SPE 109878
Pore-Level Analysis of the Relationship Between Porosity, Irreducible Water
Saturation, and Permeability of Clastic Rocks
T. Torskaya, SPE; G. Jin, SPE; and C. Torres-Verdı́n, SPE, The University of Texas at Austin
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11-14 November 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee follow-
ing 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 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 SPE meetings are subject
to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an ab-
stract 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. Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836
U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Permeability is one of the most important, most spa-
tially variable, most uncertain, and hence least predictable
transport properties of porous media. Various empiri-
cal models, such as Tixier’s, Timur’s and Coates’ equa-
tions, are widely used to quantify permeability from well-
log calculations of porosity and irreducible water satura-
tion. However, these models do not explicitly include the
role played by rock structure, spatial fluid distribution in
the pore space, wettability, or clay mineral distribution on
permeability. We present a pore-scale approach to inves-
tigate the influence of these factors on the permeability of
clastic rocks for explicit pore geometries of brine-saturated
granular rocks.
Synthetic pore-scale models are constructed to repre-
sent granular sands with variable grain-size distributions.
These models include the structural effects of compaction,
cementation, and distribution of dispersed hydrated clay
minerals. Irreducible water is geometrically distributed on
grain surfaces of the synthetic rocks. Permeability is calcu-
lated from lattice-Boltzmann flow simulations. A nonlin-
ear relationship between permeability, porosity, and irre-
ducible water saturation is established for these computer-
generated rocks. We compare calculated permeability val-
ues of computer-generated rocks and laboratory measure-
ments of core samples to those estimated from different em-
pirical approaches, such as Tixier, Coates, and Timur mod-
els. It is found that the latter models cannot be applied to
general cases of clastic rocks even if their free parameters
are adjusted to fit core measurements. Our simulations
also show that spatial distributions of clay minerals and ir-
reducible water play a fundamental role in establishing an
accurate correlation between permeability, porosity, and
irreducible water saturation. Specific deterministic equa-
tions must be established for rock formations that exhibit
distinct grain-size distributions, clay types, structural clay
distributions, and grain cementation.
Introduction
Permeability governs the displacement of fluids through
the pore space of porous media. It is one of the most impor-
tant and least predictable transport properties of porous
media in reservoir characterization. Permeability is usually
evaluated from core samples and/or well tests. However,
core samples and well-test data are often only available
from few wells in a reservoir while well logs are available
from the majority of wells. Therefore, accurate and reliable
evaluation of permeability from well-log data embodies a
significant technical and economic advantage.1
Various empirical models have been proposed to infer
permeability from well-log data, based on calculations of
porosity, water saturation, capillary pressure, and forma-
tion resistivity factor.2–6 Permeability is estimated via cor-
relations among other rock petrophysical properties. In
many cases, there may exist deterministic relationships
among these properties, but such correlations usually are
empirically derived for a given formation in a given area,
are often statistical in nature and, therefore, cannot be
applied to general cases.7
2 T. TORSKAYA, G. JIN, AND C. TORRES-VERDÍN SPE 109878

Permeability has also been observed to be a strict func-

tion of porosity and/or residual water saturation in certain
reservoirs.5 A general empirical relationship proposed by
Wyllie and Rose,4 relates the permeability, k, of a porous
medium to its porosity, φ, and irreducible water satura-
tion, Swi , as
φb
k=a c , (1)
Swi
where a, b, and c are statistically determined model pa-
rameters. Based on this general expression, various em- (a) Generation (b) Sedimentation
pirical relationships3, 5–7 have been proposed to calculate
permeability from values of porosity and irreducible water
saturation derived from well logs, including:

Tixier:3
φ6
k = 62.5 2 , (2)
Swi
Timur:5
φ4.4
k = 8.58 2 , (3)
Swi
and
Coates:7
φ4 (1 − Swi )2
k = 4.90 4 , (4)
Swi
where the unit of permeability is Darcy (D). The units of
porosity and irreducible water saturation are expressed in
terms of fraction of bulk volume and pore space volume,
respectively. Despite their widespead use, existing mod-
els used to calculate permeability from porosity and irre-
ducible water saturation do not explicitly include the role
played by rock structure, grain geometry, grain-size distri-
bution, wettability, and spatial distribution of irreducible
water in the pore space.
Laboratory studies have shown that permeability de-
pends on a long list of parameters: porosity, pore size and
shape, pore size distribution, clay content, fluid type, and
saturation – a nearly overwhelming complexity.7, 8 The
objective of this paper is to investigate the influence of
rock microstructure and spatial distribution of clay min-
erals on the permeability of clastic rocks for explicit pore
geometries of brine-saturated granular rocks. Hydrated
clay minerals are responsible for the presence of excess ir-
reducible water whose spatial distribution in the pore space
further conditions the geometry of pore throats.9, 10 There-
fore, presence of clays in sands can substantially affect
the relationship between porosity, irreducible water satura-
tion, and permeability in ways that depart from standard
parametric models such as those of Tixier,3 Timur,5 and
Coates7 (see Eqs. (2)-(4)).
The macroscopic properties and detailed microstructural
information of a porous medium can be obtained from ex-
periments. However, the associated experiments are of-
ten time-consuming and expensive. In addition, routine
laboratory testing is not easily applied to damaged core
material or drill cuttings and often reservoir conditions
(c) Compaction (d) Cementation
Figure 1— Schematic diagram of the numerical rock genera-
tion processes: (a) grain generation, (b) grain sedimentation,
(c) compaction, and (d) cementation.
cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. As an alterna-
tive to both experimental determination of rock properties
and petrophysical correlations, we make use of a numerical
approach11, 12 in this paper.
We construct synthetic pore-scale models to repre-
sent granular sands with variable grain-size distributions.
These models include the structural effects of compaction,
cementation, and distribution of dispersed hydrated clay
minerals. A D3Q19 lattice-Boltzmann algorithm12 is used
to simulate viscous flow of the single-phase fluid in the
pore space of computer-generated rock samples. Perme-
ability is calculated directly from the simulated velocity
field using Darcy’s equation. We compare the permeabil-
ity calculated from computer-generated rocks and labo-
ratory measurements of core samples to those estimated
from different empirical models, such as those introduced
by Tixier, Coates, and Timur.
Numerical Methods
In general, sedimentary rocks originate by deposition of
grains followed by compaction and cementation. The lat-
ter two processes determine the final pore-space geometry
and connectivity. A physics-based depositional model11
serves to reconstruct natural sedimentary rocks, and gen-
erates 3D images of the pore space at an arbitrary de-
gree of spatial resolution. This model provides detailed
microstructure of the rock, and makes it possible to cal-
culate the steady-state velocity field for single-phase fluid
flow. Figure 1 illustrates the simulation procedures used
to contruct numerical rock samples with this method.
Dispersed clay minerals in sandstones are of three mor-
SPE 109878 PORE-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POROSITY, IRREDUCIBLE WATER . . . 3

Fraction of grain volume

Fraction of grain volume
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

(a) PU growth (b) PT growth Grain radius (mm) Grain radius (mm)
(a) Type 1 (b) Type 2
Figure 2— Schematic diagram of different growth patterns of

Fraction of grain volume

Fraction of grain volume
1.0 1.0

pore-lining clay minerals (blue color) on grain surfaces (gray 0.8 0.8
color). Clay minerals distributed uniformly on grain surfaces
grow with different growth rates: (a) a uniform rate in all 0.6 0.6

directions, and (b) a growth rate larger in the narrow pore 0.4 0.4
region than in other regions.
0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
phological types: (1) pore lining, (2) pore bridging, and Grain radius (mm) Grain radius (mm)
(3) discrete particles.13, 14 Pore-lining clays are attached (c) Type 3 (d) Type 4
to pore walls to form a relatively continuous and thin clay

