a mechanism to
correlate the displacement pressure (pd). In this case, we
correlate the displacement pressure (pd) in terms of permeabil-
ity, porosity and irreducible wetting phase saturation using:
pd = b1φ b2 k b3 (1 − Swi )b4 ............................................... (21)
where b1, b2, b3, and b4 are correlation parameters for the
capillary displacement (or threshold) pressure.
Lastly, we correlate the "index of pore-size distribution" (λ)
with permeability, porosity, irreducible wetting phase satura-
tion and capillary displacement pressure, again using a power-
law model. This formulation is given as:
λ = c1φ c2 k c3 (1 − Swi )c4 pdc5 ........................................... (22)
where c1, c2, c3, c4, and c5 are correlation parameters for the
pore geometric factor.
To calibrate the proposed power models (Eq. 20-22), we have
tested our new model using samples from both sandstone and
different carbonate rock types, we expect our new model to be
most applicable to carbonates with an inter-granular type of
porosity and not "vuggy" carbonates.
We reviewed approximately 120 data sets — but used only 89
data sets in this work. The data not used in this study were set
aside for a variety of reasons (i.e., suspicious character in the
capillary pressure data (e.g., "double porosity" behavior),
erroneous capillary data (poor calibration, poor character), and
we also used only Hg-air capillary pressure data — so air-oil,
and oil-water data were set aside for later studies).
The data sets used in our correlations have the following
ranges of properties:
0.0041 md < k < 8340 md
0.003 (fraction) < φ < 0.34 (fraction)
0.007 (fraction) < Swi < 0.33 (fraction)
2.32 psia < pd < 2176 psia
Results and Discussion
Estimation of pd, Swi and λ from Regression:
Our initial calibration process was performed to estimate the
capillary displacement pressure (pd), irreducible wetting-phase
saturation (Swi), and the index of pore-size distribution (λ) on a
sample-by-sample basis using Eq. 15 (i.e., the Brooks-Corey
pc(Sw) model).
We could have attempted a "global" calibration of the pd, Swi
and λ parameters simultaneously with the model parameters in
Eqs. 20-22. Such a process would (in concept) be more robust
— i.e., coupling the calibration of the Brooks-Corey model
with each of the regression models (Eqs. 20-22). However,
the quality of data, coupled with the bias (human intervention)
required to properly fit the Brooks-Corey pc(Sw) model to an
individual sample data set, required that we perform this
calibration separately. The results of the pd, Swi and λ calibra-
tion, along with the input permeability (k) and porosity (φ)
data for this work are summarized in Appendix A.
6 IPTC 10994

Table 2 — Regression summary for k (Eq. 20).

In Fig. 1 we present a typical pc(Sw) data-model regression to
illustrate our calibration process. We clearly note that, while Optimized coefficients for k (Eq. 20):
the data-model fit is good, human intervention is required to Coefficient Optimized Value
ensure that the model is properly applied to the data. a1 1017003.2395 (md)
a2 1.7846
a3 1.6575
a4 0.5475
a5 1.6498
Statistical summary for k (Eq. 20):
Statistical Variable Value
Sum of Squared Residuals 2.8534 ln(md)2
Variance 275036.1525 md2
Standard Deviation 524.4389 md
Average Absolute Error 30.4243 percent
Substituting the coefficients from Table 2 into Eq. 20, we
have:

k = 1017003.2395 1 ⎡ λ ⎤ 1.6575(1 − S )0.5475φ 1.6498

⎢ ⎥ wi
( pd )1.7846 ⎣ λ + 2 ⎦

......................................................................................... (23)

