SPE 101698

Dual Porosity Equations From Effective Medium Theory

C.R. Berg, SPE, ResDip Systems

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

overestimation of Sw commonly caused by the presence of
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and fractures and also avoids the underestimation of Sw commonly
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24–27 September 2006.
caused by vuggy or oomoldic porosity.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to Fracture m
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at The original dual porosity fracture equation, as set forth by
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
Aguilera1,3 and corrected in Aguilera and Aguilera4 is as
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is follows:
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, SPE, P.O. ⎛ 1− φ f ⎞
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. log⎜ φ f + − m ⎟
⎜ φb b ⎟
m= ⎝ ⎠ ,………………………………(1)
Abstract log φ
Aguilera’s1 dual porosity model for fractures and matrix
porosity was developed because fractures tend to lower the where φ is the total porosity, φb is the porosity of the bulk
porosity or cementation exponent (m) of rocks. An assumption rock, mb is the porosity exponent of the bulk rock, and φf is the
in the derivation of the dual porosity model was that fracture fracture porosity in relation to the total volume. The value of
systems are parallel with the current direction, i.e. that fracture fracture m (mf) is not used and is implicitly assumed to be 1.0.
m (mf) is equal to 1.0. A new equation derived from effective In other words, the fractures are assumed to contribute in
medium theory allows mf higher than 1.0. The new parallel to the whole rock conductivity. The use of parallel
relationship agrees closely with two models by Aguilera resistance implies that the fractures themselves are parallel to
which allow mf greater than 1.0. In addition to the dual the current direction, which is rarely the case. Since fractures
porosity equation, a new relationship is derived for calculating inclined to current would give straight-line conductance paths
mf based on fracture orientation relative to current flow. as opposed to the tortuous paths in the bulk porosity, mf should
In the past, dual porosity models for vuggy porosity have usually be low but not necessarily 1.0. Aguilera5 has
mainly used the physical model of resistors in series with the developed an empirical dual porosity fracture equation that
inherent assumption that the vugs were non-touching. A new allows mf values other than 1. The following equation is his
equation to calculate the effect of vugs on m is derived from new relationship for mf greater than 1.0:
effective medium theory. At low total porosity, calculations
are very similar to those of the series model, but at higher ⎛ 1− φ f mf ⎞
log⎜ φ f m f + ⎟
porosities the results differ, eliminating the need to distinguish ⎜ − mb ⎟
between connecting and non-connecting vugs. In addition, vug ⎝ φ b' ⎠ ,……………………………(2)
m=
m (mv) can be varied on the basis of the shape and orientation log φ
of the vugs. When mv is raised to high values, the results are
equivalent to the dual porosity series vug model. Where φ′b, according to Aguilera5, is the “matrix block
A triple-porosity method is developed that utilizes porosity affected by mf” and is defined by the equations
adjustable mf and mv from new dual porosity relationships. The
model works by first calculating a new, composite m for the φ−φf f
bulk porosity and vugs and then it uses that composite value φ b' = ,…………………………………………..(3)
along with mf to calculate a triple-porosity m. When mf is 1− φ f f

equal to 1.0, the results resemble those of the triple porosity

model of Aguilera and Aguilera2, but with increasing values of and
mf, the effects of fractures on triple-porosity m is dampened. log φ
f = m f − (m f − 1) ⋅ . ……..……………………..(4)
log φ f
Introduction
Fractures and vugs can have profound effects on the
porosity exponent (m) and calculated water saturation (Sw) of Note that all of the relationships above have been simplified
carbonate rocks. Proper prediction of m in reservoirs avoids from the original equations by replacing the product of
2 SPE 101698

partitioning coefficient and porosity (νfφ) by the fracture where R0b is the resistivity for the bulk rock. This derivation
porosity (φf). assumes that an expression originally derived for granular
material (equation 7) can be used to describe fractures, but that
Vug m assumption has already been used in previous dual porosity
A good example of an existing model for predicting m in derivations that incorporate fractures into the Archie equation.
vuggy rock is the relationship The term “matrix” when used with respect to the HB equation

