Two-Point Determinations of

Permeability and PV vs.

Net Confining Stress
Stanley c. Jones,* SPE, Marathon Oil Co.

Summary. Empirical equations are presented that accurately fit permeability, PV, or porosity data vs. net confining stress. Each
of these equations has four adjustable parameters. With little loss of accuracy, however, two of the coefficients can be preset.
Consequently, permeability, PV, or porosity measurements need to be made at only two confining stresses-e.g., at 1,500 and
5,000 psi [10.3 and 34'.5 MPa] to define the stress dependence within close tolerances completely.
With the techniques described, economical measurements of these stress-dependent properties can be made on a routine basis.
The results can be used to calculate PV compressibility and to estimate productivity declines resulting from permeability reduction
as deep, high-pressure reservoirs are drawn down.

Introduction
Many workers l - 29 have shown that the permeability, PV, and
porosity of a rock sample decrease with increasing confining or
"overburden" stress. The decrease is most rapid at low stresses
and becomes progressively more gentle at higher stresses. Fig. 1
shows three curves of the permeability ratio at a given stress to
permeability at zero net stress vs. net stress. Net stress in this case
and throughout this paper is defined as the difference between
isostatic (or hydrostatic) confining stress and the average pore
pressure.
Isostatic stresses rarely apply in an actual reservoir environment
because the vertical stress is generally greater than lateral stresses.
It is difficult to justify using triaxial or even biaxial stresses in the
laboratory, however, unless measurements are being made on
whole-core samples. The principal stress can be applied along the
axis of a whole-core sample by a hydraulic ram, and the two or-
thogonallateral stresses (approximated as being equal) can be ap-
plied by pressure on a rubber sleeve. Core plugs, on the other hand,
are generally cut perpendicular to the vertical axis, and it is not
easy to simulate reservoir stresses for plugs cut in this orientation.
Two different stresses cannot easily be applied to the rubber sleeve
unless a mechanical stress is superimposed on the hydraulic
pressure.
Only core plugs were measured in this study, and because of the
difficulty of applying appropriate triaxial stresses, only isostatic
stresses were used. Teeuw 30 has shown how to translate hydrostat-
ic compaction data into uniaxial formation compactions if the Pois-
son ratio of the rock is known or can be estimated accurately.
Andersen 31 and Andersen and Jones 32 have presented experimen-
tal data comparing the two stress modes.
The main difficulty with obtaining compaction data and
permeability-stress data is that mea~urements must be made at sever-
al stresses to define the curves adequately. Furthermore, in the past,
each ofthese measurements has been a tedious undertaking; hence,
they have been expensive. This paper will demonstrate how these
curves can be generated from measurements at only two stresses
and will explore the magnitude of errors that may be generated.
Jones and Owens 25 developed a permeability-stress correlation that
permits a two-point fit, modified by Ostensen. 33 The equations
presented in this paper should be more applicable over a wider stress
range than the previous correlations.
Experimental Measurements
All measurements in this study were made with an unsteady-state
Klinkenberg permeameter-porosimeter on I-in. [2.5-cm] -diameter
'Now with Core Laboratories (Division of Western Atlas Intl.).
. small tank is connected to the manifold for permeability measure-
Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1988
sandstone and conglomerate core plugs ranging in length from 1.6
to 3 in. [4.0 to 7.6 cm]. The operation principle ofthis instrument
is similar to that described in Ref. 34. However, this instrument
has been modified in several respects from the one described. First
of all, the capability of making PV measurements has been added
by incorporating an internal valve to the outlet end of the core
holder. When this valve is open, gas (helium) can exit from the
plug for a Klinkenberg permeability measurement. When the valve
is closed, it seals the effluent end of the core plug, and helium is
expanded from a chamber of accurately known volume into the core
plug, which was initially filled with helium at atmospheric pres-
sure. The PV of the plug is calculated from the ratio of the gas
pressure initially in the reservoir before expansion to the pressure
in the reservoir plus core plug after expansion, from a Boyle's law
calculation.
The second change was to increase the strength of the core holder
so that it can accommodate 10,000 psig [69 MPa] sleeve pressure.
Additionally, it has been provided with a pneumatically driven ram
that applies an axial stress to the plug equal to the sleeve pressure.
Sleeve pressures up to 10,000 psig [69 MPa] are applied through
a pressure intensifier.
The third major modification was to automate the instrument fully.
Up to 18 core plugs can be loaded into a carousel. The length, di-
ameter, and core plug identification are typed into a microcomputer
that controls the instrument. The confining stresses, up to a maxi-
mum of eight, are then entered. After all the plugs have been load-
ed and the information entered, the operation is completely
automatic. The final output includes the Klinkenberg permeabili-
ty, Klinkenberg slip factor, Forchheimer inertial coefficient, PV,
and porosity for each confining stress selected. If two or more stress-
es have been selected to be run on a particular plug, then
permeability-vs.-stress and PV -vs.-stress curve fits are made au-
tomatically. In the instrument described earlier, the starting pres-
sure for permeability measurements was 100 psig [689 kPa]. In
the new instrument, the starting pressure has been increased to 250
psig [1.7 MPa]. The main reasons for the increase were to improve
the accuracy of PV measurements, to increase the accuracy of the
inertial term, and to increase speed in the permeability measure-
ments. The minimum upstream pressure for the permeability meas-
urements has been increased from 1 to 20 psig [7 to 138 kPa].
Another change was to provide three helium reservoirs instead
of one. The three reservoirs consist of a manifold, which has a rela-
tively small volume, and a small tank and a large tank that can be
selectively connected to the manifold through valves. The manifold
alone is used as the reservoir for the Boyle's law expansion for
PVand for permeability measurements with tight core plugs. The
ments on somewhat higher-permeability plugs. The largest tank is
235
 1000r---r--'r--.--~--~---r---.---.---r--~