Fraction of grain volume

1.0

mineral coating.14 In this paper, we assume that clay min- 0.8

erals, independent of its composition, are homogeneously
0.6
deposited on grain surfaces within the sample according
to a proposed cement overgrowth algorithm.11, 15, 16 Fig- 0.4

ure 2 shows the idealized patterns of clay mineral distri- 0.2

bution on grain surfaces in two dimensions. Two differ-
0.0
ent patterns are used: (1) PU growth: clay minerals grow 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

uniformly in all directions on grain surfaces; and (2) PT
growth: clay minerals preferentially grow in narrow grain-
contact regions.
Clay shell (region of blue color in Figure 2), which is
composed of exceedingly fine-grained particles, often ex-
hibits very high porosity. Water held in this shell is respon-
sible for presence of irreducible water saturation. Different
volumes of the clay shell correspond to different values of
irreducible water saturation. In addition, because pores
and pore channels are equally small, for all practical pur-
poses clay shells exhibit zero permeability. Therefore, we
model clay shells as highly porous, but impermeable layers
in numerical simulations. A no-flow boundary condition is
enforced at fluid-solid interfaces.
We use the D3Q19 lattice-Boltzmann algorithm12, 17 to
simulate viscous flow of a single-phase fluid in the pore
space of computer-generated rock samples. In this pa-
per, we use the improved incompressible lattice-Boltzmann
model18 together with a pressure boundary condition19
enforced on the inlet and outlet faces. Simulations are
performed individually for each of the x−, y−, and
z−directions. Absolute permeability is derived directly
from the simulated velocity field using Darcy’s equation.
Effective absolute permeability is defined as the arithmetic
average of the calculated absolute permeabilities in the x−,
y−, and z−directions. Only effective permeability is con-
sidered in this paper.
Results and Analysis
Five different grain-size distributions, shown in Fig-
ure 3, are used to generate numerical rock samples with
Grain radius (mm)
(e) Type 5
Figure 3— Grain-size distributions used to generate different
numerical rock samples. Total volume of all grains with the
same size is expressed in terms of fraction of total solid volume
in the rock. Only one rock sample is constructed from each
of the types 1, 2, and 4, respectively. Type 3 is used to
generate two rock samples with different porosities. There
are 371 samples with different porosities and clay morphology
constructed from the same grain-size distribution, type 5.
different degrees of compaction and cementation. Total
volume of all grains with the same size is expressed in terms
of fraction of total solid volume in the rock. Only one rock
sample originates from each of the grain-size distributions
of types 1, 2, and 4, respectively. They are labeled as A,
B, and E, respectively. Two additional rock samples, C
and D, are constructed from the same grain-size distribu-
tion, type 3, except that they exhibit different values of
porosity. The grain-size distribution, type 5, is used to
generated 371 rock samples with different porosities and
clay morphology, labeled as samples F. Initial properties
of these samples are listed in Table 1. Note that, due to
the number of samples F, we did not list their properties
in Table 1.
We assume that clay minerals in samples A-E grow uni-
formly in all directions on grain surfaces and exhibit PU
growth patterns, while clays in samples F form accord-
ing to two different patterns: PU growth and PT growth.
Water held in clay shells is responsible for the saturation
of irreducible water. Due to the fact that clay shells are
4 T. TORSKAYA, G. JIN, AND C. TORRES-VERDÍN SPE 109878

Table 1— Initial values of porosity φ, average radius Ra , and

absolute permeability k of samples A-F. The average radius is
calculated from the expression Vt = N 34 πRa3 , where Vt is the
15
total volume of all grains, and N is total number of grains in
the pack. Permeability is calculated with lattice-Boltzmann
flow simulations. 10

k (Darcy)
Sample φt (%) Ra (mm) k (Darcy)
A 27 0.42 98.1 5
B 34 0.21 82.6
C 29 0.24 45.4 0
D 40 0.24 199.0 0.4
E 25 0.25 40.1 0.4
F - 0.10 - 0.2
0.2
0.0 0.0 φ
Swi
3
10 (a) PU pattern
Sample A
Sample B
Sample C
Permeability (Darcy)