[ ]
log φ nc + (1 − φ nc ) ⋅ φ b− mb
m= …………………………..(5)
− log φ
from Aguilera and Aguilera4 (equation 3) where φnc is volume
fraction of non-connected vugs relative to the whole rock.
Equation 5 was derived using the assumption that non-
connected vugs and bulk rock respond to the current flow as
resistors in series. As in the fracture equations, the product of
partitioning coefficient and porosity (νncφ) has been replaced
by the non-connected vug porosity (φnc). Note that there is no
porosity exponent for the non-connected vugs.
Effective-Medium Model Development
Fractures
The derivations here assume that the matrix grains have
zero conductivity. That being said, since m is a geometric
parameter the concepts derived here can ultimately be applied
to systems where the bulk rock has inherent conductivity such
as shales or shaly sands.
Effective medium theory has mainly been used for shaly
sand analysis and for dielectric calculations, both of which
have nonzero matrix conductivity. Use of Archie’s law,
generally thought of as an empirical relationship, is justified
theoretically when the matrix conductivity is zero, because the
equation is a natural result of setting grain conductivity to zero
in the effective medium theory used here.
Archie’s Law7 (his equation 3) for the bulk rock can be
written as
Rw
R0b = ,……………………………………………..(6)
φ mb
where R0b is the bulk resistivity and Rw is the water resistivity.
Now that the bulk rock has been defined the enclosing fracture
system must be defined. In order to define mf other than 1.0,
we need a relationship that contains m and that can have
nonzero matrix conductivity. Archie’s law cannot be used, but
effective medium theory provides just such a relationship.
Following is the HB resistivity equation (Berg8 equation 1):
coincides with its usage in dual porosity nomenclature. Since
that is not always the case, “matrix” here will denote only
grain properties and “bulk rock” will be the preferred term.
To calculate composite m of the whole rock we can use
Archie’s law again:
Rw
φm = . …………………………………………….(9)
R0
When equations 6, 8, and 9 are combined and simplified, we
get the following equation
m m
−m
φ
mf m
⋅ φbmb − φ f
φf = . …………………………… (10)
φ bmb − 1
An interesting result of the algebra is that R0b and Rw drop out.
In other words, this equation retains the property of the other
fracture equations (1 and 2) of being independent of Rw.
Indeed, when mf of 1.0 is used, the relationship simplifies into
equation 1.
Unfortunately, equation 10 cannot be solved directly for m,
so an iterative method must be used. The zBrent routine from
Press, et al.11, has been used to find m, but any regula falsi-
type algorithm should work. (Regula falsi methods take an
equation that has been set equal to zero and try values of the
unknown variable until the answer approaches zero.).
Defining mf in equation 10 for a set of fractures in one
direction is fairly straightforward. Simply put, inclination of
the fractures with respect to current flow causes longer current
paths and higher resistivity for the whole rock. Following is
the relationship for calculating mf:
mf =
(
log φ f ⋅ sin 2 θ ) ………………………………….(11)
log φ f
Where θ is the angle between the direction of current flow and
the normal to the fracture plane. (See the Appendix for the
derivation.) For multiple fracture directions equation 11 can be
extended to