Fig. 1 — Example correlation of Brooks-Corey pc(Sw) model to

a typical core data set for this study.
We believe that this "separate" calibration of the pc(Sw) data-
model is appropriate, and we note that the majority of the
effort in our correlation work focused on this particular task.
Estimation of k, pd, and λ Using Regression:
The regression setup for Eqs. 20-22 is fairly straightforward,
as we used the Solver Module in Microsoft Excel22 to perform
our regression work. We formulated each regression problem
in terms of the sum-of-squared residuals (SSQ), sum-of-
absolute relative error (ARE) and — depending on the case —
these regressions were performed using the residual or
absolute relative error based on the logarithm of a particular
variable. A summary of our results for the k, pd, and λ regres-
sions is given in Table 1.
Table 1 — Overall regression statistics for k, pd, λ — power
Fig. 2 — Permeability correlation based on mercury capillary
law models. pressure data (Eq. 20 used for regression).
SSQ* ARE We note that Eq. 23 was used to calculate the entire perme-
Case Fig. (ln(unit)2) (percent) ability range — from low permeability (tight gas sands) to un-
k 2 2.8534 ln(md)2 30.4243 consolidated sands. From our perspective, the generalized
pd 3 1.5476 ln(psia)2 24.9406 permeability relation (Eq. 20) has theoretical rigor (see
Appendix A) and may be a "universal" permeability model —
λ 4 0.8367 17.7197
valid for different lithologies, pore systems, and pore struc-
* SSQ statistics based on ln(k), ln(pd), and λ, respectively. tures.
We present the results of our permeability (k) optimization in We recommend that the generalized form (Eq. 20) continue to
Fig. 2. We note excellent agreement between the measured be tested systematically. We will (again) note that care must
permeabilities and those calculated from Eq. 20. The opti- be taken in assessing pc(Sw) suitable for such correlations. We
mized coefficients from the regression analysis of Eq. 20 are have elected to consider Hg-air systems only for simplicity —
summarized in Table 2. extensions to other systems must continue systematically, with
diligent data screening and a "simplest" model first mentality.
We also correlate the capillary displacement pressure with per-
IPTC 10994 7

meability, porosity and irreducible wetting phase saturation — insensitive to the λ-parameter).
the results of which are shown in Fig. 3 using a power law
In addition, we believe this insensitivity may make it more
correlation model (the regression summary for this case is
difficult to estimate the λ-parameter initially from pc(Sw) data
given in Table 3). Although we have developed more
complex models for the correlating the displacement pressure, than correlating the λ-parameter against other variables.
we believe that Eq. 24 is an excellent "general" model. We Regardless, our characterization and correlation of the λ-
also note that Thomas, Katz, and Tek23 proposed a similar parameter was less successful than our correlation of perme-
formulation, where this model is also plotted on Fig. 3 for ability (k) and capillary displacement pressure (pd).
comparison. We present the correlation of the λ-parameter using a power
Table 3 — Regression summary for pc (Eq. 21). law model in Fig. 4, and we present the regression summary
for this case in Table 4.
Optimized coefficients for pc (Eq. 21):
Table 4 — Regression summary for λ (Eq. 21).
Coefficient Optimized Value
b1 640.0538 (psia) Optimized coefficients for λ (Eq. 22):
b2 0.8210 Coefficient Optimized Value
b3 -0.5285 c1 0.00980
b4 0.8486 c2 -0.6341
Statistical summary for pc (Eq. 21): c3 0.3792
c4 -0.6835
Statistical Variable Value c5 0.6698
Sum of Squared Residuals 1.5473 ln(psia)2
Variance 110928.0679 psia2 Statistical summary for λ (Eq. 22):
Standard Deviation 333.0587 psia Statistical Variable Value
Average Absolute Error 24.8721 percent Sum of Squared Residuals 0.8367
Substituting the coefficients in Table 3 into Eq. 21, we have: Variance 0.0395
Standard Deviation 0.1988
pd = 640.0538φ 0.8210 k -0.5285 (1 − S wi ) 0.8486 ...........(24) Average Absolute Error 17.7197 percent
Substituting the coefficients in Table 4 into Eq. 22, we have:

λ = 0.00980φ -0.6341 k 0.3792 (1 − S wi ) -0.6835 pd0.6698 . (25)

Fig. 3 — Displacement pressure (pd) correlation based on

mercury capillary pressure data (Eq. 21 used for re-
gression).