800
6·2
600

400

200

100

80

60

.,;
E 40 Core Plug 8-2
~ -"
C
"- .S 0
+
"" s
20
.4

10

.3 8
6

.2 4

.1
2

o .2 4 .6 1.0
- e- c / c*
a. kpsi
Fig. 2-Straight-line transformation of permeability-stress
Fig. 1-Permeability VS. net stress data with best fit of Eq. 1. data.

connected to the manifold for yet higher permeability plugs, and
both tanks are connected for very permeable plugs. With the avail-
able tank combinations, permeabilities ranging from about 0.01 to
3,000 md can be measured. Lower-permeability plugs « 10 /-td)
can be measured, but the time requirement becomes excessive. The
time required for each permeability and PV measurement varies
from about 30 seconds to 5 minutes, except for the lowest-
permeability plugs, which require more time.
For the measurements described in this paper, all plugs were care-
fully cut into square-ended cylinders, then cleaned in a Soxhlet ex-
tractor with toluene and dried in a vacuum oven. The rubber sleeve
used to confine the plugs was a 70-durometer Buna-n tube with
3/16-in. [0.48-cm] wall thickness. All measurements were made
in the order of increasing stress. The PV measurement was made
first, followed by the permeability measurement without relieving
the stress between the two measurements. The stress was then in-
creased to the next higher level without relieving it, and so on.
We consider the lowest stress measurements to be the least reliable
with this instrument, and in general, routine measurements at con-
fining stresses less than 1,000 psig [6.9 MPa] are to be avoided.
The low-stress PV measurements suffer because a heavy-walled
rubber sleeve does not completely conform to microscopic irregular-
ities of the core surface at low stresses. Consequently, PV com-
pressibility measurements at these low stresses tend to be too high.
Low-stress permeability measurements also tend to be less reliable
than the higher-stress measurements because at the start of an
unsteady-state permeability measurement, the pore pressure at the
inlet end of the plug is somewhat less than 250 psig [l. 7 MPa].
At its outlet end, the pore pressure is atmospheric (0 psig). At the
termination of the permeability determination, the inlet and outlet
pore pressures are about 20 psig [138 kPa] and 0, respectively. Be-
cause these pore pressures are changing with both time and posi-
tion in the plug, the net stress also varies accordingly. With a plug
that demonstrates a considerable variation in permeability with net
stress, this means that the plug's permeability is also varying with
time and position. However, the mathematics used in the curve fit
of the pressure-time data generated during a permeability meas-
urement assumes a constant permeability during that measurement.
Thus, if the permeability varies significantly during a single meas-
urement (these changes are greatest at the lowest stresses), then
the constant-permeability assumption distorts all of the parameters
resulting from that curve fit (k, b, and (3). Consequently. the mini-
mum recommended confining stress is 1,000 psig [6.9 MPa] (1,500
psig [10.3 MPa] is the preferred minimum value).
Empirical Equations
The data of Fig. 1 have been fit by the empirical equation
k=ko exp{ak[exp(-ala*)-I]}/(1+Ca) . .............. (1)
The curves connecting the data points represent a "best fit" for
each core plug in that all four of the coefficients in Eq. 1 (k o, ak'
a*, and C) were fit using least-squares techniques. Fig. 1 shows