2 15
10 Sample D
Sample E

k (Darcy) 10

1
10 5

0
0
0.4
10 0.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2
0.2
Irreducible water saturation, Swi
0.0 0.0 φ
Figure 4— Variations of calculated permeability for different Swi
values of irreducible water saturation, Swi (samples A-E). (b) PT pattern

Figure 5— Calculated permeability versus porosity and irre-

highly porous, we further assume that the volume of clay ducible water saturation for samples F. There are 184 samples
in which pore-lining clays exhibit the PU growth pattern, and
shells is equal to the volume of irreducible water in the rock
187 samples that include clays with PT growth.
pore space. Therefore, different volumes of clay shells cor-
respond to different values of irreducible water saturation
in the simulations. Eq. (1). We have obtained the following forms for samples
Figure 4 describes variations of the calculated perme- A-F with the PU growth pattern and PT growth pattern,
ability for different values of irreducible water saturation, respectively:
Swi , for samples A-E. We note that rock permeability de-
creases with increasing values of irreducible water satura- PU pattern:
tion for all samples A-E. For increasing values of irreducible φ4.07
water saturation, all samples exhibit a similar trend of de- k = 1.68 × 102 0.97 , (5)
Swi
creasing permeability. Figure 5 displays the calculated
permeability of samples F for different values of porosity and
and irreducible water saturation. There are 184 computer-
generated samples in which clays exhibit the PU growth PT pattern:
φ5.09
pattern, and 187 samples in which clays exhibit the PT k = 5.53 × 102 1.03 , (6)
growth pattern. Swi
To establish a general relationship between permeabil- where the unit of permeability is Darcy. Porosity and irre-
ity, k, porosity, φ, and irreducible water saturation, Swi , ducible water saturation are expressed in terms of fraction
for these numerical rocks, we use the generalized form, of bulk volume and pore space volume, respectively. Dif-
described by Eq. (1). All simulation data in Figures 4 ferent values of model parameters a, b, and c indicate that
and 5 are used to calculate the parameters a, b, and c in similar correlations derived for a given formation in a given
SPE 109878 PORE-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POROSITY, IRREDUCIBLE WATER . . . 5

2 2
10 10
this study, Eq. (5) SIM

Permeability from Eq. (6), Darcy

Tixier 1949, Eq. (2) EXP
Timur 1968, Eq. (3)
Permeability, Darcy (COR)

Coates 1981, Eq. (4) 0

0
10
10

−2
10
−2
10

−4
−2 0 2
10 −4 −2 0 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Permeability, Darcy (LBS) Permeability, Darcy (Numerical/Core samples)
(a) PU pattern
Figure 7— Permeability from lattice-Boltzmann simulations
2
10 on computer-generated rock samples (SIM) and laboratory
this study, Eq. (6) measurements on core samples (EXP), together with the cor-
Tixier 1949, Eq. (2) responding values calculated via correlation, Eq. (6).
Timur 1968, Eq. (3)
Permeability, Darcy (COR)

Coates 1981, Eq. (4)

0 2
10 10
Eq. (6)
Eq. (2)
Eq. (3)
Permeability, mD (COR)