In our effort to correlate the index of pore-size distribution (λ)
with permeability, porosity, irreducible wetting phase satura-
tion and displacement pressure, we found less conformity in
the resultant correlations. We believe that this behavior is due
to the character of the index of pore-size distribution — recall
that this parameter is an exponent in the Brooks-Corey pc(Sw)
relation (Eq. 15). We have observed that Eq. 15 is relatively
unaffected by the λ-parameter (i.e., the model is relatively
Fig. 4 — Pore geometric factor (λ) correlation based on mer-
cury capillary pressure data (Eq. 22 used for regres-
sion).
Our correlation of the λ-parameter yielded the weakest results
(in terms of a graphical comparison (Fig. 4), not in terms of a
statistical regression). The results shown in Fig. 4. clearly
show weak (if not poor) conformance of the model to the data
(i.e., the blue circle symbols, relative to the red dashed line
8 IPTC 10994
(perfect correlation)). To better understand (but probably not
quantify) this deviation, we have also constructed a "non-
parametric" correlation of the λ-parameter using the methods
given in ref. 24.
A non-parametric correlation is the optimal statistical rela-
tionship for a given data set on a point-by-point basis — any
parametric (i.e., functional) correlation which yields better
statistical metrics than the corresponding non-parametric cor-
relation has "over-fitted" the data (i.e., fitted the errors in the
data). Our non-parametric correlation of the λ-parameter for
this case is shown by the green square symbols on Fig. 4. The
relative similarity of the data in Fig. 4 suggest that our non-
parametric correlation and our correlation using a power law
model are comparable — which validates our use of the
(relatively simple) power law model for this case.
As closure for this discussion regarding the correlation of the
λ-parameter, we believe that the very basis of the λ-parameter
(it is an exponent), coupled with the quality of data used to
define the λ-parameter are the causes of the relatively weak
correlation of the λ-parameter shown in Fig. 4. Based on the
non-parametric correlation for this case, we do not recommend
additional efforts to improve the parametric correlation. But,
we do suggest recasting the problem so that permeability is
directly related to the various measurable rock properties,
including porosity (φ), irreducible wetting phase saturation
(Swi), and displacement pressure (pd). We also recommend use
of some parameter other than the index of pore-size distribu-
tion (λ) to represent the "curvature" of the capillary pressure
curve. Finally, we would also comment that Eq. 25 (i.e., the
power law correlation for the λ-parameter) is probably more
than sufficient for practical applications.
Summary and Conclusions
Summary:
Using the relations of Purcell,1 Burdine,2 Brooks and Corey,3
Wyllie and Spangler,9,20 and Nakornthap and Evans19 we have
developed a base model to correlate permeability from mer-
cury capillary pressure data. Our base model for permeability
is given by Eq. 16:
ω 1 ⎡ λ ⎤
k = 10.66 (σ Hg −air cosθ ) 2 (1 − S wi ) 3φ 3 ⎢ ⎥ .(16)
n pd2 ⎣ λ + 2 ⎦
Generalizing Eq. 16 into a correlation form yields Eq. 20:
a3
k = a1 1 ⎡ λ ⎤ (1 − S wi ) a4 φ a5 ........................(20)
a2 ⎢⎣ λ + 2 ⎥⎦
( pd )
It is relevant to note that Eq. 16 suggests (under the assump-
tions of a "bundle of capillary tubes," Darcy's law, and other
constraints which are related to how the capillaries are con-
nected) that we can consider permeability to be a power law
function of φ, Swi, pd, and λ. We recognize this simplicity, but
we also suggest that Eq. 16 (or Eq. 20) should be a good
starting point for the correlation of permeability.
Summarizing, we achieved the following power law correla-
tions in this work:
k = f(φ, Swi, pd, and λ): Fig. 2
k = 1017003.2395 1 ⎡ λ ⎤ 1.6575(1 − S )0.5475φ 1.6498
⎢ ⎥ wi
( pd )1.7846 ⎣ λ + 2 ⎦
......................................................................................... (23)
pd = f(φ, k, and Swi): Fig. 3
pd = 640.0538φ 0.8210 k -0.5285 (1 − S wi ) 0.8486 ........... (24)
λ = f(φ, k, Swi, and pd): Fig. 4
λ = 0.00980φ -0.6341 k 0.3792 (1 − S wi ) -0.6835 pd0.6698 . (25)
The results of our modeling efforts suggest that the correlating
properties of the porous media (k, φ, Swi, pd, and λ) are not
specifically dependent upon lithology — but rather, these
properties uniquely quantify the fluid flow behavior of the
porous medium. In that sense, we see this work as a
generalized correlation for flow in porous materials —
including soils, filters, sintered metals, bead packs, and porous
rocks. As we noted earlier, we believe that this work is
applicable to carbonates with an inter-granular type of porosity
— not to cases of "vuggy" carbonates.
Conclusions:
The following conclusions have been derived from this work:
1. The permeability (k) can be successfully correlated to the
porosity (φ), capillary displacement pressure (pd),
irreducible wetting-phase saturation (Swi), and the index of
pore-size distribution (λ) using a theoretically defined
power law correlation model.
2. The capillary displacement pressure (pd) can also be
correlated using a power law model to the permeability
(k), porosity (φ), and irreducible wetting-phase saturation
(Swi). This observation confirms the fundamental work
proposed in ref. 23.
3. The correlation of the index of pore-size distribution (λ) is
somewhat problematic — the λ-parameter may be only
weakly defined. The pc(pd,Swi,λ,Sw) model given by
Brooks-Corey (ref. 3) is robust and suitable for this work,
but — we find that the model can be relatively insensitive
to the λ-parameter (i.e., a different combination of the
pd,Swi, and λ-parameters can yield equi-probable correla-
tions of pc. This is an issue that is most likely related to
the quality and character of the capillary pressure data.
Recommendations:
The following recommendations are proposed:
1. Consideration of more complex correlation models for:
k = f(φ, Swi, pd, and λ)
pd = f(φ, k, and Swi)
λ = f(φ, k, Swi, and pd)
Our experience with non-parametric regression (ref. 24)
as applied to this work suggests that the proposed power
law models are sufficient, and we would warn against
"over-fitting" data in this work with excessively complex
data models.
2. Extension of the results of this work to liquid-liquid and
gas-liquid systems.
IPTC 10994 9