1 ⎛ n ⎞
log⎜⎜ φ f ⋅ ∑ Vi sin 2 θ i ⎟⎟
⎛R ⎞m⎛ R − Rr ⎞
φ = ⎜⎜ w ⎟⎟ ⋅ ⎜⎜ 0 ⎟ ,……………………………(7) mf = ⎝ i =1 ⎠ ,…………………………(12)
⎟
⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎝ R w − Rr
R ⎠ log φ f
where R0 is the whole-rock resistivity and Rr is the matrix where Vi are the volume fractions relative to φf of each set of
resistivity. Equation 7 can be used define the bulk rock- fractures, and θi are the respective angles which the normal to
fracture system as follows: each fracture set makes to the current direction. Equation 12
1 does not take into account what happens at fracture
⎛ R ⎞ mf ⎛ R − R0b ⎞ intersections, but it is accurate for φf at or below 0.1—an
φ f = ⎜⎜ w ⎟⎟ ⋅ ⎜⎜ 0 ⎟ ,…………………………...(8)
⎟
⎝ R0 ⎠ ⎝ Rw − R0b ⎠ extremely large value for fracture porosity (see the Appendix
for details).
SPE 101698
Vugs
An interesting property of the HB equation is that the
discrete “particles” may be more conductive than the
surrounding medium. Vugs and oomoldic porosity present just
such a case if the particles in this case are the water-filled vugs
and the surrounding bulk rock is the enclosing medium.
Following is an adaptation of equation 7 to represent vuggy
porosity:
1 variables), the variables used in the vug equation (φb and mb)
⎛R ⎞ mv R0 − Rw
1 − φ v = ⎜⎜ 0b ⎟⎟ ⋅ ,…………………………(13)
⎝ R0 ⎠ R0b − Rw
where φv is the vug porosity with respect to the whole rock and
mv is its exponent. Substitution of R0b in equation 13 by
equation 6 (Archie’s Law) yields the effective medium dual
porosity equation for vugs:
1
⎛ φm ⎞ mv φ − m − 1
1 − φv = ⎜ m ⎟ ⋅ . …………………………(14)
⎜φ b ⎟ φ b−mb − 1
⎝ b ⎠ would be to first calculate a new “bulk” m and φ using their
As in the case of the derivation for fractures, the resistivities
drop out, leaving a relationship independent of resistivity.
Also, as with fractures, equation 14 cannot be solved directly
for m. Accordingly, calculation considerations for this
relationship are similar to the considerations discussed for the
effective-medium fracture relationship (equation 10.)
When mv is infinite, equation 14 reduces to equation 5, the
series relationship for vugs. This fact fits nicely with the fact
that the HB equation reduces to resistors in series when m is
infinite, providing symmetry to the fracture relationships
where equation 10 reduces to equation 1 when mf is equal to
1.0 (resistors in parallel). The variable mv can thus be used to
describe the shape and orientation of vugs. In addition, when
mv is close to 1.0, calculations approach that of equation 1 (the
parallel relationship for fractures) but only when mv is below
about 1.001. This would seem to indicate that using a parallel-
resistance relationship for connected vugs as in Aguilera and
Aguilera4 is perhaps too strong. In other words, even though
vugs may be connected, there would still a great deal of
tortuosity for the current to contend with until the vugs
approach the shape of smooth tubes.
Spalburg9 developed an effective-medium vug equation in
which the derivation was the same as the one above up to
equation 13 (his equation A-12). However, after that point the
derivation differs. A simplifying assumption was that the
conductivity of the vugs was always much greater than the
conductivity of the bulk rock. To compare to the equations in
this study, his equation was adapted to calculate dual porosity
m by making Sw 1.0 and substituting φm for conductivities.
With this modified equation, the results are similar to equation
14 when total porosity is in the range of 10 to 30 percent, but
is considerably different below and above that range. In
addition, at high values of φv, calculated m from Spalburg9
becomes much too small, even dropping below zero when φv is
higher than 97 percent of the total porosity. It is assumed that
the difference in the Spalburg’s model and the one presented
here is caused by the assumption that the vug conductivity
would always be much greater than the bulk conductivity. The
3
new relationship has no such assumption and would be
expected to be valid over a wide range of conditions.
Comparison to Experimental Data
Focke and Munn10 found m experimentally from Middle
Eastern carbonates. Fig. 7 is a plot of part of their
experimental data with a best fit of the new vug equation
versus a linear regression. While the linear regression and the
vug equation best fit had the same degree of freedom (2
have well-defined physical meaning, while the regression
coefficients have none.
Vugs and Fractures Together (Triple Porosity)
It is not uncommon for vuggy or oomoldic rock to have
fractures. Thus there is a need for calculating m under such
conditions. Aguilera and Aguilera2 proposed just such a model
(Fig. 1). Their triple porosity system treats the vug porosity in
series with the combined conductivity of the fractures and
bulk rock. Another way of accomplishing the same thing
vug relationship (equation 5) and then to use the results in
their fracture relationship (equation 1). When this was done,
the difference in calculated m in the two methods averaged
about 1.8 percent over a wide range of variables and the
maximum difference between them was 4.8 percent. In a
similar manner, the effective-medium triple-porosity
calculations (Fig. 2) were performed by first calculating the
new bulk porosity using equation 14:
1
⎛ φ mbv ⎞ mv φ bv −mbv − 1
1 − φ' v = ⎜ bv m ⎟ ⋅ ,……………………(15)
⎜ φ b ⎟ φ b− mb − 1
⎝ b ⎠
where φ′v = φv / (1- φf), φbv = φ′v + φb (1 - φ′v), and mbv is the
composite porosity exponent. The following modified
equation 10 was then used on the results:
m m
−m
mf m
φ ⋅ φ bv
mbv
−φ f
φf = . …………………………...(16)
φ bv
mbv
−1
When doing the calculations, the following equation from
Aguilera and Aguilera2 (their equation A-11) is useful:
φ = φb (1 – φf – φv) + φf + φv. ………………………….(17)
Discussion
Fractures
The calculations of most of the figures in Aguilera5 have
been reproduced using both the effective medium fracture
equation 10 and Aguilera’s5 equation 2. The maximum
difference between the calculations was less than 5 percent
and was generally below 2 percent. The fact that an empirical
equation, which has been derived on the basis of observations
of the real world, matches the theoretical equation so well
would seem to verify both approaches.
Fig. 3 shows the results of varying θ in the new fracture
relationship (equation 11) from 0 to 90 degrees. (Remember
