Journal of Applied Geophysics 167 (2019) 11–18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Geophysics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jappgeo

Estimating porosity and hydraulic conductivity for hydrogeology on the

basis of reservoir and elastic petrophysical parameters
Jadwiga A. Jarzyna ⁎, Edyta Puskarczyk, Jacek Motyka
AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Geology Geophysics and Environmental Protection, Krakow, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of paper was to show how petrophysical parameters measured in laboratory or as well logging outcomes
Received 18 January 2018 can be used to determine hydrogeological quantity - porosity and combine it with hydraulic conductivity. Bulk
Received in revised form 12 October 2018 density and acoustic waves velocity were applied to calculate porosity besides of laboratory mass measurements
Accepted 5 May 2019
applied as standard in hydrogeology. Anisotropy question was touched because petrophysical parameters mea-
Available online 10 May 2019
sured in two perpendicular directions revealed different results.
Keywords:
Upper Jurassic carbonate samples from two regions of South Poland were used in laboratory measurements of
Hydrogeology elastic and reservoir properties to determine open/effective-interconnected and total porosity, bulk density
Petrophysics and hydraulic conductivity. Petrophysical measurements of bulk density and elastic P-wave and S-wave veloci-
Porosity ties were used for total porosity determination. The obtained results were also basis for the dynamic elastic mod-
Hydraulic conductivity uli calculations. Laboratory measurements and analyses were done separately for the samples cut horizontally
Anisotropy and vertically to bedding to underline possibility of anisotropy recognition. The main goal of investigations
was to determine porosity from various methods and show that well logging results can be used rather than lab-
oratory results. Hydrogeological parameters determination from well logs might be crucial in deep aquifers
prospection.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction are defined as total, effective or dynamic porosity and absolute/physical

Prospecting for drinking water constitutes a very important part of
hydrogeological, geological and geophysical activity. Several surface
geophysical methods selected as hydrogeophysics are dedicated to
aquifers recognition (Binley et al., 2015; Szabó et al., 2014). In the ma-
jority of cases presented in literature resistivity imaging methods, VLF,
induced polarization and GPR dominate (Nguyen et al., 2013; Ping-Yu
et al., 2017). Petrophysical interpretation of well logs is not considered
as a source of hydrogeological properties estimation. In relatively shal-
low water reservoirs drilled by boreholes cores are taken and provide
rock material for laboratory measurements of porosity and filtration pa-
rameters. Usually, deep aquifers are monitored by boreholes and many
of logs realized just after drilling process can provide a number of
petrophysical parameters useful in hydrogeological recognition.
Petrophysics, dealing with rock properties by use of the physics
based methods of measurements, developed thanks to oil and gas in-
dustry and scientific investigations to determine porosity, permeability
and water/hydrocarbon saturation of reservoir rocks (Tiab and
Donaldson, 1996; Lucia, 2007; Schön, 2015). The mentioned parameters
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jarzyna@agh.edu.pl (J.A. Jarzyna), puskar@agh.edu.pl
(E. Puskarczyk), motyka@agh.edu.pl (J. Motyka).
or phase/effective and relative permeability. Laboratory measurements
on the plugs cut from cores and well log data are unique sources of
petrophysical parameters. There is plenty of methods and laboratory
and well logging equipment dedicated to measure and calculate reser-
voir properties. They are still improved under the financial care of oil
and gas industry. Mercury injection porosimetry providing with bulk
and skeleton density, effective porosity and detailed information on
pore structure and specific area is the best example of constantly devel-
oped petrophysical method (Frevel and Kressley, 1963; Gao and Hu,
2012). Here, the better example is a technique based on nuclear
magnetic resonance phenomenon realized in laboratory experiments
and logged in boreholes applied to characterize pore fluids (Freedman
and Heaton, 2004; Allen et al., 1997).
Hydrogeologists use similar parameters, porosity and hydraulic con-
ductivity but the definitions of them and methods of determining are
different (Domenico and Schwartz, 1998; Fitts, 2002; Toth et al., 2002;
Schwartz and Zhang, 2002). Open porosity is defined similarly to effec-
tive or dynamic ones covering all connected pores in rock formation
enabling water flow in hydrogeology and oil, gas and formation water
in petroleum geology and applied geophysics (Hallenburg, 1998; Mari
et al., 1999; Rider, 2002).
Reservoir properties of siliciclastic and carbonate formations deter-
mined using the same methodology are encumbered with different