Acknowledgements Pressure Curves for Sandstone," AAPG Bull., vol. 76, No. 2
(February 1992) 191-198.
We would like to express our thanks to Anadarko Petroleum 18. Klinkenberg, L.J.: "The Permeability of Porous Media to Li-
Corp. and Apache Corp. for providing portions of the core quids and Gases," paper presented at the API 11th Mid-Year
data — and for permission to publish results from this study. Meeting, Tulsa, OK (May 1941); in API Drilling and Product-
ion Practice (1941) 200-213.
Nomenclature 19. Nakornthap, K. and Evans, R.D.: "Temperature-Dependent
Variables are defined where a particular equation is given. Relative Permeability and Its Effect on Oil Displacement by
Thermal Methods," SPERE (May 1986) 230-242.
Superscripts, Subscripts, or other Characters: 20. Wyllie, M.R.J. and Gardner, G.H.F.: "The Generalized Kozeny–
air = air Carman Equation: Part II," World Oil, (1958), 146(5): 210–228.
Hg = mercury 21. Ali, L., personal communication with T. Blasingame (1995).
SSQ = sum-of-squared residuals 22. Microsoft® Office Excel 2003, Microsoft Corporation (1985-
ARE = sum-of-absolute relative error 2003).
23. Thomas, L.K., Katz, D.L., and Tek, M.R.: "Threshold Pressure
References Phenomena in Porous Media," SPEJ (June 1968) 174-183.
24. Breiman, L. and Friedman, J.H.: "Estimating Optimal Trans-
1. Purcell, W.R.: "Capillary Pressures-Their Measurement Using
formations for Multiple Regression and Correlation," Journal of
Mercury and the Calculation of Permeability Therefrom," Trans.
the American Statistical Association (September, 1985) 580-
AIME, 186 (1949), 39-48.
598.
2. Burdine, N.T.: "Relative Permeability Calculations from Pore
25. Timur, A.: "An Investigation of Permeability, Porosity, and
Size Distribution Data", Trans. AIME, (1953), 198, 71-78.
Residual Water Saturation Relationships for Sandstone Reser-
3. Brooks, R.H., and Corey, A.T.: "Properties of Porous Media
voirs," The Log Analyst , Vol. 9, No. 4, 8-17.
Affecting Fluid Flow." J. Irrig. and Drain. Div. ASCE (1966)
92: 61-88.
4. Nelson, P.H.: "Permeability-Porosity Relationships in Sedimen-
tary Rock," The Log Analyst (May-June 1994), 38-62.
5. Leverett, M.C.: "Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids," Trans,
AIME 142 (1941), 341-358.
6. Rose, W. and Bruce, W.A.: "Evaluation of Capillary Character
in Petroleum Reservoir Rock," Trans. AIME, vol. 186 (1949),
pp 127-142.
7. Calhoun, J.C., Lewis, M. and Newman, R.C.: "Experiments on
the Capillary Properties of Porous Solids," Trans., AIME (1949)
186, 189-196.
8. Burdine, N.T., Gournay, L.S., and Reichertz, P.P.: "Pore Size
Distribution of Petroleum Reservoir Rocks", Trans. AIME,
(1950), 189, 195-204.
9. Wyllie M.R. and Spangler M. B.: "The Application of Electrical
Resistivity Measurements to the Problem of Fluid Flow in
Porous Media," Research Project 4-G-1 Geology Division
Report No. 15 (March 1951) Gulf Research and Development
Company.
10. Archie, G.E.: "Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determin-
ing Some Reservoir Characteristics," Trans. AIME (1942) 146,
54-62
11. Archie, G.E.: "Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks,"
Bull., AAPG (1950) 34, 943-961.
12. Thomeer, J.H.M.: "Introduction of a Pore Geometrical Factor
Defined by the Capillary Pressure Curve," Trans., AIME (1960)
213, 354-358.
13. Thomeer, J.H.M.: "Air Permeability as a Function of Three
Pore-Network Parameters," JPT (April 1983), 809-814.
14. Swanson, B.F.: "A Simple Correlation between Permeabilities
and Mercury Capillary Pressures," JPT, (Dec. 1981), 2488-
2504.
15. Wells, J.D. and Amaefule, J.O.: "Capillary Pressure and Per-
meability Relationships in Tight Gas Sands," paper SPE 13879
presented at the 1985 Low Permeability Gas Reservoir held in
Denver, CO, May 19-22.
16. Kolodzie, S., Jr.: "Analysis of Pore Throat Size and Use of the
Waxman-Smits Equation to Determine OOIP in Spindle Field,
Colorado," paper SPE 9382 presented at the 1980 Annual Fall
Technical Conference of Society of Petroleum Engineers, Sept.
21-24, 1980.
17. Pittman, E.D.: "Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to
Various Parameters Derived from Mercury Injection-Capillary
10 IPTC 10994

