Predicting

Thermal Conductivities of Formations From Other Known Properties

J. ANAND* W, H. SOME RTON E, GOMAA** MEMBERS AlME

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY BERKELEY, CAL IF.

ABSTRACT ,ifeasuying ~})e ~hertnal properties o! rocks

and

rock-fluid systems is di//icult ard time consuming, and the resuIts /rorn such measurements ure 0/ limited value unless conlpIete dt scrip tions of the rock and fluids are given. A need exists /or a method of predicting thermal behavior from other more eosily measurable properties. Presented here a?e crn-relajions developed /or predicting the thermoI conductivity o/ consolidated sandstones /rem a knouledgc o/ density, porosity, permeability, and ~ormatio v resist ivity factor. Values for alI these properties u..e auailahIe from well logs or core urmiysis data. Also obtained l~ere correlations for O/ liquidestimating the thermal conductivity saturrzted sandstones from a knowledge of the conduct itities o/ dry srmdstones and tbe saturating liquid mrd properties of tile sandstone, The thermal most rocks decreases with conduct ility 0/ increasing temperature and a method of estimating thi.q elfcct is presented. Tbe e//ect of pressure on conductivities is generally small, bat may be Pre(ficteri /rem a knouledge oi the buIk compressibility of the rock.

methods of predicting thermal conductivity from other more easily measured properties as well as on methods of predicting the effects of temperature, pressure, and liquid saturation on thermal properties.
RELATIONSHIP OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY TO OTHER PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

INTRODUCTION Although thermal recovery processes have been applied in the petroleuc industry for many years, there is still a lack of basic t>ermal data with which to predict the performance of these processes. Much of the thermal conductivity work reported in the literature lacks a complete description of the physical properties of the rocks used, and in thermal most of the conductivity addition, mettsurements have been made at room temperature and at atmospheric pressure. The work reported in this paper deals with the thermal conductivity of subsurface porous rocks at simulated typical conditions of temperature, pressure, and saturation. Because thermal conductivity is difficult to emphasis has been placed here on measure,
Paper (SPE 4171) was presented at SPE-AIME 43rd Annual California Regional Fall Meeting, held in Bakersfield, Nov. S-10, 1972. @copyright 1973 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. *Now at U. of Southern California, Los Angeles. **Now wjth Standard Oil CO. of California, San Francisco. preferences given at end of PaPer. oCTOBER, 1973

The thermal conductivities of dry rocks have beep shown to be functions of density, porosity, grain size and shape, cementation, and mineral compositional The first two properties are easy to measure and precise values may be assigned for correlation purposes. Grain size and shape and cementation are difficult to quantify. There are, however, other related properties that can be used these properties for use in characterize to correlations. Permeability and formation resistivity factors are probably most closely related to these properties and are readily measurable as unique values. Precise mineral composition values are ald even if they were, it generally not available, would be difficult to introduce them into The high thermal conductivity of correlations. influence, quartz seems to have a predominating and thus for most sandstones containing quartz in moderate amounts, the effects of other minerals can be ignored. Many efforts have been made to relate thermal conductivity to the physical properties of porous rocks. These efforts have been reviewed in rather and Scorer 1 Anand.2 by detai 1 complete Unfortunately, most of the correlations developed require a knowledge of the thermal conductivity of the rock matrix or the dry rock at some known porosity. Although some simple correlations have been obtained, these are for specific systems and are not applicable generally. Probably the most useful work in this area is that reported by Zierfuss on 36 and Van der Vliet. 3 Basing their analysis sandstones having a wide range in measured a correlation between properties, they obtained effective porosity and the product of thermal conductivity and formation resist ivity factor. A fourth-order polynomial fit of thermal conductivity and fractional porosity was obtained by regression Their data also seemed to indicate that analysis. thermal conductivity increases with permeability, this being attributed to conduction in wider pores. In the work discussed here, multiple regression
267

analyses using all the common physical properties of rocks were employed to obtain a useful relationship for predicting thermal conductivity.
TPERMAL CONDUCTIVITIES LIQUID-SATURATED ROCKS OF