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2019.05.012
0926-9851/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
12 J.A. Jarzyna et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 167 (2019) 11–18
factors. Siliciclastic rocks (sandstone, mudstone, conglomerate) with
mostly intergranular, primary porosity are better recognized as reser-
voirs in comparison to carbonates with vugs, fractures and fissures
building secondary porosity (Baechle et al., 2005; Lucia, 2007). Carbon-
ate sediments more simple than siliciclastic rocks as regards mineral
composition are vulnerable to diagenesis processes influencing pore
structure (Eberli et al., 2003). Chemical processes under temperature
and pressure cause changes in mineral content and alteration in porous
space structure. Velocities of elastic waves and bulk density determined
in laboratory investigations in relatively simple way and easy measured
during well logging are deeply influenced by mineralogy and porosity of
rocks. In siliciclastic formations mineral components have great influ-
ence on sonic velocity. In carbonates this factor is much less important
(Eberli et al., 2003). In both types of lithology important quantity
influencing the sonic/seismic waves velocities is water/hydrocarbon
saturation. Many scientific groups worked on recognition of fluid satu-
ration influence on velocity and controlling changes of elastic moduli
(Adam et al., 2006; Rogen et al., 2005). A uniform pattern of P-wave
and S-wave velocity changes under dry and water saturated conditions
is not observed. P-wave velocity of water saturated rocks is normally
higher than of dry ones, but there are samples which do not reveal
any change or even velocity decrease; shear wave velocity generally de-
creases (Baechle et al., 2009). VP/VS presents increase with water satu-
ration, in particular water weakening rocks characterize of high
velocity ratio (Diethart-Jauk and Gegenhuber, 2017). Also other factors
influencing velocity, elastic moduli and bulk density, i.e. anisotropy and
organic matter content in sandy-shaly sediments and fissuring or frac-
turing in carbonate formations can be monitored to better characteriza-
tion of rock formation (Allan et al., 2014; Bayuk et al., 2007; Prasad et al.,
2002).
In the presented paper several methods for determining porosity
and permeability as petrophysical properties from laboratory measure-
ments and well logging, commonly used, not very sophisticated, were
selected to show compatibility of petrophysical and hydrogeological
definitions of important parameters and present conditions of measure-
ments. Hydrogeological benefit from using petrophysical estimations
was also shown as regards providing additional independent informa-
tion about important properties determined on the different physical
basis.
2. Definitions of petrophysical and hydrogeological parameters
Before presenting the results of porosity calculations and hydraulic
conductivity determinations on the selected carbonate data set the
basic meanings and formulas for calculations are included according
to petrophysical and hydrogeological definitions.
Table 1
Summary of equations for porosity calculations.
Formula
σ np −σ s
φe ¼ (1) hydrogeological - on the mass basis
σ np −σ nw
ρma −ρ
φt ¼ (2) petrophysical - on the density basis
ρma −ρfl
V Pma −Vp
φt ¼ (3) petrophysical - on the velocity basis
Vpma −V fl
VP = (1 − φt)2 ∗ VPma + φt ∗ Vfl (4) petrophysical - on the velocity basis
VS
φt ¼ 1− (5) petrophysical - on the velocity basis
V Sma
2.1. Porosity and bulk density
Porosity - open/effective-interconnected or total and bulk density
determined from hydrogeological calculations and petrophysical
measurements were compared (Plewa and Plewa, 1992; Tiab and
Donaldson, 1996; Schön, 2015). Open/interconnected porosity in
hydrogeological investigations was calculated on the basis of the Archi-
medes law. The results of rock samples mass measurements: dry sam-
ples in air, water saturated samples weighted in air and water
saturated samples weighted when immersed in water were used ac-
cording to Formula (1) (Table 1).
Bulk density is defined as ratio of mass and volume of rock including
pores filled with medium inside. Bulk density was independently
obtained in hydrogeological calculations and petrophysical
measurements.
Total porosity, comprising all connected and not connected pores
can be calculated on the basis of bulk density according to Formula (2)
(Table 1) (Rider, 2002).
Total porosity φt can be also calculated using the equation (3) (Table
1) formulated by Wyllie et al. (1956) on the basis of elastic longitudinal
waves velocity. Another nonlinear equation (RHG) presenting relation-
ship between P wave velocity and total porosity was expressed by
Raymer et al. (1980) (4) (Table 1). The equation (4) can be also used
for to tal porosity calculation. It provides values of total porosity closer
to laboratory results in the range of low and medium porosities (10–
30%), lower than Wyllie et al. (1956) linear formula.
There was also used equation (5) (Table 1) combining total porosity
and velocity of S wave which was tested with good results in engineer-
ing geophysics applications (Mari et al., 1999).
All mentioned equations are presented together with each symbol
explanation in Table 1. In the paper only the first one (1) was used to
calculate open/effective porosity, named here as porosity from
hydrogeological measurements. The others were used to porosity calcu-
lation on the basis of petrophysical laboratory measurements. There
was also pointed out that mentioned Eq. (2), Eq. (3), Eq. (4), Eq. (5)
are used as routine formulas in well logging interpretation.
Eqs (2), (3), (4), (5) are distinctly influenced by lithology, i.e. matrix
components. It is difficult to properly adopt ρma, VPma and VSmavalues
without details on mineral composition of rocks. In the discussed case
there was a great problem with proper selection of matrix density and
elastic waves velocity of mineral skeleton. Skeleton parameters adop-
tion is accurately described in the Chapter 4 Interpretation results.
In well logging interpretation (Hallenburg, 1998; Mari et al., 1999)
total porosity from the above formulas are corrected for influence of
the following factors: shaliness, gas presence in pore space and lack of
compaction in shallow reservoirs. There was almost no shaliness in
limestones in the study apart from several marl samples. Rocks were
Parameters explanation
φe- open/effective porosity [−],
σnp – mass of water saturated sample weighted in air [g],
σnw – mass of water saturated sample weighted in water [g],
σs – mass of dry sample [g].
φt– total porosity [−],
ρma – mineral skeleton density, matrix density [g/cc],
ρfl – medium in pores density [g/cc],
ρ – bulk density [g/cc]
VPma – P wave velocity of mineral skeleton, matrix [m/s],
Vfl – P wave velocity of medium in pore space [m/s],
VP – P wave velocity measured in rock formation [m/s],
Vs – velocity of shear wave measured in rock formation [m/s],
VSma – mineral skeleton/matrix velocity [m/s].
 J.A. Jarzyna et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 167 (2019) 11–18 13