236 SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1988

 ·84

.82

'~~O--~--~---L--~---L--~--~--~--~---Jl0'

a. kpSi

Fig. 3-Best fit of PV-stress data.

10

9 6-2

O. kpoi
8

Fig. 5-Sensitivity of curve with high ak to a*.

7

6 a typical spectrum of permeability reduction vs. increasing stress--a

rather minor permeability reduction occurs for Core Plug 6-2,
whereas a significant one is shown for Core Plug 11-2. In general,
5 8-2 greater reductions occur with lower-permeability samples. In tight-
gas reservoirs, a ten-fold permeability reduction is not un-
common. 25
Eq. 1 may be rewritten in an equivalent form:
4
.., In[k(l + Co)] =In ko -ak[l-exp( -0/0*)] . .............. (2)
eo
~
u

.,
. A semilogarithmic plot ofEq. 2 results in a straight line with inter-
u
cept ko and a slope of (-ak)' Fig. 2 shows such a plot. These are
+ 3
the same data shown in Fig. 1. Notice that the abscissa ranges from
zero to one. The zero corresponds to a net stress of zero, and
,..a. one corresponds to infinite stress. Note that the right point on each
line corresponds to a net stress of nearly 10,000 psi [69 MPa]
(see Fig. 1).
PV reduction with increasing stress exhibits the same general be-
havior as the permeability reduction. Fig. 3 shows the ratio of the
2
stressed PV to that at zero stress as a function of net stress for the
same three core plugs. The curves connecting the data points
represent least-square fits by use of Eq. 3:

Vp = Vpvoexp {av[exp( -0/ 0*)-1]}/(1 + Co) . ........... (3)

Eq. 3 is identical in form to Eq. 1. The four adjustable parameters,

of course, have different values from those for permeability data.
Comparing Figs. 3 and I, notice that the PV reduction is much
less than the permeability reduction for corresponding plugs.
Fig. 4 shows the linear transformation of the data shown in Fig.
10L---.L1---L---L---L----L---L--~--~--~~1.0
3 according to Eq. 4:
-0/0* In[Vp(l+Co)]=ln Vpvo -a v [1-exp(-%*)] . .......... (4)
1 - e

Fig. 4-Straight-line transformation of PV-stress data. Permeability and PV data from a number of core plugs were fit
by use of Eqs. 1 and 3. For a majority of the cases, the decay cons-

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, March 1988 237

 100
1000 I I
900
800 t- -
700 ~

- 6-2
~

--
90
\

,\~
\
\\'%
600 t-

500 -- 9-1
-- --.-
-
---
400 - 7-1
\
">iE ". .....\ ~

~""
300
~
7-2.
- ..-
80
~'~ ......