The thermal conductivity of fluid-saturated rocks is dependent upon the conductivities of the dry rock and the saturating fluid and physical properties of the rock. Assad,4 Sugawara and Yoshizawa~ and Van derVliet3 have dealt with this problem; however, testing their relationships with data from the and with the data we obtained did not literature yield satisfactory results. The difficulty seems to lie in the fact that, although liquid-saturated rocks have higher conductivities than dry rocks, the amount of increase is a complex iunction of the amount, character, and distribution of pore space, and the conductivity of the saturating fluid. to develop correlations using Earlier efforts2 regression analysis on common physical properties fluid system were only partially of :ire rock successful. In the present work, nonlinear multiple regression analysis on dimensionless groupings of properties of the system gave satisfactory relationships.
EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE THERhfAL CONDUCTIVITY ON

The thermal conductivity of most materials that have crystall$e structures decreases with increased Theory indicates that the:mal temperature. conductivity should vary with the reciprocal of temperature. In mixed crystals and highly disordered crystals, conductivity varies more slowly than T-l and, in fact, may show a slight increase with The thermal conductivity of glasses temperature. and vitreous materials increases with temperature. To predict the effect of temperature on the thermal conductivity of rocks, Tikhomirov7 developed a correlation equation based on experimental data. A plot of this equation shows that moderate negative gradients of thermal conductivity with temperature will be predicted for high-conductivity rocks, whereas small positive gradients will be predicted for low-conductivity rocks. This agrees with theory experimental results of our with the and investigation. we developed a For the work discussed here modified expression of the same general form as Tikhomirovs equation. This expression predicts the thermal conductivity-temperature behavior of liquid-saturated rocks as well as of dry rocks.
EFFECT OF PRE.SURE ON THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY

a large part of the apparent increase in conductivity with pressure may actually be due to reduction in thermal contact resistances between the several contacting surfaces: heat source, heat sink, the temperature measuring devices, the standards, and the test specimen. When good thermal contact is established, the change in thermal conductivity with added stress is generally small. A relation between the bulk compressibility of porous rocks and the change in thermal conductivity should be expected. Edmondsong showed that the thermal conductivities of Bereaj Bandera, and Boise sandstones increase by 7.8, 9.5, and 12.3 percent/1 ,000 psi, respectively, in the pressure range of 900 to 3,600 psi. The compressibilities of Berea, Bandera, and Boise sandstones are re orted by Lobreell to be 4.54 x 10-7/psi, 6.46 x 10- $ /psi, and 9.0 x 1~7 /psi, respectively. If these data are plotted as shown in Fig. 1, z linear relation is obtained. Edmondsons values for the increase in conductivity with pressure are high compared with results obtained by Woodside and Messmer1 and with those obtained in our work. An increase of 11. s percent/1 ,000 psi in the pressure range of zero to 1,000 psi, and an increase of 2.5 percent/1 ,000 psi in the pressure range of 2,000 to 4,000 psi for Berea sandstone, were reported by Woodside and Messmer. The effect of pore pressure is to reduce the effective stress on the rock. More realistically, a reduction in fluid pore pressure results in increased effective stress on the rock and thus an increase in thermal conductivity. Pore pressure may also be associated with the phase behavior of contained fluids. Reduction in pore pressure may result in the vaporization of some of the liquid components and this may cause a large reduction in thermal This is a fluid saturation effect and conductivity. should not be attributed to pore pressure per se. EXPERIMENTAL
APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE

WORK

Several investigators have shown that thermal conductivity increases with an increase in effective stress on the rock.8-10 This should be expected since increasing the stress improves the thermal contact between grains and increases the over-all density of the rock and, consequently, the thermal conductivity. In measuring thermal conductivity in the laboratory
26S