hard despite of their location at low depth. So, the corrections for bulk density and Young modulus and Poisson ratio:
shaliness and lack of compaction were no included into total porosity

2
values φt. Vp
E ¼ 2ρ ð1−ν Þ ð7Þ
Vs
2.2. Permeability and hydraulic conductivity
"
2 # "
 #
Vp Vp 2
Permeability is a measure of media flow ability in porous space of ν ¼ 0:5 −1 = −1 ð8Þ
Vs Vs
reservoir rock. Generally, nonporous rocks are impermeable but there
are porous but impermeable examples (for instance pumice stone of
60% porosity is not permeable). Permeability depends on geometry of where:
pore space of interconnected porosity, size and shape of grains, pres-
E – Young modulus [GPa],
ence of fissures and caverns, consolidation of grains and sorting degree
and also on some other factors difficult to be determined. Type and vol- ν – Poisson ratio [−],
ume of cement in the rock are also important features. Clay minerals Vp – velocity of P-wave [m/s],
presence (shaliness) distinctly reduces permeability. Vs – velocity of S-wave [m/s],
In petrophysics absolute permeability is defined on the basis of ρ – bulk density [g/cc].
Darcy law (6a):
3. Data set
K dp
u¼− ð6aÞ Data set consisted of the Upper Jurassic carbonate samples from the
μ dl
Southern Poland area: Olkusz region (57 samples) and Krakow region
(8 samples). Majority of samples was built of limestones; there also
where:
were dolomites and marls. Cores came from hydrogeological or
u – velocity of flowing medium [m/s], prospecting boreholes drilled across four multi-aquifer formations in
K – permeability [m2], Olkusz and Krakow regions: Quaternary, Jurassic, Triassic and Devonian
μ - dynamic viscosity of medium [Pa∙s], (Wilk et al., 1985; Żurek et al., 2010). Samples in the study came from
l – length of sample [m], the underground fractured-karst cavernous water reservoir mainly
dp
built of the banded-like limestones, crystalline limestones and chalky
dl
– pressure gradient in flow direction [Pa/m]. limestones from the depth section: 12–127.5 m. Water accumulation
and hydraulic conductivity of such reservoir was not very high.
In hydrogeology hydraulic conductivity is a measure of water flow Hydrogeological investigations in Olkusz region revealed open porosity
ability in porous rock. Darcy equation may also be used to formulate a from range: 0,64–22% and hydraulic conductivity from range: 2,5∙10−12
relationship between water flow velocity, hydraulic conductivity and - 7,72∙10−9 m/s (Jusko et al., 2015).
hydraulic height (6b) (Bear, 1972; Chanson, 2004): Laboratory data set consisted of two parts: “hydrogeological” pa-
rameters comprising values of open porosity, hydraulic conductivity
u ¼ −K f ∙ grad H ð6bÞ and bulk density and “petrophysical” data comprising results of longitu-
dinal and shear waves velocity and bulk density measurements. The
where: working names are useful to differentiate the results obtained on fresh
“hydrogeological” material and old dried rock fragments used for
Kf – hydraulic conductivity [m/s], “petrophysical” measurements. Geometrical parameters, i.e. diameter
u – water velocity [m/s], and height of cylindrical samples and their volume and mass were
H – hydraulic height [−]. also measured independently in both data sets. Samples were cut
parallelly (→, 47 samples) and perpendicularly (↓, 18 samples) to
Basic relationship between reservoir parameters, i.e. permeability
increase with effective porosity increase may not be fulfilled in fractured
and fissured carbonate rocks where filtration depends on pore/fracture Table 2
Simple statistics of the hydrogeological and petrophysical parameters of the data sets in
size perpendicular to direction of water flow, not on pore volume (po- study.
rosity). So, recognition of fractures presence and water flow direction
is important for proper estimation of the aquifer water production Parameter Minimum Maximum Average Median Stand. dev.