0 Eq. (4)
10
−2
10

−2 0 2
10 10 10
Permeability, Darcy (LBS)
(b) PT pattern
Figure 6— Calculated permeabilities from lattice-Boltzmann
simulations (LBS) compared to those calculated with differ-
ent empirical models (COR), Eqs. (2)-(6), for all computer-
generated rock samples with different clay-growth patterns (a)
PU pattern, and (b) PT pattern.
basin of the world may not be applicable to other forma-
tions with a different diagenetic history.
Figure 6 compares permeability values rendered by
lattice-Boltzmann flow simulations to those estimated with
different empirical models, Eqs. (2)-(6), for all computer-
generated rock samples with different clay morphologies. If
we assume that the calculated permeabilities with lattice-
Boltzmann simulations are ‘true’ values of these numerical
samples, empirical models, such as Tixier’s, Timur’s, and
Coates’ (Eqs. (2)-(4)) generally underestimate the actual
values of permeability.
One also observes that the spatial distribution of clays
in the pore space (or irreducible water) has a significant
effect on the accuracy of permeability estimates obtained
with different empirical equations. Empirical models give a
better estimate of permeability for samples with a PT clay
growth pattern than for those with a PU growth pattern.
−2
10
−4
10 −4 −2 0 2
10 10 10 10
Permeability, mD (EXP)
Figure 8— Measured permeabilities from core samples (EXP)
compared to those estimated with different empirical models
(COR), Eqs. (2)-(6). Note that experimental data are from
Salazar et al.’s paper20 (Figure 1).
To further verify and compare empirical models dis-
cussed previously, we have chosen core data from a tight-
gas reservoir consisting of sand units of turbiditic ori-
gin.20, 21 Core samples were acquired from a shallow inter-
val of A1-A5 m and a deep interval B1-B5 m. Laboratory
measurements on these samples, including porosity, irre-
ducible water saturation, and permeability, were well con-
ducted and documented. Figure 7 displays the measured
permeability of core samples, together with the calculated
permeability of computer-generated rock samples F with
PT clay morphology. These calculated/measured values
are compared to the estimated values determined from the
developed correlation in this paper, Eq. (6). Our model
overestimates the permeability of core samples. This dis-
6 T. TORSKAYA, G. JIN, AND C. TORRES-VERDÍN
This study: k, mD Tixier: k, mD
10−210−1 100 101 102 10−210−1 100 101 102
A1
EXP EXP
Eq. (6) Eq. (2)
A2
Depth, m
A3
A4
A5
Figure 9— Measured permeability of core samples compared to their estimated values from different empirical models: Tixier:
Eq. (2), Timur: Eq. (3), Coates: Eq. (4), and this study: Eq. (6). Core samples were acquired in the shallow interval of A1-A5 m.
The length of each tick mark in depth is 5 m.
crepancy may be caused by different grain size distribu-
tions and different types of clays present in the core sam-
ples and computer-generated samples. It is well known
that different clay morphologies significantly affect rock
porosity/permeability, capillary pressure curve, and asso-
ciated pore-size distributions in various ways.14 Different
values of these parameters in Eqs. (5) and (6) further con-
firm the effect of the spatial distribution of irreducible wa-
ter on specific parameters included in the calculations.
Figure 8 shows the overall comparison of permeabil-
ity between laboratory measurements on core samples and
those estimated with empirical models, Eqs. (2)-(6). We
observe that Timur’s model gives the best estimate of per-
meability, while Tixier’s and Coates’ equations underesti-
mate the permeability, and our correlation, Eq. (6), over-
estimates the measured permeabilities.
In Figures 9 and 10, we observe more clearly the differ-
ence between permeability estimates for different models,
where permeability is plotted as a function of depth. The
length of each tick mark in depth is 5 m. Timur’s pre-
dictions of permeability are in excellent agreement with
laboratory measurements for both depth intervals, while
our model overestimates the permeability approximately
by one order of magnitude, and Tixier’s model underesti-
mates it by one order of magnitude. Coates’ predictions
nearly match experimental data in the deep depth inter-
val B1-B5, but underestimate slightly their values in the
SPE 109878
Timur: k, mD Coates: k, mD
10−210−1 100 101 102 10−210−1 100 101 102
EXP EXP
Eq. (3) Eq. (4)
shallow interval A1-A5.
The above discrepancy is due to different values of free
parameters included in Eqs. (2)-(6). Table 2 lists all
the free parameters together for comparison. Compared
to values in Timur’s (or Coates’) model, we observe that
the value of b in Tixier’s model is larger (the difference
is about 2), whereas the coefficient a is also one order of
magnitude larger. Average values of porosity and irre-
ducible water saturation of core samples studied in this
paper are about 10% and 50%, respectively. Therefore,
Tixier’s model would underestimate the permeability by
approximately one order of magnitude, as reflected by the
plots of Figures 9 and 10. Similarly, our equation (PT pat-
tern) yields larger values of a (about 2 order of magnitude
larger) and b (the difference is about 1). It also yields a
smaller value of c (the difference is about 1). These differ-
ences of parameters in our equation contribute to overes-
timate the permeability of core samples by approximately
one order of magnitude.
However, we note that the fact that Timur’s model
yielded a better estimate of permeability for core sam-
ples does not indicate that it is superior to other empirical
models and that this model gives the best estimates of
permeability for all types of rock formations. Moreover,
we emphasize that our equations (5) and (6) were derived
from computer-generated samples, which exhibit the same
uniform grain size distribution. Our approach to assign the
SPE 109878 PORE-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POROSITY, IRREDUCIBLE WATER . . . 7