Correlation equations were developed mainly from data taken from the literature.3 To test these correlations, a new set of data was obtained and the correlations were modified slightly in some cases to fit these new data. Thermal conductivities were measured in a steady-state comparator apparatus (described in detail in Ref. 2). The apparatus, shown schematically in Fig. 2, consists essentially of a stack containing a holder for the disc-shaped sample of The sample is sandwiched unknown conductivity. between two holders containing standards of the same geometry as the unknown sample, but for which the conductivities are accurately known. Thermocouples are mounted in the centers of sample and standard itoIder plates so that the temperatures across the sample and the standards may be measured. The heat source at the top of the stack is a tank in which heated silicone oil is circulated from a constant-temperature bath. The heat sink at
SOCIETY OF PET ROLEIIM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

the bottom of the stack is a plate through which silicone oil is circulated from a second constanttemperature bath. Thus heat flows vertically downward to minimize convective heat transfer. The total temperature drop across the stack is small about 40 to 50% and radiative heat transfer is considered to be negligible. The sample and standard holders are made of Bakelite, which has a thermal conductivity about an order of magnitude less than that of most of the samples measured. To minimize radial heat losses, however, a Bakelite ring on which heating tapes are mounted surrounds the stack and is maintained at the midpoint temperature of the stack. The space between the guard heater and the stack is filled with a ceramic fiber insulation. The entire apparatus

44 a

t 2
# 0 1 I

! /- CALCULATEDEc24 I rEXpERIMENTAL OATA

II

I
,, I

is mounted in a loading frame so that controlled axial stress may be applied. On the sample holder is a pore pressure fitting and a line that connects to a pressure recording and control system. Pyroceram glass ceramic code 9609 was used for the standards. Its conductivity is quite close to that of sandstones; it is capable of withstanding the loads to which it must be subjected; and it is quite stable at temperatures used in the experiments. A multipoint strip-chart recorder was used to monitor the temperatures of the six thermocouples. When the apparatus reached steady-state conditions (in 3 to 4 hours), differential temperatures across the two standards and the sample were recorded. Thermal conductivities were calculated on the basis of these data and of the known conductivities of the standards. The test specimens and the standards were discs 2 in. in diameter and 0.625 in. thick. All samples were run dry and saturated with brine (0.1 N Several samples were also run potassium chloride). saturated with silicone oil (a dimethyl polysiloane), Stoddard solvent, and ?Z. hexane. A high-temperature version of this apparatus was used to extend the temperature correlation. Other physical properties of the sandstone samples were measured with stanr;ard laboratory equipmen These properties ioclude density, porosity, permeability, and electrical resist ivity factor.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

-----
1 I

-----, I

2
i3ULK

4
COMPRESSIBILITY,

6 PSI-. IO

8
ILOBREE

10 DATA [:1]

FIG.

1 EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY VS ROCK COMPRESSIBILITY.

Typical results of the thermal conductivity measurements are shown in Figs. 3 through 5. The maximum error expected in these tests is f5 percent as calculated by error analysis,2 In general, thermal conductivity decreases linearly with increase in the decrease being much more temperature, pronounced for liquid-saturated samples than for dry samples. Liquid saturation increases thermal conductivity substantially. The amount of increase is related to the thermal conductivity of the saturating fluid and to the properties of the rock, including porosity and thermal conductivity in the dry state. It should be pointed out that all liquid-saturated samples were

t . ..

I
I ~ LOADING EAR

HEATER TAPE

~
OETAIL

HEAT SINK

L&--+llll!!!
FIG. 3 SANDSTONE

I50
TEMPERATURE

200
. F

250

300

S OF STACK

FIG,

SCHEMATIC CONDUCTIVITY
197S

DIAGRAM OF APPARATUS.

THERMAL

THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE FLUID SATURATION.