potential. Vp↓ [m/s] 1244 3342 2564 2131 256

Vs↓ [m/s] 811 1840 1443 1180 179
ρ(petr) ↓ [g/cc] 2.19 2.60 2.45 2.48 0.0778
2.3. Elastic waves velocity and dynamic elastic moduli
ρ(hydr) ↓ [g/cc] 2.31 2.65 2.49 2.50 0.0906
Vp → [m/s] 1244 3041 2425 2270 631
Elastic waves (longitudinal - P and shear - S) velocity depends on Vs → [m/s] 766 1761 1415 1267 456
mineral composition of rock skeleton, porosity, type of media in pore ρ(petr) → [g/cc] 2.12 2.62 2.37 2.5 0.01
space, rock structure and texture, pressure and temperature (Plewa E ↓ [GPa] 3.25 22.26 13.34 8.87 2.2590
E → [GPa] 3.25 20.11 12.26 10.47 6.9102
and Plewa, 1992; Tiab and Donaldson, 1996; Schön, 2015). Laboratory
ρ(hydr) → [g/cc] 2.13 2.66 2.42 2.60 0.0831
measurement on rock plugs and acoustic well log in borehole provide Φopen/effective↓ [%] 1.09 13.72 6.96 5.80 3.3222
two independent values of rock elastic waves velocity. Despite of differ- Kf * 10−10↓ [m/s] 0.04 16.00 2.13a 8.14 2.2285
ent measurement conditions the velocity values obtained using the Φopen/effective→ [%] 0.69 18.68 9.86 2.96 3.2103
Kf * 10−10 → [m/s] 0.03 15.30 0.3933a 0.86 1.0855
mentioned methods correlate very well. Elastic moduli (Young modu-
lus, bulk modulus, shear modulus and Poisson ratio) calculated on the Vp↓, Vs↓, Vp→, Vs ;→ - velocity of P-wave and S-wave measured in samples cut vertically
basis of velocity of P- wave and S-wave and bulk density of formation (↓) and horizontally (→), respectively, ρ(petr), ρ(hydr) - bulk density calculated together
with velocity in petrophysical investigations and in hydrogeological measurements, re-
are dynamic ones. Elastic moduli static values of are obtained as results spectively, E – dynamic value of Young modulus, Φopen/effective - open/effective porosity
of stress/strain measurements in laboratory. Two formulas presented and Kf - hydraulic conductivity.
below show the relationships between velocity of P-and S-waves and a
Geometric average.
14 J.A. Jarzyna et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 167 (2019) 11–18

Table 3
Anisotropy indicators – parameters measured in two perpendicular directions.

No Depth [m] Direction Vp [m/s] Vs [m/s] Vp/Vs Young modulus [GPa] Open/effective porosity [%] Hydraulic conductivity [m/s] * 10−10

KP-3 44.5 ↓ 2877 1647 1.75 17.39 4.04 0.05

→ 2716 1589 1.71 15.63 5.23 0.09
KP-9 26.5 ↓ 2534 1553 1.63 13.59 – –
→ 2480 1445 1.72 11.96 12.08 0.51
KP-9 100.8 ↓ 2841 1571 1.81 15.27 8.15 1.54
→ 2741 1666 1.65 16.31 8.01 0.21
KP-9 102.2 ↓ 2829 1616 1.75 16.03 7.47 0.35
102.4 → 2668 1516 1.76 13.88 8.65 0.03
KP-9 116.5 ↓ 2922 1558 1.76 17.63 4.15 0.08
→ 2850 1602 1.78 16.73 4.05 0.04

bedding. Hydrogeological measurements were done just after getting changed not regularly. Hydraulic conductivity behavior did not fulfilled
cores from boreholes (1993–1996), petrophysical - after long period the rule of increasing permeability with porosity increase. Results for
about 20 yrs, so when velocity measurements were made the samples sample (KP-9, 102.2) were good example confirming those observation.
were dry and pore space was empty (filled with air). Primary Results for five pairs in Table 3 were not enough to conclude that car-
hydrogeological data set was larger than petrophysical because several bonate formation was anisotropic but the next considerations were
plugs could not be used in elastic waves velocity measurements due to conducted independently for samples cut vertically and horizontally.
difficulties in cutting regular cylinders in available rock material. Simi- On the basis of detail examination of results obtained for ↓ and → cut
larly, physical permeability was not measured using probe samples data sets the assumption that fractures were located horizon-
permeameter Temco® available at the Oil and Gas Institute in Krakow. tally to bedding sounded reasonably in the banded-like limestones.
Measurements of elastic P and S waves velocities were done at the Higher values of open/effective porosity and hydraulic conductivity
Department of Geophysics Faculty of Geology Geophysics and Environ-
mental Protection AGH UST, Krakow, Poland using ULT-100 P&S Ultra-
sonic Velocity Measurement System, GCTS, USA with dedicated
software (CATS Ultrasonics 1.95. User’s Guide and Reference, 1994-
2004). As a result there were obtained P (Vp) and S wave (Vs) velocities
for all samples. Diameter and height of cylindrical samples were also
measured together with mass determination, so the bulk density and
dynamic elastic moduli were also calculated using dedicated software
(Ogórek, 2017).
Information on the direction of rock samples cutting made possible
separate processing parameters from samples cut vertically and hori-
zontally to bedding. So, hydrogeological and petrophysical parameters
were at the beginning presented in two separate groups. Simple statis-
tics shown in Table 2 are the illustration of variability ranges of consid-
ered elastic and reservoir properties. Credibility level of data was not the
same because vertically cut samples set was more than two times
greater than that for samples cut horizontally. It is very distinctly visible
looking at the velocities standard deviations. Great ranges of change-
ability, limited number of samples and high standard deviations (as a
result) of porosity and hydraulic conductivity showed that these param-
eters were only treated as low believability estimators what was impor-
tant it in total porosity evaluation.
Simple statistics of data sets showed probable anisotropy of carbon-
ates in the study. Maximal values of velocity and bulk density were
compared with the mineral skeleton/matrix parameters obtained in
the further analysis. Two values of bulk density - ρ(petr) determined to-
gether with the velocities and used in dynamic elastic moduli calcula-
tions and ρ(hydr) calculated on the basis of hydrogeological
measurements were presented to underline differences related to
changes in condition of rock sample during time.