Appendix A: Summary of Data Used in This Study

Table A-1 — Summary of data used in this study Table A-1 — Summary of data used in this study (cont'd)
Input Data pd, Swi and λ Calibration Results Input Data pd, Swi and λ Calibration Results
φ k Swi pd λ φ k Swi pd λ
No. (fraction) (md) (fraction) (psia) (dim-less) No. (fraction) (md) (fraction) (fraction) (dim-less)
1 0.125 0.187 0.010 123.28 0.534 51 0.056 0.054 0.010 290.08 1.003
2 0.162 0.184 0.008 435.11 0.850 52 0.088 0.069 0.010 333.59 0.760
3 0.129 0.020 0.020 580.15 0.600 53 0.116 0.178 0.010 246.56 0.848
4 0.068 0.004 0.007 1667.93 0.679 54 0.127 0.191 0.010 246.56 0.850
5 0.104 0.012 0.010 725.19 0.689 55 0.089 0.085 0.010 319.08 0.903
6 0.108 0.025 0.010 725.19 0.689 56 0.056 0.070 0.010 224.81 0.897
7 0.084 0.014 0.010 725.19 0.935 57 0.091 0.037 0.010 435.11 0.748
8 0.062 0.006 0.010 696.18 0.982 58 0.083 0.042 0.010 435.11 0.920
9 0.089 0.024 0.010 696.18 0.738 59 0.069 0.033 0.010 507.63 0.943
10 0.085 0.013 0.010 1174.81 0.896 60 0.103 0.057 0.010 362.59 0.750
11 0.117 0.057 0.020 391.60 0.680 61 0.043 0.046 0.010 261.07 0.945
12 0.111 0.036 0.017 435.11 0.575 62 0.044 0.089 0.010 188.55 0.890
13 0.079 0.028 0.020 522.14 0.754 63 0.039 0.057 0.010 217.56 1.212
14 0.123 0.018 0.008 1015.26 0.661 64 0.115 0.016 0.010 1276.33 0.848
15 0.073 0.019 0.020 638.17 0.815 65 0.167 0.027 0.010 2175.57 1.050
16 0.166 0.046 0.008 797.71 0.960 66 0.371 14.600 0.090 52.21 0.759
17 0.050 0.005 0.060 942.75 0.914 67 0.265 11.500 0.050 72.52 1.400
18 0.084 0.127 0.020 319.08 1.359 68 0.247 3.800 0.190 75.76 1.011
19 0.166 0.166 0.020 275.57 1.189 69 0.220 116.000 0.330 14.50 1.500
20 0.083 0.041 0.020 435.11 0.906 70 0.133 48.000 0.030 8.70 0.707
21 0.075 0.016 0.010 580.15 0.704 71 0.132 467.000 0.030 2.90 0.753
22 0.071 0.006 0.010 1667.93 1.625 72 0.125 174.000 0.050 7.25 1.400
23 0.066 0.017 0.010 652.67 1.116 73 0.110 351.000 0.030 2.32 0.587
24 0.069 0.007 0.010 1232.82 1.238 74 0.148 117.000 0.060 14.50 1.061
25 0.086 0.068 0.010 406.11 1.165 75 0.109 16.600 0.020 18.85 0.982
26 0.066 0.031 0.010 478.62 1.175 76 0.136 72.200 0.020 8.70 0.844
27 0.086 0.029 0.010 725.19 1.341 77 0.126 16.500 0.020 23.21 1.015
28 0.071 0.018 0.010 797.71 1.570 78 0.153 209.000 0.020 13.05 1.200
29 0.095 0.080 0.010 435.11 1.194 79 0.260 170.000 0.320 11.17 1.159
30 0.076 0.087 0.020 319.08 1.120 80 0.250 950.000 0.290 4.64 0.816
31 0.258 814.000 0.070 7.25 1.280 81 0.137 0.027 0.060 725.19 0.913
32 0.207 434.000 0.200 5.80 0.800 82 0.123 0.014 0.020 1377.86 0.959
33 0.204 82.300 0.030 7.25 0.424 83 0.039 0.013 0.010 652.67 0.459
34 0.214 303.000 0.080 9.43 0.980 84 0.057 0.015 0.050 710.68 0.585
35 0.209 210.000 0.091 10.15 0.800 85 0.126 0.272 0.010 319.08 0.653
36 0.265 8340.000 0.030 2.90 1.511 86 0.159 0.469 0.020 159.54 0.528
37 0.235 438.000 0.080 8.70 1.130 87 0.126 0.326 0.010 145.04 0.521
38 0.320 868.000 0.150 8.70 1.718 88 0.133 0.352 0.010 145.04 0.536
39 0.335 4570.000 0.090 5.08 1.637 89 0.126 0.112 0.020 188.55 0.556
40 0.272 296.000 0.120 14.50 1.050
41 0.266 250.000 0.120 8.70 0.610
42 0.287 640.000 0.140 7.25 1.659
43 0.046 0.019 0.010 435.11 0.958
44 0.092 0.061 0.010 377.10 0.736
45 0.067 0.054 0.010 391.60 1.170
46 0.106 0.339 0.015 145.04 0.798
47 0.051 0.076 0.010 174.05 0.750
48 0.071 0.070 0.010 290.08 0.860
49 0.075 0.128 0.010 188.55 0.636
50 0.077 0.089 0.010 246.56 0.830
IPTC 10994 11