4 SPE 101698
that θ is the angle between the normal to a fracture and the
current direction.) A value of θ of 90 degrees is equivalent to
mf of 1.0. The changes at θ of 60 degrees are fairly small, but
the changes at θ at 30 and 0 degrees are fairly severe. The plot
for θ of 90 degrees is very similar to the plot of series vuggy
porosity (discussed below) shown in gray in Fig. 6. This is
because when θ is 90 degrees, the fractures are aligned to the
current direction as resistors in series.
The high values of dual porosity m at low values of θ at
first glance would not seem to match observed tool response
to fractures, which generally indicate mf in the range of 1.0 to
1.3. Note that on Fig. 3, calculated m through θ of 30 to 90
degrees nearly always lowers m, except for a small increase at
high φ and high φf. Non-directional tool response must
necessarily reflect all of the current directions of the electrical
field generated by the tool. For an induction log, for example,
current flowing in a circular loop would go through the whole
range of θ in a set of vertical fractures. Although the current
might actually flow preferentially through the zones of lower
m (distorting the current path to non-circular), we might get a
good approximation to the value of tool-measured mf by
averaging calculated m through the loop and then calculating
an mf from that average. Fig. 4 shows such an example of
calculated m for θ of 0 to 360 degrees. In this example, mf
calculated based on tool response is 1.19, not 1.0 but much
lower than the mb of 2.0. The strong directional changes in m
exhibited in Fig. 4 could be used to study fracture-induced
anisotropy. A logging tool with directed current might be able
to measure the anisotropy directly and see the effect of
fractures without having to actually encounter them in the
borehole.
Comparison with Other Models
Fig. 5 is a comparison of three fracture models:
Aguilera’s5, empirical model, a new model from Aguilera and
Aguilera6 based on an analogy to fluid flow, and.this paper.
(The empirical model and this paper used the fracture equation
for mf derived in this paper, while the fluid-flow analogy does
not need to have mf input.) At 0 degrees, all three models are
the same. Interestingly, the empirical model and the model in
this paper are very close up to 80 degrees, while the fluid-
analogy model and this paper are identical at 90 degrees. It is
likely that the differences between the analogy model and this
model are caused by the assumption of flow in a single
direction in the analogy model, because current (and probably
water) will take the path of least resistance which is not likely
a straight line. On the other hand, the derivation of the mf
equation 11 in this paper assumes flow only along fractures. It
is possible that this may be taken into account by the
derivation assumptions, but not certain. Perhaps modeling or
experiments will shed light on which model is correct. It is
possible that the results will be somewhere in between the two
models.
Comparison to Experimental Data
Unfortunately there is a paucity of experimental data that
would shed light on the veracity of these models. However,
The appendix has a comparison to a special-case
theoretical/experimental model.
Vugs
Fig. 6 shows the relationship of the effective medium vug
equation 14 versus the series vug equation 5. At low
porosities, the new relationship is nearly identical to the old,
but at higher porosities the two diverge, possibly indicating a
tendency for more connectedness at higher vug densities. It
makes sense that as bulk porosity decreases the result of
vuggy porosity looks more and more like series resistance. On
the other hand, as the vuggy porosity increases, the vugs
should be more and more connected to each other, so the
series model would not be accurate.
It is possible to use mv to characterize vug shape and
orientation, especially since the shape and alignment of vugs
may be oriented with bedding or along fractures. Preferential
orientation should generally mimic the behavior of the fabric
that the vugs are following. Since fractures generally lower m
and since bedding can be modeled as resistors in parallel, it is
likely that vugs following either fractures or bedding will
lower mv.
Triple Porosity Systems
As discussed above, effective-medium calculations were
accomplished by first calculating the new bulk m using
equation 14 and then using the results in equation 10 to
calculate the triple-porosity m. Fig. 8 shows calculations with
input variables the same as in Fig. 2 in Aguilera and Aguilera2
and mv = 1.5. The two figures are very similar except for the
underlying differences in the vug equations. Fig. 9 shows the
effect of changing mf on Fig. 8 from 1.0 to 1.3. The change in
mf has significantly dampened the effect the fractures had on
the triple porosity equations.
Conclusions
The new effective-medium relationships for vugs and fractures
allow more accurate prediction of Sw. The equation for fracture
dual porosity (10) along with the equation for fracture m (11)
will allow modeling of tool response from fractures and the
calculation of volume fraction and direction of fractures
without actually having fractures cross the borehole. In
addition, the fracture model will allow analysis of the effects
of fracture-induced anisotropy of rocks.
The new vug equation (14) eliminates the need for
distinction between connected and non-connected vugs. As
vugs make up more of the rock volume, they act more
“connected” as well they should. This reconciles with the fact
that, if there is any intergranular porosity, vugs will
necessarily be connected to the bulk rock and not truely
isolated, hence the series vug model should diverge with
observation as vugs become more common. In addition, with
the new variable mv, the shape and arrangement of vugs can be
taken into account quantitatively.
Additional Work
Being geometric variables, porosity exponents (m) are as valid
for shaly rock as for clean rocks. The principles involved in
the derivation of the fracture equation can be used to study
fracture-induced anisotropy as well as to study the effects of
fractures on Sw in fractured shaly rocks such as the Austin
Chalk. Of course, the Archie equation (9) cannot be used on
shaly rocks, but the HB equation (7) can.
SPE 101698 5