BEREA AND

OCTOBER,

269

TABLE Density (gin/cc) 2.15 2.10 1.84 2.22

1 PHYsICAL Resist ivity Foctor

PROPERTIES Permeability (red)

OF SANDSTONES Thermal ~ ~ Conductivitiesot Silicone Oil 68 F (Btu/hr.ft. Stodd.rd F)

Sompl e Berea Bandero Boise SS No. 1 :S Nc,, 2

Porosity 0.162 0.208 0.292 0.160

Solv~~

13,0
13.0 7*9 18,5

190 38
2,513 152

1.35 0.98
0.85 1.47

3.00 2.06
1.78 2,96

2.55 1.90
1.22 1.65

1,98 1.57
1.19

SS NO. 3
Venango Gatchel I

2.00 2.26
2.34 2,04

0,250 0.149
0,122 0.227

10.9 12,0
35.9 13.3

557 34
437 858

1.10
0.92
2.39 1.19

3,26 1.42
-

2.24

saturated and that pore pressure was fully maintained high enough to avoid vapor formation at the temperature of the test. .Most thermal conductivity tests were run at an axial stress of 565 psi, this stress level being high enough to minimize the effect of contact resistance. Fig. 6 shows thermJ conduct ivities of Berea, Boise, and SS 2 for different axial stress levels. The apparent thermal conductivity increases sharply from a stress of zero to approximately 400 to 500 rate. For psi and then rises at 2 low and constant
Berea increase and Boise sandstones, thermal conductivities

sample that was first air dried and then brine saturated (see Fig. 5). The low conductivity values and the slightly positive gradients with temperature are typical for fine-grained rocks. The air-dried and brine-saturated densities are given in Fig. 5 for comparison purposes. CORRELATIONS It should be apparent from the foregoing that the measurement of thermal con?~ctivity of rocks is difficult, time consuming, and of limited practical value unless some generalized relationships ro other physical prc~erties and to changes in environmental conditions can be developed. In the following section, the results of our investigation are used to test such relationships developed from literature data. Also presented are methods of predicting the thermal behavior of rocks from other more easily measured properties.
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITIES OF DRY SANDSTONES

by 1.25 percent/1,000 psi and 2.0 percent /1 ,000 psi, respectively. These values are much lower than those reported earlier by Edmondson.g Other physical properties of the sandstones, including density, porosity, permeability, and formation resistivity factor, are given in Table 1. Thermal conductivity was measured on one shale

run on thermal Multiple regression analyses conductivity and physics! property data from the and from our work yielded the fo!lowing literature equation.
A = 0.340p - 3.20~ + 0.53Gk010 + 0.0130/

- 0.031,

. . . . . . . . . . . . .(1)

FIG. 4 SANDSTONE

THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE FLUID SATtJRATION.

BOISE AND

.- -.
-*

. :0

z
50

. a

1-l

/
----

-a

41R DRIED I i00 I I 50 TEMPERATuRE Zbo , F

(PO, 2201 I 250

\ 300

o.eo~
AXIAL STRESS , IISI

I 50(J

FIG, 5 THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND FLUID TION.

270

SHALE SATURA-

FIG.

6 EFFECT

OF AXIAL STRESS CONDUCTIVITY.

PET ROLE~M

ON THERMAL

SOCIETY

OF

ES GISEERS

JO CRXAL

where A = thermal conductivity, p. bulk density, gin/cc 4

k= F=

Btu/hr-ft-

fractional permeability,

porosity md

in our correlation because of the usual lack of knowledge of mineral composition and the difficulty of assigning conductivity values.
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITIES OF LIQUID-SATURATED SANDSTONES

formation resistivity factor the standard deviation was For 38 data points, 0.139 for a conductivity range of 0.4 to 2.2 Btu/hrft-F. The agreement between measured thermal conductivity values and calculated values is shown in Fig. 7. The solid line represents perfect agreement and the broken lines show the limits of one standard deviation. With one exception, data from our work were well within these limits. A deviation of less than IO percent was obtained for 74 percent of the data points and less than 15 percent for 87 percent of the data points. Further analysis of Eq. 1 indicates that porosity variable; density and important the most is permeability have about equal effect; and formation resistivity factor is th{) least important variable. The positive and negative numerical coefficients for density and porosity, respectively, are as expected. The positive coefficient for permeability is probably a reflection of the effect of grain size. Other factors being equal, permeability and thermal conductivity both increase with increased grain size. A study2 of .Zierfuss and Van der Vliet data confirms this observation. The positive coefficient for formation resist ivity factor is apparently
associated porosity. Some with question its may relation arise to bulk density and