This study: k, mD Tixier: k, mD Timur: k, mD Coates: k, mD

10−210−1 100 101 102 10−210−1 100 101 102 10−210−1 100 101 102 10−210−1 100 101 102
B1
EXP EXP EXP EXP
Eq. (6) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4)

B2
Depth, m

B3

B4

B5

Figure 10— Measured permeability of core samples compared to their estimated values from different empirical models: Tixier:
Eq. (2), Timur: Eq. (3), Coates: Eq. (4), and this study: Eq. (6). Core samples were acquired in the deep interval of B1-B5 m.
The length of each tick mark in depth is 5 m.

tial distribution of clay-bound water was geometrically de-

Table 2— Values of parameters a, b, and c in the general form termined using a simple approach, similar to that of the
b
k = a Sφc , for different empirical models. The unit of perme- cement overgrowth algorithm.11 Single-phase fluid flow
wi
ability is Darcy. Porosity and irreducible water saturation are within computer-generated rocks was simulated using the
expressed in terms of fraction of bulk volume and pore space lattice-Boltzmann method. Absolute permeability of the
volume, respectively. sample was estimated directly from the velocity field using
Empirical model a b c Darcy’s equation. Such an approach provided detailed rock
Tixier 62.5 6 2 microstructure and distribution of irreducible water in the
Timur 8.58 4.4 2 pore space, thereby enabling the study of their influence
Coates 4.90 4 ∼2 on the permeability of clastic rocks.
This study, PU 1.68 × 102 4.07 0.97 We established a relationship between permeabil-
This study, PT 5.53 × 102 5.09 1.03 ity, porosity, and irreducible water saturation for our
computer-generated rock samples. To test and compare
existing empirical models, such as Tixier’s, Timur’s and
Coates’, we compared permeability values predicted with
spatial distribution of irreducible water on grain surfaces these models to permeability values of both computer-
ignores many complications and, of course, may not accu- generated rocks and laboratory measurements performed
rately represent the real distribution of irreducible water on core samples. We found that all existing models un-
saturation in complex rock formations. derestimated the permeability of our numerical rocks. For
core samples, Timur’s predictions were in excellent agree-
Discussion and Conclusions ment with laboratory measurements, while our model over-
We introduced a pore-level procedure to investigate the estimated the permeability by approximately one order of
relationship between rock permeability, porosity, and irre- magnitude, whereas Tixier’s underestimated them by one
ducible water saturation. We first constructed synthetic order of magnitude. Coates’ estimates nearly matched ex-
rock samples using a physics-based depositional model. perimental data for core samples acquired in a deep inter-
Starting with an unconsolidated random grain pack, we val, and it underestimated them for core samples acquired
simulated rock compaction and cementation. The spa- in a shallow interval.
8 T. TORSKAYA, G. JIN, AND C. TORRES-VERDÍN
Our correlations were derived from computer-generated
rocks, in which we used the same uniform grain-size distri-
bution and spherical grains. A simple but flexible cement-
growth algorithm was used to geometrically distribute ir-
reducible water on grain surfaces. This approach ignores
many complications, and of course, may not represent the
real distribution of irreducible water in the pore space. We
expect that all these factors will play a significant role in
establishing a correlation between permeability, porosity,
and irreducible water saturation. Therefore, we emphasize
that the correlation developed in this paper is only valid
for our numerical rocks and is not universal.
It is well known that permeability is dominated by the
smallest portions (pore throats) of flow channels in the rock
pore space, while porosity and water saturation are con-
trolled by the volume of large pores, not by pore throats.
Irreducible water saturation may be closely related to the
solid surface area of a rock. Hence, correlations for per-
meability may be inherently limited in their accuracy and
reliability when assuming specific correlations with poros-
ity and water saturation, or with any other rock property,
that is not strongly affected by the pore throats of porous
media. These factors explain why empirical permeabil-
ity models are not universal; different predictive equations
must be established for different types of rocks. Therefore,