4. Interpretation of results

Several samples cut from cores at the same depth in vertical and hor-
izontal directions enabled comparison of P and S waves velocities deter-
mined in two perpendicular directions (Table 3).
Differences in the measured velocity were a basis to assumption that
carbonates in the study may be anisotropic. Data in Table 3 showed that
in all but one examples velocity of P and S waves is higher for vertically
cut samples (↓). Only in one sample (KP_9, 100.8 m) Vs→ N Vs↓. Similar Fig. 1. (a) Relationship between Vs and Vp; full data set (65 samples). (b) Relationship
results were observed for dynamic values of Young modulus calculated between Vs and Vp; vertically cut samples data set (47). (c) Relationship between Vs
on the basis of Vp and Vs. Hydraulic conductivity and Vp/Vs ratio and Vp; horizontally cut samples data set (18).
 J.A. Jarzyna et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 167 (2019) 11–18
measured in ↓ direction meant bigger cross section (aperture) of frac-
tures in that direction. Lower velocity of P wave values in horizontally
cut samples confirmed those conclusions. Broad-band sandstone inves-
tigations made by CREWES (Meyer, 2002) showed that structureless';-
appearing samples don';t reveal changes in directional distributions of
reservoir and elastic parameters. Permeability anisotropy of a strongly
laminated sandstone samples is variable, due to directional structure
of pore network connectivity for any given lamina. In the investigated
carbonates differences in measured elastic parameters may be
interpreted as results of fractures and fissures directional structure.
Relationships for Vp and Vs for full data set revealed good correlation
and not very big dispersion of data (Fig. 1a). Relationships Vs vs. Vp pre-
sented separately for vertically and horizontally cut samples (Fig. 1b
and c) showed lower dispersion and a little bit higher correlation
what in the case of horizontally cut samples was also the effect of low
number of data (Fig. 1c).
Presented relationships between P and S waves velocities and open/
effective porosity from hydrogeological calculations were used to obtain
mineral skeleton/matrix velocities (Fig. 2).
Skeleton/matrix values are those ones obtained for porosity equal to
zero.
Similar plots were prepared for bulk density determined in
petrophysical (together with velocity measurements) and hydro-
geological calculations for both data sets (Fig. 3). Higher data scattering
in Fig. 3a results among others from late petrophysical measurements in
comparison to hydrogeological outcomes obtained directly after cutting
plugs from cores. Bulk density and open/effective porosity in hydro-
geological calculation were obtained from the measurements made in
the same time.
On the basis of relationships between open/effective porosity from
hydrogeological calculations and Vp, Vs and bulk density mineral skele-
ton/matrix values of Vpma, Vsma and ρma were determined (Table 4).
Matrix parameters were obtained for porosity equal to zero. They
were compared to the maximal measured parameters (Table 2) under
the assumption that the highest velocity is related to the lowest porosity
rock.
Fig. 2. (a) Relationship between Vp vs. open/effective porosity from hydrogeology;
vertically cut samples. (b) Relationship between Vs and open/effective porosity from
hydrogeology; horizontally cut samples.
15
4.1. Total porosity calculations
Total porosity (Φt) was calculated on the basis of bulk density and
elastic waves velocity measurement using formulas (2)–(5) and com-
pared to open/effective porosity from hydrogeological measurements
(Φo/e (Hydr)). Selected examples of comparison made independently for
total porosity calculated on the basis of Vp (Formulas (3) and (4)) and
Vs (Formula (5)) for values from vertically and horizontally cut samples
are presented in Fig. 4. In the plots correlation was good but the disper-
sion of data was distinct. Higher dispersion was observed in vertically
cut samples data set. Many reasons of the data dispersion mentioned
earlier can be considered here. The main one was proper adoption of
mineral skeleton/matrix parameters. Relationships between total po-
rosity calculated from Vp on the basis of Wyllie equation (3) and from
Vs (equation 5) are shown in Fig. 4a–b. Presented total porosity calcu-
lated on the basis of Vs is lower than the quantity obtained on the
basis of Vp basing on mineral skeleton/matrix parameter (Table 3)
as well as using maximal Vs (Table 2). The reason was non proper
Vpma and Vsma adoption but it could not be improved without precise
information of lithology. The next comparison was done between
open/effective porosity vs. total porosity calculated using Wyllie
Eq. (3) (Fig. 4c) and nonlinear formula Raymer-Hunt-Gardner (RHG)
(4) (Fig. 4d) in the vertically cut samples data set. Nonlinear equation
(4) caused nonlinear relationships between porosity. Correlations for
full data set were rather poor (R2 = 0.55 and R2 = 057). Total porosity
was higher than open/effective one what meant closed fractures or un-
connected pores in rock formation. Relationship between total porosity
from P wave velocity according to Wyllie Formula (3) for full data set
Fig. 3. (a) Relationship between bulk density determined together with velocity and open/
effective porosity; vertically cut samples. (b) Relationship between bulk density in
hydrogeological calculations and open/effective porosity; vertically cut samples.
16 J.A. Jarzyna et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 167 (2019) 11–18