Instrument response needs to be more rigorously defined 4. Aguilera, S., and Aguilera, R., “Improved Models for
for fractures. In order to derive more quantitative relationships Petrophysical Analysis of Dual Porosity Reservoirs”,
from well logs, the effects of fractures on the electrical fields Petrophysics, (2003) 44, no. 1, 21.
generated by the tools and, in turn, the resistivities measured 5. Aguilera, R., “Effect of the Fracture Porosity Exponent (mf) on
the Petrophysical Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs”,
by the tools must be considered. Although it is likely that most Servipetrol Ltd. Internal Report (2004).
open fractures will have roughly the same orientation, it is 6. Aguilera, C.G, and Aguilera, R., “Effect of Fracture Dip on
possible that in some cases conjugate sets of fractures might Petrophysical Evaluation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs”,
be open. In that case, tool response can be modeled for 7th Annual Canadian International Petroleum Conference,
multiple fractures. June13-15, 2006.
7. Archie, G. E., “The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in
Acknowledgements Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics”, Petroleum
I would like to thank R. Aguilera for his suggestions and Technology, (1942) 1, 55.
8. Berg, C.R., “Effective-Medium Resistivity Models for
insights as well as for the experimental data used in Fig. 7.
Calculating Water Saturation in Shaly Sands”, The Log Analyst,
(1996) 37, no. 3, 16.
Nomenclature 9. Spalburg, M., “The Effective Medium Theory Used to Derive
φ Porosity Conductivity Equations for Clean and Shaly Hydrocarbon-
φb Porosity of the bulk rock not relative to the whole Bearing Reservoirs”, Eleventh European Formation Evaluation
rock Symposium, (1988) Paper O.
φbv In effective medium triple porosity, bulk rock 10. Focke, J.W., and Munn, D., “Cementation Exponents in Middle
Eastern Carbonate Reservoirs”, SPE Formation Evaluation, 2
porosity with vug porosity added no. 2, SPE No. 13735, (1987}.
φ′b In Aguilera5 mf equation, “the matrix block 11. Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., and Flannery,
porosity affected by mf” B.P., Numerical Recipes in C[;] the Art of Scientific Computing,
φ′v In effective medium triple porosity, vug porosity as New York, New York, Cambridge University Press (1996).
a fraction of total porosity not including the 12. Towle, G., “An Analysis of the Formation Resistivity Factor-
fracture porosity Porosity Relationship of Some Assumed Pore Geometries”,
φf Fracture porosity with respect to the whole rock SPWLA Transactions (1962) 3, paper C.
φnc Non-connected vug porosity with respect to the
whole rock Appendix
m Porosity exponent (also cementation exponent) of
the whole rock Calculation of mf
mb Porosity exponent of the bulk rock Derivation of mf is based on the relationship from Ohm’s
mbv In effective medium triple porosity, the porosity Law of a cylindrical object
exponent of φbv ρ⋅ L
R= ,……………………………………………….. (A-1)
mf Porosity exponent of the fractures A
νf, νv Partitioning coefficient of fractures and vugs, where R is the resistance, ρ is the resistivity, L is the length,
respectively and A is the cross-sectional area of that object. (The term
θ Angle that the current makes with the normal to a “cylindrical” here describes an object in which all
fracture perpendicular cross sections are congruent.) Fig. A-1 shows
θi In the multiple fracture equation, the angle that the cross sections of two identical blocks, one with a fracture
normal to each fracture set makes with the system parallel to current flow and the other with a fracture
current direction system oblique to flow. θ is the angle that the normal to the
Rr Grain or matrix resistivity fracture makes with current flow. The bulk rock is assumed
R0 Whole rock resistivity nonconductive for the derivation. In order to hold porosity
Rw Water resistivity constant, the cross-sectional area in the plane of section of the
R0b Bulk rock (excluding vugs and fractures) resistivity two fractures must be equal. In other words, the width of the
Sw Water saturation as a fraction of the total porosity modeled fracture must change with rotation because otherwise
Vi In the multiple fracture equation, each fracture set the area would not be constant. (The area we are talking about
as a fraction of φf here is not the area in equation A-1, which is perpendicular to
both the plane of section and the fracture.)
For the top block equation 0 becomes
References ρ ⋅ L1
1. Aguilera, R., “Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs from R1 = …………………………………………(A-2)
Sonic and Resistivity Logs”, Journal of Petroleum Technology A1
(1974) 26, no. 11, 1233.
2. Aguilera, R.F., and Aguilera, R, “A Triple Porosity Model for
and for the bottom block it becomes
Petrophysical Analysis of Fractured Reservoirs”, Petrophysics, ρ ⋅ L2
(2004) 45, no. 2, 157. R2 = . ………………………………………... (A-3)
3. Aguilera, R., “Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs from A2
Conventional Well Logs”, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(1976) 28, no. 7, 764.
Dividing equation 3 by equation 2 we get
6 SPE 101698