"'<~.~.~ -----
......
8-1
9-2 ..-
---
- --
200 ~
10-1

..... -c
E
"" ...... ~..
,-::
70 b
0 ,
\0
w
a,kpsi M 100 t- -
+ 90
Fig. 6'"-Sensitivity of curve with low a k to c:r*. 80~ -
70

60r- -- 10-2
....
-

10 50

40,=-
-- 8-2
--
-

30 --
201- -

.2 .4 .6 8 1.0
1_e- a !3000

Fig. 8-Two-point fits of permeability-stress data-high per-

meabilities.

severe case-i.e., one that has a significant permeability reduction

" ured at confining stresses of 1,500 and 5,000 psi [10.3 and 34.5
O. kpal
Fig. 7-Sensitivity of curve with high a k to C.
tant, a*, had values fairly closely clustered about 3,000 psi [20.7
MPa]. The coefficient C varied from 0 to about 10 x 10 -6 psi- I
[1.45 x 10 -6 kPa -I] and averaged about 3 x 10 -6 psi -I [0.44 x
10- 6 kPa -I]. If these two coefficients could be fixed a priori,
then the linear form of the equations as shown in Figs. 2 and 4
suggests that the entire permeability-stress or PV -stress curve could
be approximated from measurements at only two stress levels. Be-
cause stresses lower than about 1,500 psi [10.3 MPa] are to be avoid-
ed for the reasons given earlier, and because stresses much higher
than 5,000 psi [34.5 MPa] result in reduced sleeve life in a Hassler-
type core holder, the two stresses of choice would be about 1,500
and 5,000 psi [10.3 and 34.5 MPa].
Sensitivity to Fixed Parameters
Before arbitrarily setting fixed values for a* and C, it is important
to gain an understanding of the sensitivity of the curves to these
parameters so that an estimate of the error generated in using them
may be made. Fig. 5 illustrates a hypothetical example for a fairly
238
with increasing stress. In Fig. 5, C has been set to 3 x 10 -6 psi- I
[0.44 x 10 -6 kPa -I]. Now suppose that permeabilities were meas-
MPa]. If the correct value of a* were 2,000 psi [13.8 MPa], then
this curve in Fig. 5 would be the correct one. Suppose, however,
that we tried to fit these data using a decay constant of 3,000 psi
[20.7 MPa]. The difference between these two curves would
represent the error generated. The error is 0 at 1,500 and 5,000
psi [10.3 and 34.5 MPa] because these ar~ the two points used to
fit the data. The maximum interpolation error between these two
points occurs at a stress of about 3,000 psi [20.7 MPa], where it
is 1. 2 %. The maximum extrapolation errors occur at stresses of
o and 9,000 psi [0 and 62 MPa] in Fig. 5. The error at 9,000 psi
[62 MPa] is 3.5%, and it is 5.7% at zero stress. However, the con-
dition of zero net stress in an actual reservoir situation would prob-
ably never apply. Therefore, the errors illustrated for this case are
probably within the experimental accuracy of most permeability
measurements. Fig. 5 also illustrates another comparison. Suppose
that the true a* for this case were 5,000 psi [34.5 MPa]. The er-
rors generated by assuming a value of 3,000 psi [20.7 MPa] are
1.4% at this net stress and 3.7% at 9,000 psi [62 MPa].
Fig. 6 illustrates a more frequently encountered situation in that
the permeability reductions are less severe than those shown in Fig.
5. The coefficient ak' which is the negative of the slope of a semi-
logarithmic plot (see Fig. 2), is about 0.2 ill Fig. 6 compared with
0.5 in Fig. 5. If the curves in Fig. 6 represented by a* values of
SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1988
 10r-~~-'--~---r---r--'---~--T---r-~

8~--~~~~~-.~ __j
6
8 ..
4
7
.. -
2
...
61-
..
0
~

1.0 t>
ID

.8 ......
+
I

-0 .6

~
E ~

>
...
t> .4
......•
\0

t--~"----~-a---e-~~-----!~--e-__~.J
9-2
+
.....
-'"
3
--
11-2

---- .....
I I I I
.4 .6 .8 1.0
1 _ e- a /3000

.04
Fig. 10-Two-polnt fits of PV-stress data .