Several efforts were made to obtain correlations for predicting thermal conductivities oi liquidsaturated sandstones. The most sat is factory correlation was obtained with the following dimensionless groupings or quantities.

where A = thermal ~ = fractional

conductivity porosity of rock

p = bulk density

m = Archies cementation factor and where subscripts are defined as follows:

d = dry rock

I = saturation fluid s = liquid-saturated

rock.

When a nonlinear, multiple regression computer data,3 the program was applied to literature foJIowing equation gave the best fit. A, ~ = Looto.30~

as to the need for both density and porosity in the correlation equation since they are interrelated. By including both terms rather than using either terms alone, the correlation was definitely improved This may be an expression of the effect of mineral composition since the less dense feldspars and clays are known to have lower thermal conductivities than quartz. AS was pointed out earlier, we did not include matrix conductivity

. . Au.

Al o.4sm 1 [1
p. +..~o . . . %.

-LOO]033+4.57[,+Z

(2)

LITERATURE PRESENT

VALUES WORK

[31
,k //

/
/

ONE STANDARD OEVIATION

, /

G/
.B /,/ ,

<~
/.

# / // // Y x/

+x

t-

///

512!LJ
o

0.4

08

1.2

1.6

PREI)ICTED

THERMAL

CONDUCTIVITY,

20 Btu/hr-ft-F

24

FIG, 7 AGREEMENT BETWEEN MEASURED AND CALCULATED THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY VALUES.

oCTOBER. 1973

For the 52 literature data points used in the the standard deviation was O. 179 for correlation, the range of As/Ad ratio values of 1.20 to 2.sO. The agreement between literature values and calculated values was within 10 percent for 56 percent of the values and within 15 percent for 85 percent of the values. The agreement between literature values of the thermal conductivity ratio and values calculated from Eq. 2 is wn in Fig. 8. The solid line represents perf dgreement and the broken lines the limits of one standard deviation. show Experimental and calculated values from our work are plotted as Xs in Fig. 8. Eleven of the 14 points are within one standard deviation, one point was out of the range of the correlation, and two points showed differences greater than one standard The low experimental point may be due deviation. to incomplete saturation of the test sample with the viscous silicone oil. Since the correlation equation is expressed in terms of dimensionless ratios, m (the exponent in Archies equation relating porosity and formation resistivity factor) was used in the correlation rather than resist ivity factor itself. The effect of m in Eq. 2 is similar to the effect of F in Eq. 1 in that
271

increasing both values increases the conductivity. The conductivity of the saturating liquid has the dominant effect on the conductivity of the liquidsaturated rock. It is difficult to assess the relative importance of the other parameters in Eq. 2 because of their complicated interrelationships, In the case of saturation with two liquids or of the wetting liquids and a gas, the conductivity phase has a dominant effect on the conductivity of system. Thus for water-wet the rock -fluid sandstones, the value of liquid conductivity to be used in the correlation should be biased toward the value of conductivity for the water. This matter is the subject of current investigations. It would, of course, be possible to combine Eqs. I and 2 so that the thermal conductivity of liquidsaturated samples could be estimated directly from one equation. Regression analyses run on combined data for dry and liquid-saturated samples gave poor results. Part of the reason for this is that there is a difference in the heat transfer mechanism between solid and gas and solid and liquid. Assad4 observed a substantial difference in the thermal conductivities of the same sandstone saturated with a gas and with a liquid of equal conductivity. For this reason, Eq. 2 should not be used in estimating the thermal conductivity of gas-saturated sandstones. The dry (air-saturated) value would be more suitable for this purpose.
EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE THERMAL CONDUCTIVITIES ON

modified them according to the temperature trends we had obtained. of this family of curves is as follows. AT = ~6800.71
X