L2 Towle’s12 relationship for the anisotropy if such a system, the

R2 A equations are very similar in form except that in Towle’s
= 2 . …………………………………………...(A-4) relationship the sin terms are not squared. Following is
R1 L1
Towle’s relationship for calculating formation resistivity
A1 factor (φ-m):
As stated above, the cross-sectional area of the fractures must 2⋅ F
remain constant and thus F'= ,…………………………(A-13)
sin α + sin β + sin γ
L1 ⋅ T1 = L2 ⋅ T2 . …………………………………….. (A-5) where F is the formation resistivity factor for vertical current
Note that the cross-sectional areas A1 and A2 are cross sections flow and F′ is the formation resistivity factor for inclined
of the fractures at perpendiculars to the same fractures and not current where α, β, and γ are the angles that normals to the
to the cross-sectional plane of Fig. 1. Since the thicknesses T1 fractures make with the current vector. Extension of equation
and T2 are proportional to A1 and A2, then A-11 to three sets of orthogonal fractures using resistors in
parallel gives
L1 ⋅ A1 = L2 ⋅ A2 . …………………………………….(A-6)
3
follows from equation 5. Solving for A2 in equation 6 and then φf
substituting that result into equation 4 and simplifying we get F'= . ………………………(A-14)
sin 2 α + sin 2 β + sin 2 γ
2
R2 ⎛ L2 ⎞
= ⎜ ⎟ . ……………………………………….(A-7) With vertical current flow and with φf below 0.1, equations A-
R1 ⎜⎝ L1 ⎟⎠ 13 and A-14 yield a maximum difference of 2.0 percent. At φf
Since resistivities and resistances should be proportional for of below 0.01, the maximum difference is less than 0.1
same-sized blocks, percent. The relationship for F in A-13 (not shown here) is
exact below φf of about 0.5, while the derivation of equation
2
R02 ⎛ L2 ⎞ A-14, does not take into account what happens at fracture
= ⎜ ⎟ ,………………………………………..(A-8) intersections. It is assumed from the similar forms that the
R01 ⎜⎝ L1 ⎟⎠
derivation for Towle’s equation12 (A-13) may not have held φf
where R02 and R01 are the resistivities of their respective constant, and thus the sine terms are not squared. Indeed,
blocks. For the upper block, m = 1, so Archie’s law reduces to Towle admitted that “The expressions concerning the
anisotropic nature of the systems have not been verified in the
Rw rigorous mathematical sense.” Therefore it is assumed that
R01 = ,……………………………………………(A-9)
φf “sin2” can be substituted for “sin” in equation A-13. An
interesting consequence of this relationship is that there is no
and for the lower block Archie’s law is anisotropy in this orthogonal system since sin2 α + sin2 β +
sin2 γ is equal to 2.0, no matter what the current direction.
Rw Thus the modified equation A-13 would reduce to
R02 = . ………………………………………(A-10)
φ f mf F ' = F ,……………………………………………...(A-15)
and equation A-14 reduces to
Substituting equations A-9 and A-10 into equation A-8 and
substituting sinθ for L1/L2 we get 3
F'= . ………………………………………...(A-16)