.02
when the points at 1,500 and 5,000 psi [10.3 and 34.5 MPa] are
fit: Fig. 8 shows typical results for plugs ranging in permeabilities
from about 40 to nearly 700 md. In every case, the points chosen
.01L-~ __ ~__-L__-L__ __ __
~ ~ ~ __L-~~~
for the fit are the third and fifth points from the left side. These
o .2.4 .8 1.0 correspond to confining stresses of 1,500 and 5,000 psi [10.3 and
1_e- a /3000 34.5 MPa] and the corresponding net stresses of approximately
1,390 and 4,890 psi [9.6 and 33.7 MPa], respectively. For the
Fig. 9-Two-point fits of permeability-stress data-lower per- majority of the points, the fits are quite acceptable.
meabilities. Fig. 9 shows two-point fits for lower-permeability plugs. Lines
M-2 and M-3 were calculated from data presented by McLatchie
et at. II Note that, in general, the slopes of these lines tend to be-
come more negative with decreasing permeability.
2,000 and 5,000 psi [13.8 and 34.5 MPa] are the "true curves"
Fig. 10 demonstrates that PV data can also be successfully fit
which we are trying to approximate by using a u* of 3,000 psi [20.7
from data taken at two confining stresses, 1,500 and 5,000 psi [10.3
MPa] as discussed for Fig. 5, then the errors generated at a net
and 34.5 MPa]. The same arbitrary constants, 3,000 psi [20.7 MPa]
stress of 3,000 psi [20.7 MPa] are only 0.5%. This is the maxi-
for u* and 3 x 10 -6 psi -I [0.44 x 10 -6 kPa -I ] for C, were used
mum interpolation error between the measured stresses of 1,500
for these fits. Note that in Fig. 10, the point farthest to the left on
and 5,000 psi [10.3 and 34.5 MPa]. The maximum extrapolation
each line seems to lie slightly above the line. We believe that this
error at 9,000 psi [62.0 MPa] is 1.7%.
is a result of an experimental error rather than a flaw in the two-
Because u* values of 2,000 and 5,000 psi [13.8 and 34.5 MPa]
point technique. As discussed previously, this is probably a result
generally represent the extremes for the "best fit" curves for perme-
of incomplete conformance of the rubber sleeve to microscopic ir-
ability and PV data, we can conclude from the examples shown
regularities on the surface of the core at the lowest net stress, which
in Figs. 5 and 6 that interpolation errors are well within experimental
is approximately 390 psi [2.7 MPa].
accuracy, and extrapolated values are also quite accurate provided
The decrease in porosity with increasing stress can also be han-
that the extrapolation is not too big.
dled by this technique. First of all, porosity is related to PV by
We will now investigate the sensitivity of the curves to C. Fig.
the following relationship:
7 shows three curves in which u* is held constant at 3,000 psi [20.7
MPa], but C is varied from 0 to 10 x 10 -6 psi -I [0 to 1.45 x 10- 6
</>= Vp/(Vp + VG), .................................. (5)
kPa -I]. Fig. 7 shows that Chas an appreciable effect only at high
stresses. The deviation of the two outer curves from the center one
at 9,000 psi [62.0 MPa] is about ±1.3%. or, if rearranged,

Two·Polnt Fits </>1(1-</»= VpIVG' ................................. (6)

Now that the permeability- and PV-stress curves have been shown
to be fairly insensitive to the values of u* and C, we should expect
to get fairly good fits of the data by a priori setting u* to 3,000
psi [20.7 MPa] and Cto 3xlO- 6 psi- I [0.44xlO- 6 kPa- I ],
SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1988
Because grain-volume compressibility is much lower than PV com-
pressibility, for practical purposes, grain volume can be considered
constant for any given core plug. Therefore, </>/(I-</» is propor-
239
 .50 I I T

.40f- 5

.3Ot- --- 6-1

- .......

~
...
3:t:)
•<0
.2Ot-

- 9-2

iii
C-

W
I
.., ... ... - W-1
-
'&
x

..
+ >
Q.
c .10 - 0

... -- -
.08

.06
-.il

.......
- W-2

-
W-3
-
I I I I I
.04 00
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 2 4 6 8 10
1-e
-0"/3000 a. kpsi
Fig. 11-Two-point fits of porosity-stress data. Fig. 12-PV-compressibillty curves.

tional to PV. Thus, this group must replace Vp in the previous Eq. 4 may be differentiated with respect to stress to yield PV
treatment. This results in compressibility:

~ =(~)exp{av[exp( -u/u*)-I]}/(l+Cu), ..... (7) CPV=

ave- U / U* C
+ - - ........................... (10)
I-!/> l-!/>o u* 1 +Cu

or equivalently, Fig. 12 shows PV compressibilities for three of the core plugs

In[(-!/>-)o +CU)]=ln (~)-av[l-exp( -u/u*)].
I-!/> I-!/>o
..................................... (8)
Fig. 11 shows two-point fits of porosity-stress data according to
Eq. 8. Data for Lines W-I, W-2, and W-3 are courtesy of Walls. *
The question arises about what happens if the yield strength of
the sample is exceeded-in between the two stresses measured. This
can and occasionally does happen, especially with friable, poorly
cemented samples. There are two classes of failure. The first is
catastrophic-the sample is crushed. Other than the cleanup mess,
there is no problem in interpretation. The second type of failure
is much more subtle. When the yield strength of the rock is ex-
ceeded, fracturing, slippage of grains, and irreversible compaction
can cause changes in the permeability-stress and PV-stress curves.
Experience has shown that semilogarithinic plots; such as Fig. 2
or 4, exhibit two straight-line portions for these rockS instead of
the single, straight line. The intersection of the two segments oc-
curs at the compressive yield strength of the rock. The second por-
tion has a steeper slope than the first segment. This change in slope
usually does not happen at hydrostatic stresses less than about 4,000
psi [27.6 MPa]. An intermediate point at 3,000 psi [20.7 MPa]
should be run every few samples if irreversible compaction is sus-
pected. lethe three points do not lie on the same line (Fig. 2), then
the yield strength probably has been exceeded and further resolu-
tion is needed.
PY Compressibility
PV compressibility is defined as
-iWp -a In(Vp)
Cpv= - - = ......................... (9)
Vpaa au
'Personal communication; J.D. Walls, Core Research, Mountain View, CA (t986).
fit by the two-point method.
A note of caution should be added. When the derivative of ex-
perimental data is required, these data generally need to be about
one order of magnitude better quality than when the derivative is
not required. Because PV compressibility is essentially a deriva-
tive of PV -stress data, several precautions need to be observed to
ensure adequate data quality. For example, a core plug must be
cut (or ground) so that it is free from surface irregularities, its ends
are square and do not have chips missing, etc. Otherwise, these
flaws will cause low-stress compressibilities to be too high. Also,
more than two stresses are generally recommended for these meas-
urements. As an example, the constant C, which is fairly unimpor-
tant for describing PV-stress data in Eq. 4, controls the value of
PV compressibility (see Eq. 10) at high stresses. With good-quality
data, however, Eq. 10 does a good job of describing PV compres-
sibility and provides appropriate data smoothing.
Conclusions
1. The equations fit all data tested very w!!ll-and through a broad-
er net stress range (0 to 10,000 psi [0 to 69.0 MPa]) than others
that are available.
2. If permeability and PV (or porosity) are measured at confin-
ing stresses of 1,500 and 5,000 psi [10.3 and 34.4 MPa], interpo-
lated values are fairly insensitive to u* and a value of 3,000 psi
[20.7 MPa] may be used instead of the "best-fit" value, with little
loss of accuracy.
3. Extrapolations may also be made with good reliability, provided
they are not too large.
4. The fits are appreciably affected by the parameter C only at
higher stresses, above 6,000 psi [41.4 MPa]. A value of 3 x 10- 6
psi -1 [0.44 x 10 -6 kPa -1] may be used reliably for extrapola-
tions to 10,000 psi [69.0 MPa].
5. Because of the relative insensitivity of the fits to u* and C,
meaurements may be made that accurately define the entire
permeability-stress and PV- (or porosity-) stress curves in the range
of interest. However, multiple-point (5 to 8) measurements on a