Appendix B: Comparison with Timur’s Permeability The "modified" formulation of Eq. 20 (i.e., the permeability
Model correlation) is given as:
Introduction to Timur's model for permeability: k = a1 ( pd ) a2 λa3 (1 − S wi ) a4 φ a5 ................................. (B-4)
25
Timur proposed a generalized equation for permeability as
follows: As discussed in the body of this work, the generalized correla-
tion proposed for the capillary displacement pressure (pd) is
φB given by:
kTimur = A ............................................................(B-1)
C
S wi pd = b1φ b2 k b3 (1 − S wi )b4 .............................................. (21)
where: (A, B, C are generalized constants) Lastly, the index of pore-size distribution (λ) is represented by
kTimur = Timur correlation for permeability, md the following generalized correlation as:
φ = porosity, fraction of pore volume
c
Swi = irreducible wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore λ = c1φ c2 k c3 (1 − S wi ) c4 pd5 .......................................... (22)
volume
We first need to substitute Eq. 21 into Eq. 22 and reduce Eq.
Eq. B-1 can be evaluated in terms of the statistically deter-
22 into a form that only contains φ, k, and Swi. Making this
mined parameters A, B, and C. Timur applied a reduced major
substitution yields:
axis method of regression analysis to data obtained by
laboratory measurements conducted on 155 sandstone samples c
λ = c1φ c2 k c3 (1 − S wi ) c4 pd5
from three different oil fields from North America. Based
both on the highest correlation coefficient and on the lowest c5
= c1φ c2 k c3 (1 − S wi ) c4 ⎡b1φ b2 k b3 (1 − S wi ) b4 ⎤
standard deviation, Timur chose the following result for per- ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
meability.
= c1φ c2 k c3 (1 − S wi ) c4 ⎡b1c5 φ b2c5 k b3c5 (1 − S wi ) b4c5 ⎤
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
φ 4.4
kTimur = 0.136 .....................................................(B-2)
2
S wi = (c1b1c5 ) k (c3 +b3c5 ) φ (c2 +b2c5 ) (1 − S wi ) (c4 +b4c5 )

Derivation of Timur's formulation using models of perme- ....................................................................................... (B-5)

ability, capillary displacement pressure, and the index of pore- We now substitute Eq. 22 into Eq. B-4 to reduce Eq. B-4 into
size distribution: a form that only contains φ, k, Swi, and λ. This substitution
Our approach to the derivation of Timur's base relation (Eq. B- gives us:
1) is to note that in a general form, Timur's base relation can
k = a1 ( pd ) a2 λa3 (1 − S wi ) a4 φ a5
be written as:
a
= a1 ⎡b1φ b2 k b3 (1 − S wi )b4 ⎤ λa3 (1 − S wi ) a4 φ a5
2
χ
kTimur = αφ β S wi ....................................................... (B-3a) ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
where α, β, χ are generalized constants. Our goal in this parti- = a1 ⎡b1a2 φ a2b2 k a2b3 (1 − S wi ) a2b4 ⎤ λa3 (1 − S wi ) a4 φ a5
cular proof is to provide a specific combination of relations ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
that, upon combination, yield the form given by Eq. B-3a (or = (a1b1a2 ) k a2b3 φ (a5 + a2b2 ) (1 − S wi ) (a4 + a2b4 ) λa3
at least a result that is an identical form).
....................................................................................... (B-6)
The model based model for permeability for this work is given
in the form of a generalized correlation as: As an intermediate result, we raise Eq. (B-5) (λ) to the power
of a3, which yields:
a3
k = a1 1 ⎡ λ ⎤ (1 − S wi ) a4 φ a5 ........................(20) a3
a2 ⎢⎣ λ + 2 ⎥⎦ λa3 = ⎡⎢(c1b1c5 ) k (c3 +b3c5 ) φ (c2 +b2c5 ) (1 − S wi ) (c4 +b4c5 ) ⎤⎥
( pd )
⎣ ⎦
Clearly, Eq. 20 is almost in the "Timur" form in terms of the = (c1a3 b1c5a3 ) k (c3 +b3c5 ) a3
porosity (φ) and irreducible wetting phase saturation (Swi) —
however, we note that because we use (1-Swi), then our final x φ (c2 +b2c5 )a3 (1 − S wi ) (c4 +b4c5 )a3
model written in the "Timur" form should be:
= (c1a3 b1c5a3 ) k ( a3c3 + a3b3c5 )
kTimur = α φ β (1 − S wi )δ ...........................................(B-3b)
x φ (a3c2 + a3b2c5 ) (1 − S wi ) (a3c4 + a3b4c5 )
For simplicity, we will use a form of Eq. 20 that is written in
terms of λ, rather than λ/(λ+2). This modification will not λa3 = (c1a3 b1c5a3 ) k (a3c3 + a3b3c5 )
seriously affect the character of the correlation given by Eq.
20, and will provide the algebraic form that should mimic our x φ (a3c2 + a3b2c5 ) (1 − S wi ) (a3c4 + a3b4c5 )
rendering of the Timur correlation (i.e., Eq. B-3b).
12 IPTC 10994