mf =
(
log φ f ⋅ sin 2 θ ) ,……………………………(A-11) 2⋅φ f

log φ f

which is equation 11 in the main text. Equation A-11 has been

double-checked by single-fracture models at various angles
using equations A-1 and 9.
Using resistors in parallel, equation A-11 can be extended
to the following relationship:
⎛ n ⎞
log⎜⎜ φ f ⋅ ∑ Vi sin 2 θ i ⎟⎟
mf = ⎝ i =1 ⎠ . ……………………...(A-12)
log φ f

where Vi are the volume fractions relative to φf of each set of

fractures, and θi are the respective angles which each set
makes to the current direction. (Equation A-12 is equation 12
in the main text.) When equation A-12 is extended to 3
orthogonal, equal-porosity sets of fractures to compare to
SPE 101698 7

θ=0 θ = 30

Dual-Porosity Exponent, m Dual-Porosity Exponent, m

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
1 1

Matrix, R0
Non-Connected φ f = 0.1

Vugs, Rw φ f = 0.1

0.1 0.1

Total Porosity, φ

Total Porosity, φ
Fractures, R w φ f = 0.001
0.01 0.01

φ f = 0.001
Current Direction 0.001 0.001

θ = 60 θ = 90

Dual-Porosity Exponent, m Dual-Porosity Exponent, m

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
2
Fig. 1. Schematic modified after Aguilera and Aguilera Fig. A-1 1 1

showing the electrical model for their triple porosity calculations.

The matrix and fractures are together in parallel (mf=1.0), while
φ f = 0.1
the non-connected vugs are in series with the other two. φ f = 0.1

0.1 0.1

Total Porosity, φ

Total Porosity, φ
Bulk Rock, mb and φb 0.01 0.01

φ f = 0.0001
a mv and φ′v
φ f = 0.001
0.001 0.001

Bulk Rock + Vugs, mbv and φbv

Fig. 3. These plots are modeled after Fig. 23 in Aguilera and
4
mf and φf Aguilera , with mb of 2.0 but using the new fracture equation 10
b using fracture angle θ set from 90 down to 0 degrees. For θ of 90
degrees (current is parallel to fractures and mf = 1), the results are
identical to the parallel dual porosity equation 1. When θ is 0
Bulk Rock + Vugs
Current Direction degrees (current is perpendicular to fractures and mf = ∞), the
+ Fractures, results are nearly identical to the effects of series the series
m and φ model vuggy porosity equation 5 in Fig. 6. This makes sense,
c
because a fracture aligned perpendicular to the current direction
should be equivalent to resistors in series and should thus have
the same response. (To find φf for individual curves, read the
Fig. 2. Schematic showing effective-medium triple-porosity values at m=1 on the θ=0 plot.)
calculation. Bulk rock properties are from Archie’s law, equation
6. New, composite, bulk rock porosity and exponent (mbv and φbv)
are calculated using the new dual porosity vug equation 14 by
incorporating mv and φ′v. That porosity and exponent are then
used in the new dual porosity fracture equation 10 by
incorporating mf and φf. Blocks a, b, and c are schematics
showing the physical model for each step. Block a is grains
immersed in water, block b is water-filled holes (vugs) within the
bulk rock, and block c is planar fractures within the composite
bulk rock. It should be emphasized that the blocks are not simply
drawings representing the fabrics—they are schematics
representing their respective electrical models.
8 SPE 101698

Dual Porosity m versus θ

3 Fig. 4. An explanation of how fractures might significantly lower

dual-porosity m in spite of the fact that some directions of current
flow might exhibit mf much greater than mb. If we assume, for the
sake of illustration, that current from an induction log flows in
2.5 circular paths, it will encounter mf in the range shown using
equation 11 assuming a vertical set of fractures. Dual porosity m
is then calculated using equation 10 for each angle along the
circular path. Averaging this dual porosity m gives a value of
2
m

about 1.88, close to what might be calculated based on tool

response. Using equation 11 on that average yields mf of 1.19.
Since the current would tend to flow in lines of least resistance,
this hypothetical value might be slightly higher than the value
1.5
calculated from actual tool response. Additionally, it is clear from
this plot that logging tools that can direct current in a given
direction should exhibit strong anisotropy due to fractures.
1 Equation 11 provides a quantitative way of calculating fracture
direction and the amount of fracturing in a given well without
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
having to actually encounter fractures in the borehole (or see
θ them in a borehole imager).
dual porosity m φ b = 0.1
average of dual porosity m (=1.88) m b =2.0
mf
φ f = 0.011
mf calculated from average m (=1.19)