240 SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1988

few samples are recommended for a new reservoir or sand type.
Also, checks should be made to ensure that irreversible compac-
tion is not occurring.
6. Complete PV compressibility curves can be obtained from two-
point PV -stress measurements, but more points are recommended.
7. The two-point measurements made in the apparatus described
permit the permeability- and PV- (or porosity-) stress dependence
to be determined on a routine basis.
This paper does not address the further loss of permeability when
a rock sample is contacted by water or brine, which can be espe-
cially severe in tight samples. The reader should refer to Ref. 25,
and to Ref. 35, which is based on work by Swanson 36 and others.
Nomenclature
ak = constant in Eqs. 1 and 2, and negative of slope in a
semilog plot, such as Fig. 2
av = constant in Eqs. 3,4, 7, 8, and 10, and negative of
slope in semilog plots, such as Figs. 4, 10, or 11
C = constant in equations, which is arbitrarily set to
3xlO- 6 psi- I [0.44 x 10-6 kPa- I ] for two-
point fits, psi -I [kPa -I ]
cpv = PV compressibility, psi -1 [kPa -1]
k = slip-corrected (Klinkenberg) permeability at net
stress, a, md
ko = slip-corrected permeability at zero net stress, md
VG = grain volume of sample, cm 3
Vp = PV of sample at net stress, a, cm 3
Vpvo = PV of sample at zero net stress, cm 3
cf> = porosity of sample at net stress, a, fraction
cf>o = porosity of sample at zero net stress, fraction
a = net isostatic stress on sample = hydrostatic confining
stress-average pore pressure, psi [kPa]
a* = decay constant,arbitrarily set to 3,000 psi [20.7
MPa] for two-point fit, psi [kPa]
References
1. Botset, H.G. and Reed, D.W.: "Experiment on Compressibility of
Sand," AAPG Bulletin (1935) 19, 1053-60.
2. Carpenter, C.B. and Spencer, G.B.: "Measurements of Compressi-
bility of Consolidated Oil-Bearing Sandstones," RI 3540, USBM
Washington, DC (Oct. 1940).
3. Biot, M.A.: "General Theory of Three-Dimensional Consolidation,"
J. Appl. Phys. (1941) 12, 155-64.
4. Heid, J.G. et al.: "Study of the Permeability of Rocks to Homogene-
ous Fluids," Drill. & Prod. Prac., API (1950) 230-46.
5. Fatt, I. and Davis, D.H.: "Reduction in Permeability with Overbur-
den Pressure," Trans., AIME (1952) 195, 329.
6. Hall, H.N.: "Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks," Trans., AIME
(1953) 198, 309-11.
7. Hughes, D.S. and Cooke, C.E.: "The Effect of Pressure on the Reduc-
tion of Pore Volume of Consolidated Sandstones, " Geophysics (1953)
18, 298-309.
8. Geertsma, J.: "The Effect of Fluid Pressure Decline on Volume Changes
of Porous Rocks," Trans., AIME (1957) 210, 331-40.
9. Fatt, I.: "Pore Volume Compressibilities of Sandstone Reservoir
Rocks," Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 362-64.
10. Roberts, J.E. and de Sousa, J.M.: "The Compressibility of Sands,"
Proc., ASTM (1958) 58, 1269-77.
11. McLatchie, A.S., Hemstock, R:A., and Young, J. W.: "The Effective
Compressibility of Reservoir Rock and Its Effects on Permeability,"
JPT (June 1958) 49-51; Trans., AIME, 213.
12. Wyble, D.O.: "Effect of Applied Pressure on the Conductivity, Porosi-
ty, and Permeability of Sandstones," Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 430.
13. van der Knaap, W.: "Nonlinear Behavior of Elastic Porous Media,"
Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 179-86.
14. Bishop, A.W. and Henkel, D.J.: The Measurement of Soil Propenies
in the Triaxial Test, second edition, E.J. Arnold & Son, Ltd., London
(1962) 228.
SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1988
15. Dobrynin, V.M.: "Effect of Overburden Pressure on Some Properties
of Sandstones," SPEJ (Dec. 1962) 360-66.
16. Knutson, C.F. and Bohor, B.F.: "Reservoir Rock Behavior Under