We now substitute the previous result into Eq. (B-6) which In this work we have tuned Eqs. B-4, 21, 22, and B-7 to our
gives us the "composite equation", which is defined as: database, and the results of this tuning exercise yields:

k = (a1b1a2 ) k a2b3 φ (a5 + a2b2 ) (1 − S wi ) (a4 + a2b4 ) λa3 k = 158064.1754 ( pd ) -1.7828 λ1.1472 (1 − S wi ) 0.5328φ 1.6423
= (a1b1a2 ) k a2b3 φ (a5 + a2b2 ) (1 − S wi ) (a4 + a2b4 ) ...................................................................................... (B-11)

x (c1a3 b1a3c5 ) k (a3c3 + a3b3c5 ) pd = 640.0538φ 0.8210 k -0.5285 (1 − S wi ) 0.8486 ........... (24)
x φ (a3c2 + a3b2c5 ) (1 − S wi ) (a3c4 + a3b4c5 ) λ = 0.00980φ -0.6341 k 0.3792 (1 − S wi ) -0.6835 pd0.6698 . (25)
= ⎡k a2b3 k (a3c3 + a3b3c5 ) ⎤
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ k = 15896.2440 φ 4.9250 (1 − S wi ) -11.0531 .................. (B-12)
x [(a1b1a )(c1a b1a c )]
2 3 3 5
Eqs. B-11, 24, 25 are combined as prescribed by Eqs. B-7
(a + a b ) (a c + a b c ) through B-10, and the results are plotted with the tuned Timur
x ⎡φ 5 2 2 φ 3 2 3 2 5 ⎤
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ relation (Eq. B-12) in Fig. B-1. We note good agreement, the
⎡(1 − S ) (a4 + a2b4 ) (1 − S ) (a3c4 + a3b4c5 ) ⎤ points are identical, indicating that our algebraic exercise is
x wi wi
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ correct.

= ⎡k (a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 ) ⎤

⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
x [a1b1a +a c c1a ]
2 3 5 3

x ⎡φ ( a2b2 + a3b2c5 + a3c2 + a5 ) ⎤

⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
(a b + a c + a b c + a )
x ⎡(1 − S wi ) 2 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 ⎤
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
where this form reduces to:

[
k1-(a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 ) = a1b1a2 + a3c5 c1a3 ]
(a b + a b c + a c + a )
x ⎡φ 2 2 3 2 5 3 2 5 ⎤
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
+ + c +a )
x ⎡(1 − S wi ) 2 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 ⎤
( a b a c a b
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
Or, solving for k, we have
1
[ a + a c
k = a1b1 2 3 5 c1 3a 1-( a
]
2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 )

(a2b4 + a3c4 + a3b4c5 + a4 )

x φ 1-(a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 ) Fig. B-1 — Comparison of tuned Timur relation (Eq. B-1) to the
combination solution (Eqs. B-7 to B-10) for the data
( a2b4 + a3c4 + a3b4c5 + a4 ) set used in this work.
This exercise proves that the Timur formulation can be de-
x (1 − S wi ) 1-(a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 ) rived from a fundamental formulation, albeit the relation must
Upon final reduction, we obtain: be tuned to a particular dataset.

k = α φ β (1 − S wi )δ .......................................................(B-7)
where:
1
[
α = a1b1a2 + a3c5 c1a3 ] 1-( a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 )
...................(B-8)

(a2b4 + a3c4 + a3b4 c5 + a4 )

β= ................................(B-9)
1 - (a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 )

(a2b4 + a3c4 + a3b4 c5 + a4 )

δ= ..............................(B-10)
1 - (a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 )