it is necessary to address these factors suitably when es-
tablishing a correlation among rock properties to calculate
permeability.
In addition, empirical permeability models, such as
Tixier’s, Timur’s and Coates’, relates the permeability
of a porous medium to its porosity with only one con-
stant parameter for all values of porosity. Laboratory
measurements performed on Fontainebleau sandstones22
have shown that the correlation between permeability and
porosity has two different families (low and high porosities)
for which the correlation law has the same mathematical
shape, but not the same characteristic parameters. There-
fore, we also do not expect that a simple correlation be-
tween permeability, porosity, and irreducible water satura-
tion would work well for all rock formations with different
values of porosity.
Our fully-explicit pore-scale geometrical approach en-
ables one to study the sensitivity of permeability to amount
and spatial distribution of hydrated clay minerals and their
exchange cations, brine salinity, and irreducible water sat-
uration for clastic rocks with variable grain-size distribu-
tions. Compared to laboratory measurements, this numer-
ical approach is particularly attractive, due to its low cost
and high speed of calculation. Our study is but a first step
toward applying pore-scale models to well-log interpreta-
tion.
Acknowledgements
The work reported in this paper was funded by the
University of Texas at Austin’s Research Consortium on
Formation Evaluation, jointly sponsored by Anadarko,
Aramco, Baker Atlas, BHP Billiton, BP, British Gas,
ConocoPhillips, Chevron, ENI E&P, ExxonMobil, Hal-
SPE 109878
liburton Energy Services, Hydro, Marathon Oil Cor-
poration, Mexican Institute for Petroleum, Occidental
Petroleum Corporation, Petrobras, Schlumberger, Shell
Inter national E&P, Statoil, TOTAL, and Weatherford.
The authors acknowledge the Texas Advanced Comput-
ing Center (TACC) at The University of Texas at Austin
for providing high performance computing resources that
have contributed to the research results reported in this
paper.
References
[1] S. Ameri, D. Molnar, S. Mohaghegh, and K. Aminian.
Permeabilitty evaluation in heterogenous formations us-
ing geophysical well logs and geological interpretations. In
SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 1993.
[2] G. E. Archie. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in
determining some reservoir characteristics. Trans. AIME,
146:54–62, 1942.
[3] M. P. Tixier. Evaluation of permeability from electric-log
resistivity gradients. Oil and Gas Journal, June 16, 1949.
[4] M. R. J. Wyllie and W. D. Rose. Some theoretical con-
siderations related to the quantitative evaluation of the
physical charateristics of reservoir rock from electrical log
data. Petroleum Transactions, AIME, 189:105, 1950.
[5] A. Timur. An investigation of permeability, porosity, and
residual water saturation relationships for sandstone reser-
voirs. The Log Analyst, 9(4):8–17, 1968.
[6] George R. Coates and J. L. Dumanoir. A new approach
to improved log derived permeability. The Log Analyst,
XV(1):17–29, 1974.
[7] Schlumberger. Log Interpretation Principles/Applications.
Houston, 1989.
[8] Gray Mavko and Amos Nur. The effect of a percola-
tion threshold in the Kozeny-Carman relation. Geophysics,
62(5):1,480–1,482, 1997.
[9] Guodong Jin, Carlos Torres-Verdı́n, Sarath Devarajan,
Emmanuel Toumelin, and E. C. Thoms. Pore-scale analy-
sis of the Waxman-Smits shaly-sand conductivity model.
Petrophysics, 48(2):104–120, 2007.
[10] Guodong Jin, Carlos Torres-Verdin, F. Radaelli, and
E. Rossi. Experimental validation of pore-level calcula-
tions of static and dynamic petrophysical properties of
clastic rocks. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, 2007.
[11] Guodong Jin, Tad W. Patzek, and Dmitriy B. Silin.
Physics-based reconstruction of sedimentary rocks. In SPE
Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint Meeting,
Long Beach, California, USA, 2003.
[12] Guodong Jin, Tad W. Patzek, and Dmitriy B. Silin. Direct
prediction of the absolute permeability of unconsolidated
and consolidated reservoir rock. In SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 2004.
[13] Michael D. Wilson and Edward D. Pittman. Authigenic
clays in sandstones: recognition and influence on reservior
properties and paleoenvironmental analysis. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, 47(1):3–31, 1977.
SPE 109878 PORE-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POROSITY, IRREDUCIBLE WATER . . . 9