Moderate Confining Pressure," Proc., Fifth Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, U. of Minnesota (May 1962) 627-59.
17. Geertsma, J.: "Problems of Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Production
Engineering," Proc., First IntI. Congo Rock Mech., Lisbon (1966).
18. Wilhelmi, B. and Somerton, W.H.: "Simultaneous Measurement of
Pore and Elastic Properties of Rocks Under Triaxial Stress Conditions,"
SPEJ (Sept. 1967) 283-94.
19. Chierici, G.L., Ciucci, G.M., and Long, F.E.: "Effect of the Over-
burden Pressure on Some Petrophysical Parameters of Reservoir
Rocks," Proc., Seventh World Pet. Conference, Mexico City (1967).
20. Brace, W.F., Walsh, J.B., and Frangos, W.T.: "Permeability of Granite
Under High Pressure," J. Geophys. Research, 73, No.6 (March 1968)
2225-36.
21. Vairogs, J. etal.: "Effect of Rock Stress on Gas Production from Low-
Permeability Reservoirs," JPT(Sept. 1971) 1161-67; Trans., AIME,
251.
22. Thomas, R.D. and Ward, D.C.: "Effect of Overburden Pressure and
Water on Gas Permeability of Tight Sandstone Cores," JPT (Feb. 1972)
120-24.
23. Jones, F.O.: "A Laboratory Study of the Effects of Confining Pres-
sure on Fracture Flow and Storage Capacity in Carbonate Rocks," JPT
(Jan. 1975) 21-27.
24. Walls, J.D., Nur, A.M., and Bourbie, T.: "Effects of Pressure and
Partial Water Saturation on Gas Permeability in Tight Sands: Experimen-
tal Results," JPT(Aprii 1982) 930-36.
25. Jones, F.O. and Owens, W.W.: "A Laboratory Study of Low-
Permeability Gas Sands," JPT(Sept. 1980) 1631-40.
26. Freeman, D.L. and Bush, D.C.: "Low-Permeability Laboratory Meas-
urements by Nonsteady-State and Conventional Methods," SPEJ (Dec.
1983) 928-36.
27. Jennings, J.B., Carroll, H.B., and Raible, C.J.: "The Relationship of
Permeability to Confining Pressure in Low-Permeability Rock," paper
SPE 9870 presented at the 1981 SPEIDOE Symposium on Low-
Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver, May 27-29.
28. Rose, W. and Sampath, K.: "Measurement of Formation Characteris-
tics for Western Tight Sands-Quarterly Report January I-March 31,
1981," Inst. Gas. Tech., Chicago (April 1981) 1-15.
29. Sampath, K.: "A New Method to Measure Pore Volume Compressi-
bility of Sandstones," JPT (June 1982) 1360-62.
30. Teeuw, D.: "Prediction of Formation Compaction from Laboratory
Compressibility Data," SPEJ (Sept. 1971) 263-71; Trans., AIME, 251.
31. Andersen, M.A.: "Predicting Reservoir Condition PV Compressibili-
ty from Hydrostatic-Stress Laboratory Data, " paper SPE 14213 present-
ed at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
32. Andersen, M.A. and Jones, F.O.: "A Comparison of Hydrostatic-Stress
and Uniaxial-Strain PV Compressibility Using Nonlinear Elastic The-
ory," 26th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rapid City, SD
(1985).
33. Ostensen, R.W.: "The Effect of Stress-Dependent Permeability on Gas
Production and Well Testing," SPEFE (June 1986) 227-35.
34. Jones, S.C.: "A Rapid Accurate Unsteady-State Klinkenberg Per-
meameter," SPEJ (Oct. 1972) 383-97; Trans., AIME, 253.
35. Juhasz, I.: "Conversion of Routine Air-Permeability Data into Stressed
Brine-Permeability Data," 10th European Formation Evaluation Sym-
posium, Aberdeen, ApriI22-25, 1986.
36. Swanson, B.F.: "A Simple Correlation Between Permeabilities and Mer-
cury Capillary Pressures," JPT (Dec. 1981) 2498-2504.
51 Metric Conversion Factors
in. 3 x 1.638 706 E +01 cm 3
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
psi- I x 1.450377 E-Ol kPa- 1
SPEFE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 5, 1986. Paper accepted for publication
April 9, 1987. Revised manuscript received July 20, 1987. Paper (SPE 15380) first presented
at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
241