Table 4
Mineral skeleton/matrix velocity and density parameters.

Vpma↓ [m/s] Vsma↓ [m/s] ρma (petr) ↓ [g/cc] ρma (hydr) ↓ [g/cc] Vpma→ [m/s] Vsma→ [m/s] ρma (petr) → [g/cc] ρma (hydr) ↓ [g/cc]

3013,8 1649.6 2.6164 2.678 3059 1719.3 2.6137 2.6805

Fig. 4. (a) Comparison of total porosity determined on the basis of Vp (Wyllie eq.) and Vs; vertically cut samples data set. (b) Comparison of total porosity determined on the basis of Vp
(Wyllie eq.) and Vs; horizontally cut samples data set. (c) Comparison of total porosity determined on the basis of Vp (Wyllie eq.) and open/effective porosity determined in
hydrogeological measurements; vertically cut samples data set. (d) Comparison of total porosity determined on the basis of Vp (RHG eq.) and open/effective porosity determined in
hydrogeological measurements; vertically cut samples data set. (e) Comparison of total porosity determined on the basis P wave velocity (Wyllie eq.) and open/effective porosity; full
data set. (f) Comparison of total porosity determined on the basis of Vp (RHG eq.) and open/effective porosity; full data set. (g) Comparison of total porosity determined on the basis
of bulk density determined together with velocities and open/effective porosity determined in hydrogeological measurements; vertically cut samples data set. (h) Comparison of total
porosity determined on the basis of bulk density determined together with velocities and open/effective porosity determined in hydrogeological measurements; horizontally cut
samples data set.
 J.A. Jarzyna et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 167 (2019) 11–18
showed distinctly higher values in comparison to open/effective poros-
ity (Fig. 4e). Similar comparison for total porosity from RHG equation
(4) vs. open/effective porosity presented in Fig. 4f revealed poor corre-
lation but RHG equation provided lower values, in similar range to
open/effective porosity. The same mineral skeleton/matrix velocity of
P wave was used in Wyllie and RHG formulas.
Total porosity was also calculated on the basis of bulk density from
petrophysical measurements and compared to open/effective porosity
from hydrogeological investigations. Agreement between total and
open/effective porosities was good for both data sets (↓ and →). For ver-
tically cut samples porosity values were comparable (Fig. 4g). The trend
line was almost equal to the bisector. Some outliers lowered correlation.
The outstanding total porosity values were related to samples which re-
vealed not typical values of other parameters, too. Higher correlation
observed for horizontally cut samples (Fig. 4h) was due to lower num-
ber of data in that set apart from petrophysical reasons.
Joint analysis of relationships in Fig. 4a–h confirmed the assumption
on anisotropy (better correlations were observed individually for verti-
cally and horizontally cut samples than for the full data set). Higher
values of total porosity were explained by definition, i.e. in carbonates
there was no determined amount of unconnected pores which in-
creased total porosity. Bulk density turned out as much better predictor
of total porosity than P and S waves velocities. Mineral skeleton/matrix
density was easier to be properly adopted on the same rules as velocities
because of lower number parameters influencing density than velocity.
4.2. Hydraulic conductivity vs. porosity
Final result of reservoir rocks characterization was presentation
of mutual relationship between porosity and hydraulic conductivity.
In the discussed example of the Upper Jurassic carbonates the
Fig. 5. (a) Relationship between hydraulic conductivity and open/effective porosity; full
data set. (b) Relationship between hydraulic conductivity and total porosity from bulk
density determined together with velocities; full data set.
17
relationships are presented in Fig. 5a as plot of hydraulic conductivity
vs. open/effective porosity and in Fig. 5b - plot of hydraulic conductivity
vs. total porosity from bulk density determined together with velocities.
Both plots were prepared for full data set. Expected trend is visible, but
the correlation between parameters is low.
In both Fig. 5a–b distinct dispersion was visible. It reflected nonho-
mogeneous structure of the Upper Jurasic carbonates, no recognized
participation of dolomites and marls, variability of pore/fracture net-
work and anisotropy. Fig. 5a illustrated natural variability of aquifer.
The result of petrophysical investigations (Fig. 5b) was similar. Perme-
ability defined in petrophysics was not measured on samples.
5. Conclusions
Petrophysical velocity of elastic P and S waves and bulk density mea-