[14] John W. Neasham. The morphology of dispersed clay in

sandstone reservoirs and its effect on sandstone shaliness,
pore space and fluid flow properties. In SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, 1977.
[15] James N. Roberts and Lawrence M. Schwartz. Grain
consolidation and electrical conductivity in porous media.
Physical Review B, 31(9):5990–5998, 1985.
[16] S. L. Bryant, Christopher Cade, and David Mellor. Per-
meability prediction from geologic models. The American
Association of Petrolem Geologists Bulletin, 77(8):1,338–
1,350, 1993.
[17] Guodong Jin. Physics-based modeling of sedimentary rock
formation and prediction of transport properties. PhD Dis-
sertation, University of California at Berkeley, 2006.
[18] Qisu Zou, Shuling Hou, Shiyi Chen, and Gary D. Doolen.
An improved incompressible lattice Boltzmann model for
time-independent flows. Journal of Statistical Physics,
81(1/2):35–48, 1995.
[19] Qisu Zou and Xiaoyi He. On pressure and velocity bound-
ary conditions for the lattice Boltzmann BGK model.
Physics of Fluids, 9(6):1591–1598, 1997.
[20] Jesús M. Salazar, Mayank Malik, Carlos Torres-Verdı́n,
Gongli Wang, and Hongyan Duan. Fluid density and
viscosity effects on borehole resistivity measurements ac-
quired in the presence of oil-based mud and emulsified sur-
factants. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, Anaheim, California, USA, 2007.
[21] A. J. Martin, D. Robertson, J. Wreford, and A. Lindsay.
High-accuracy oriented perforating extends the sand-free
production life of Andrew Field. In 2005 Offshore Europe,
Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 2005.
[22] Thierry Bourbie and Bernard Zinszner. Hydraulic
and acoustic properties as a function of porosity in
Fontainebleau sandstone. Journal of Geophysical Re-
search, 90(B13):11524–11532, 1985.