conductivityThe equation

10-3(T

- 528) (~680+ 0.741,

0.80) . . (3) T 68F

. [A68dT x 10-3)+-55*68 where AT = thermal conductivity

at temperature

~~so = thermal conductivity at temperature T = temperature, R = F + 460

A plot of Eq. 3 based on even values of thermal conductivities at 68 F is shown as Fig. 9. The resrdts of our conductivity-temperature measurements are plotted on the same figure. Althou~,\ there is some scatter in the data, the general ag.cement is quite good. Additional data are needed in the higher conductivity and higher temperature rangt,s. A few results from tests using the high-temperature thermal conductivity apparatus have been included in Fig. 9 as Xs joined by dashed lines. Tikhomirovs correlation was developed for dry rocks, but the present correlation seems to be equally valid for liquid-saturated sandstones. Unusual thermal properties of some liquid saturants could cause some deviation of behavior from that predicted by Eq. 3, particularly for high-porosity rocks. In addition, phase changes of saturants may result in discontinuities, but this is a fluid saturation effect rather than a temperature effect
per se.

The correlations discussed above have all been based on thermal conductivity values measured at Our test data were or near room temperature. extrapolated to 68F (20C) to obtain values for use in testing the correlations. thermal of temperature on the The effect conductivities of the sandstones used was tested against Tikhomirovs correlation. 7 The results were not entirely satisfactory. Guided by Tikhomirovs correlation, we obtained a new famiiy of curves but
2.6
G

The conductivity-temperature equation may need to be modified if it is to be applied to a greater However, it can range of rock- fluid systems. certainly be used as a general guide for predicting the thermal conductivity-temperature behavior of most sandstones.
EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY

I
LITERATURE PRESENT X

I
wORK

1
VALUES [3]

I /
/ / / / /

A
/ / /

2.4

Most of the were run at an the effect of pressures high liquid phase. indicated that

present thermal conductivity tests axial stress high enough to minimize contact resistance and at pore enough to keep all fluid saturants in Limited work at higher stresses thermal conduct ivities increase by

22

7./

m 0

20

x/
#

~30
/ ONE STANDARD 9EvIA1!ON 7

:018 \ In

s >25 m >-20 . ~ ~ Ulo r ~----------:

I

516

I .4 / I 2~

. --- -----...-. . .. . .

1.0

;05 )3

e====~-
I
m

1.0
FIG,

1,2

1.4

16

18

20

22

24

Ot,
68

I
?00

I
300

I
400

I
5C0

600

A Stxo)cALc

TfMPERATu

Rf ,F

8 AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALCULATED CONDUCTIVITY

MEASURED RATIOS.

AND

FIG,

9 EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF SANDSTONE.

SOCIETY OF PET ROLEt M E~Cr XEERS JOrlR~AL

272

only 1 to 2 percent for every 1,000 psi increase in effective stress. These values are somewhat lower than values reported in the Literature.s-lo In estimating the magnitude of the effect of stress on the known effects of stress thermal conductivity, on other properties were considered. Eq. 1 was first differentiated with respect to effective stress:

ah ~=

0.34

~ ~

-3.20

~ @

+ 0.053k-Og0

0013

(3F ~(4)

is believed to be valid and useful for estimation purposes. And it is felt that even this step represents significant progress, considering the spread of thermal wide values conductivity appearing in the literature. These correlations will be improved and extended as more reliable data are obtained for a greater variety of rock types and over a broader range of environmental conditions. Work is currently in progress at higher pressures and temperatures, on unconsolidated sands, and for multiple liquids and partial gas saturations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was performed as part of API Research Project 117. We thank API for this support. Also, for their support and encouragement, we express
our Field sincere appreciation R. L. Co.; Bailey, E. J. to the Couch, Project Guidance Chevron Oil Committee, Chairman,

The derivative terms for density, porosity, permeability, and formation resistivity factor have been evaluated by Dobrynin 12 in terms of compressibilities. Assuming linear approximations, the foIlowing substicutiorts have been made for the derivative terms in Eq. 4.

where /1, /2, /3 and /4 are functions of compressibility. Since numerical magnitudes of the compressibility of rocks are generally not known, numerical coefficients for formations of high, medium and low compressibility may be substituted in the following general equation.