surements were used to determine total porosity for hydrogeological
purposes. Formulas well known in petrophysics, i.e. Wyllie or Raymer-
Hunt-Gardner equations were applied providing acceptable results.
The main problem in the study was to adopt proper mineral skeleton/
matrix parameters (velocity and bulk density) caused by insufficient in-
formation about lithology. Correlation between total porosity and open/
effective porosity was used as a measure of proposed petrophysical so-
lutions quality. Observed differences in values of parameters measured
on samples cut vertically and horizontally to bedding suggested anisot-
ropy of the carbonates in study. Assumption of anisotropy was partially
confirmed by results of correlation between total porosity calculated
separately for vertically and horizontally cut samples and open/effective
porosity. On the basis of detail examination of results obtained for ↓ and
→ cut samples data sets the assumption that fractures were located co-
laterally to the bedding sounded reasonable in the banded-like lime-
stones. Higher values of open/effective porosity and hydraulic conduc-
tivity measured in ↓ direction meant bigger cross section (aperture) of
fractures in that direction. Lower velocity of P wave values in horizon-
tally cut samples confirmed those conclusion. Young modulus and
other elastic parameters helped in anisotropy considerations.
Presented results were based on laboratory measured parameters
on samples from the shallow sited Jurassic multi-aquifer formation. Ve-
locities of elastic waves and bulk density are recorded in continuous
way in well logging. All deep boreholes drilled for prospection for
table/drinking water have results of acoustic (velocities) and density
(bulk density) logs. The same work flow and formulas presented in
the paper for total porosity calculations on the basis of laboratory exper-
iments are successively applied to well logging results. On the basis of
effective porosity from well logging continuous water permeability
curve can be constructed. Standard hydrogeological data were com-
bined with standard petrophysical results to extend traditional informa-
tion to new parameters enabling better recognition of aquifer/reservoir
formation.
Acknowledgments
Measurements of Vp, Vs velocities and bulk density (petr) were
done by Ewa Ogórek for her M.Sc. thesis “Measurements of the elastic
waves velocity for the selected rock samples and the comprehensive in-
terpretation of the petrophysical parameters” Library of the Faculty of
Geology Geophysics and Environmental Protection AGH University of
Science and Technology, Krakow, Poland.
Authors are grateful to anonymous Reviewers whose substantive
corrections enabled the paper improvement.
References
Adam, L., Batzle, M., Brevik, I., 2006. Gassmann's fluid substitution and shear modulus var-
iability in carbonates at laboratory seismic and ultrasonic frequencies. Geophysics 71
(6), F173–F183.
Allan, A.M., Vanorio, T., Dahl, J.E.P., 2014. Pyrolysis-induced P-wave velocity anisotropy in
organic-rich shales. Geophysics 79 (2), D41–D53.
18 J.A. Jarzyna et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 167 (2019) 11–18
Allen, D., Carry, S., Freedman, B., Andreani, M., Klopf, W., Badry, R., Flaum, C., Kenyon, B.,
Kleinberg, R., Gossenberg, P., Horkowitz, J., Logan, D., Singer, J., White, J., 1997. How
to Use Borehole Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Oilfield Review, Summer.
Baechle, G., Weger, R., Eberli, G., Massaferro, J., Sun, Y.-F., 2005. Changes of shear moduli in
carbonate rocks: Implications for Gassmann applicability. Lead. Edge 24 (5), 507–510.
Baechle, G., Eberli, G., Weger, R., Massaferro, J., 2009. Changes in dynamic shear moduli of
cabroante rocks with fluid substitution. Geophysics 74 (3), E135–E147.
Bayuk, I.O., Ammerman, M., Chesnokov, E.M., 2007. Elastic moduli of anisotropic clay.
Geophysics 72 (5), D107–D117.
Bear, J., 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Dover.
Binley, A., Hubbard, S.S., Huisman, J.A., Revil, A., Robinson, D.A., Singha, K., Slater, L.D.,
2015. The emergence of hydrogeophysics for improved understanding of subsurface
processes over multiple scales. AN AGU Journal, Water Resources Research,
3837–3866 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017016.
CATS Ultrasonics 1.95. User’s Guide and Reference. Geotechnical Consulting &Testing
Systems.
Chanson, H., 2004. Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow: An Introduction, Butterworth–
Heinemann see p. 22).
Diethart-Jauk, E., Gegenhuber, N., 2017. Shear weakening for different lithologies ob-