Aguilera m f > 1 Aguilera and Aguilera Hydraulic Analogy

m m
1 2 3 1 2 3
1 1
Total Porosity
Total Porosity

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

a b
This Paper
m
1 2 3
1
Total Porosity

0.1

0.01
c 0 degrees
50 degrees
70 degrees
80 degrees
90 degrees

Fig. 5. A comparison of calculations for mf using two other models and this model. The angles listed are the angles that the current flow
5
direction makes with a normal to the fractures (θ). Plot a is the empirical model from Aguilera and Aguilera , plot b is is a new model from
6
Aguilera and Aguilera based on an analogy of current to fluid flow, and plot c is the new effective medium model. For θ up to 80 degrees, the
empirical model and the model from this paper are extremely close, while at 90 degrees, the fluid-flow analogy and this paper are the same.
All three models are the same at 0 degrees.
SPE 101698 9

Effective-Medium, Triple-Porosity Exponent, m

Vug Porosity
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
1
Dual-Porosity Exponent, m
2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
1
φ v =0.1, φ f =0.01

φ v =0.1

Total Porosity, φ
0.125
0.100
0.075 0.1
0.1
0.050
Total Porosity, φ

φ v =0.01 φ v =0.05

φ v =0.01, φ f =0.01
0.020
0.025 φ v =0.05, φ f =0.01
0.015

0.010
0.01 mb =2
0.005 mf =1
m v = 1.5
0.01
0.003

Fig. 8. Calculations using the effective-medium triple porosity

model. In this case, mf is equal to 1.0. These curves use the same
φ v = 0.001 parameters and are outwardly very similar to Fig. 2 in Aguilera
0.001 2
and Aguilera , with the main distinction between the two figures
being the difference in the series vug equation 5 with the effective
Fig. 6. Plot of dual-porosity m versus φ for the effective-medium
medium vug equation 14 (see Fig. 6 for the comparison of the vug
vug equation 14 (black lines) and the series vug equation 5 (gray
models).
lines). For these calculations, φb is set to 2.0 for both equations
and mv is set to 1.5 for the new equation. Divergence of the two Effective-Medium, Triple-Porosity Exponent, m
models is small at low porosities, presumably because the vugs 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
have to be unconnected because they are physically so far apart. 1
At higher porosities, vugs becoming more connected to each
other would explain lower values of m for the new model. Setting
mv to high values makes the new model calculate the same as the
series model.
φ v =0.1, φ f =0.01
Focke and Munn Experimental Data

φ v =0.1
Total Porosity, φ

4.50

0.1
φ v =0.05
4.00
φ v =0.05, φ f =0.01
Porosity Exponent, m

3.50 φ v =0.01

φ v =0.01, φ f =0.01
mb =2
3.00 m f = 1.3
m v = 1.5
0.01

2.50 Fig. 9. Same as Fig. 8, but with mf of 1.3. The change in mf has
significantly affected the curves with lower φv.

2.00
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Total Porosity, φ

Best fit to effective m edium vug equation

Linear Regression
Experim ental data

Fig. 7. A best fit of φb and and mb to experimental data from Focke

10
and Munn . This rock type is described as “moldic lime grain-
stones with well-developed moldic (‘vuggy’) porosity”.
Permeability was within the range of 1 to 100 millidarcies. In the
effective-medium calculations, vug m (mv) was set arbitrarily to
1.5. Best-fit φb was 0.081, while best-fit mb was 2.04—very reason-
able values. A linear regression done on the data had a slope of
6.95 and an intercept of 1.51. The best fit was obtained using
Microsoft® Excel “Solver” add-in. Data courtesy of R. Aguilera.
10 SPE 101698

Fractures Parallel to Current Flow

Bulk Rock

θ = 90° Current Flow

T1
L1
Normal

Fracture

Fractures Oblique to Current Flow

Normal
Bulk Rock
θ
Current Flow
θ
T2 L2

Fracture
Fig. A-1. Two blocks, the top one showing a fracture parallel to
current flow and the bottom one showing a fracture oblique to
current flow. In order to maintain constant porosity, the area of
the fracture in the plane of section must remain constant, and
thus the thickness must change with the length. Also, it is
assumed that the single-fracture derivation here is equivalent to
that of multiple fractures having the same, aggregate φf.
Perpendicular area of fractures, A1 and A2 (not shown) are of
width T1 and T2 going into the page. The angle θ is the angle that
the normal to the fracture makes with the current direction.