Mobil Research and Development Corp.; and Vaughn Jones, Getty Oil Co. Several other students have assisted in the project Doug G1..ndt, Ko Chen, and Jeff Keese and their assistance as well as that of David White, Laboratory .Mechanician, is acknowledged.
Research REFERENCES Between Thermal 1. Scorer, J. D. T.: The Relationship Conductivity and Other Rock properties, MS thesis, U. of California, Berkeley (1964).
of Fluid Saturated 2. Anand, J.: ~~Thermal Conductivity Rocks at Elevated Pressures and Temperatures,~ MS thesis, U. of California, Berkeley (SetJt. 1971).

a ~=
where

1()-5[A
dA/Jp

p~+

Br#)-CkO10

+DF]

, .(5) Btu

in thermal conductivity, /hr-ft-F-psi p = bulk density, gin/cc 4 = fractional k = permeability, F = formation

Cb

= change

3,

Zierfuss, H. and Van der Vliet, G.: Laboratory Measurements of Heat Conductivity of Sedimentary Rocks, Bull., AAPG (1956) Vol. 40, No. 10, 2475. Assad, Y.: A Study of the Thermal Fluid Bearing Porous Rocks, PhD of Californi~, Berkeley (1955). Conductivity dissertation, of U.

4.

porosity md factor 0.12 0.07 0.034 resistivity

A

and Yoshizaw?: An Investigation of the 5, Sugawara Thermal Conductivity of Porous Rocks, Austruliatz (1961) Vol. 14, No. 4,469. J. o/ Physics 6. Powell, R. W., Ho, C. Y, and Liley, P. E.:

High Medium Low

0,51 0.25 0.13

BCD . 5.75 0.37 3.51 0.18 1.44 0,09

Tbcrmul
Bureau

Conductivity
of Standards,

of Selected
Washington

Materials,
(Nov. 1966).

National

Assuming Berea sandstone to be of medium-low compressibility and Boise sandstone to be of medium-high compressibility, 0.8 and 1.3 percent increases in thermal conductivity per 1,000 psi increase in stress, respectively, are calculated from Eq. 5. These compare with 1.25 and 2,0 percent increases obtained experimentally, (See Fig. 1.) This difference is probably due to the difference in stress levels in the two cases about 1,000 psi average stress in the experimental determination and 2,000 psi average stress for calculated values. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The correlations given by Eqs. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are based on the limited amount of reliable data available and therefore must be considered as tent~tive. However, the general form of the relations
OCTOBER. 1973

of Rocks and V. M.: t~conduc[ivity 7. Tikhomirov, Their Relationship with Density, Saturation and Kboziaisfro (in Russian) Temperature, e Ne/tianoe ( 1968) Vol. 46, No. 4, 36. Method for Measure8. Khan, A. M.: ~IA fiermoelectric ment of Steady State Thermal Conductivity of Rocks, MS thesis, U. of California, Berkeley (1961). {Thermal Diffusivity of T. A.: 9. Edmondson, Sedimentary Rocks Subjected to Simulated Overburden Pressures, MS thesis, U. of California, Berkeley (1961). 10. Woodside, Conductivity (1961) Vol. and Messmer, J. H.: Thermal Porous Media, ]. App[. ~bys. 39, No. 9, 1688.
of

W.

11.

of Compressibilities Lobree, D. T.: Measurement of Reservoir Type Rock at Elevated Temperatures, MS thesis, U. of California, Berkeley (1968).

12.

Dobrvnin, V. M.: Effect of Overburden Pressure on Some- Properties of Sandstones, Sot. Pet, Eng. ]. (Dec. 1962) 360-366; Trans., AIME, VO1. 225.
***

27s