served at different saturation stages. J. Appl. Geophys. 148 (11). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.11.011.
Domenico, P.A., Schwartz, F.W., 1998. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. 2nd ed. John
Willey & Sons, New York.
Eberli, G., Baechle, G., Anselmetti, F., Incze, M., 2003. Factors controlling elastic properties
in carbonate sediments and rocks. Lead. Edge 22 (7), 654–660.
Fitts, C.R., 2002. Groundwater science. Academic Press, London.
Freedman, R., Heaton, N., 2004. Fluid characterization using nuclear magnetic resonance
logging. Petrophysics 45 (3), 241–250 May-June 2004.
Frevel, L.K., Kressley, L.J., 1963. Modifications in mercury porosimetry. Anal. Chem. 35
(10), 1492–1502. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60203a020.
Gao, Zhiye, Hu, Qinhong, 2012. Application of mercury intrusion porosimetry in pore
structure characterization. AAPG, Search and Discovery Article #40950 (2012)**.
Posted June 11, 2012.
Hallenburg, J.K., 1998. Standard Methods of Geophysical Formation Evaluation. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, Boston, London, New York, Washington D.C., p. 442.
Jusko, K., Motyka, J., Postawa, A., 2015. Matrix porosity of Upper Jurassic limestones and
marls in the Olkusz area. Prz. Geol. 63 (10/1), 801–804 in Polish, Abstract in English.
Lucia, J.F., 2007. Carbonate Reservoir Characterization, An Integrated Approach. 2nd ed.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York ISBN 978-3-540-72740-8.
Mari, J.L., Arens, G., Chapellier, D., Gaudiani, P., 1999. Geophysics of reservoir and civil en-
gineering, Editions TECHNIP, Paris, France.
Meyer, R., 2002. Anisotropy of sandstone permeability. CREWES Research Report 14
(2002).
Nguyen, V.G., Nguyen, B.D., Le, N.T., Noboru, H., 2013. Geophysical techniques to aquifer
locating and monitoring for industrial zones in North Hanoi, Vietnam. Acta
Geophysica 61 (6), 1573–1597.
Ogórek, E., 2017. Measurements of the elastic waves velocity for the selected rock sam-
ples and the comprehensive interpretation of the petrophysical parameters, Library
of the Faculty of Geology Geophysics and Environmental Protection AGH University
of Science and Technology. Krakow, Poland.
Ping-Yu, C., Lian-Cheng, C., Shao-Yiu, H., Jui-Pin, T., Wen-Fu, C., 2017. Estimating the
hydrogeological parameters on an unconfined aquifer with time-lapse resistivity im-
aging method during pumping tests. J. Appl. Geophys. 144, 134–143 Sept.
Plewa, M., Plewa, S., 1992. Petrofizyka, Wydawnictwa Geologiczne, Warszawa (in Polish).
Prasad, M., Kopycinska, M., Rabe, U., Arnold, W., 2002. Measurements of Young’s modulus
of clay minerals using atomic force acoustic microscopy. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 (8),
1172–1175.
Raymer, L.L., Hunt, E.R., Gardner, J.S., 1980. An improved sonic transit time to porosity
transform, SPWLA Logging Symposium, paper P.
Rider, M.H., 2002. Geological application of well logs. second edition. Rider-French Con-
sulting Ltd., Sutherland.
Rogen, B., Fabricius, I., Japsen, P., Hoier, C., Mavko, G., Pedersen, J., 2005. Ultrasonic veloc-
ities of North Sea chalk samples: influence of porosity, fluid content and texture.
Geophys. Prospect. 53, 481–496.
Schön, J., 2015. Physical properties of rocks. Fundamentals and principles of petrophysics.
second edition. Elsevier, Austria.
Schwartz, F.W., Zhang, H., 2002. Ground water. John Willey & Sons, New York.
Szabó, N.P., Dobróka, M., Turai, E., Szűcs, P., 2014. Factor analysis of borehole logs for eval-
uating formation shaliness: a hydrogeophysical application for ground water studies.
Hydrogeol. J. 22 (3), 511–526.
Tiab, D., Donaldson, E., 1996. Petrophysics (Theory and Practice of Measuring Reservoir
Rocks and Fluid Transport Properties). Gulf Publishing Co.
Toth, J., Bodi, T., Szűcs, P., Civan, F., 2002. Convenient formulae for determination of rela-
tive permeability from unsteady-state fluid displacements in core plugs. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 36 (1-2), 33–44.
Wilk, Z., Motyka, J., Borczak, S., Makowski, Z., 1985. Własności mikrohydrauliczne
utworów wapienia muszlowego i retu południowej części Monokliny Śląsko –
Krakowskiej, Rocznik Polskiego Towarzystwa Geologicznego, Kraków. 55(3-4)
pp. 485–508 (in Polish).
Wyllie, M.R., Gregory, R.J., Gardner, H.F., 1956. Elastic waves velocities in heterogeneous
and porous media. Geophysics 21 (1), 41–70.
Żurek, A., Czop, M., Motyka, J., 2010. Nitrate in groundwater of the Jurassic aquifer in
Olkusz region (southern Poland). Geologia 36 (1), 109–134 in Polish, Abstract in
English.