Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 2123 November 2005.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper presents the development and validation of a new
semi-analytical, statistically-derived model for estimating
absolute permeability from mercury-injection capillary
pressure data. The foundations of our new model are the
classic Purcell
1
and Burdine
2
equations which relate absolute
permeability to capillary-pressure/wetting-phase-saturation
properties. We also incorporate characteristic capillary pres-
sure behavior using the Brooks-Corey
3
power-law model.
The final form of our proposed model allows us to compute
absolute permeability as a function of effective porosity, irre-
ducible wetting phase saturation, displacement or threshold
pressure, and basic pore size characteristics. We tested and
correlated our model using 89 sets of mercury-injection (Hg-
air) capillary pressure data including core samples from
both carbonate and sandstone lithologies. In summary, we
found that our model consistently yields accurate results for a
wide range of rock properties.

Introduction
The fundamental relationships between pore size/geometry
and basic rock properties (e.g., effective porosity, absolute
permeability, etc.) are well-documented in the petroleum and
petrophysics literature. Moreover, the literature is replete with
models for estimating or predicting permeability from basic
rock properties. Nelson
4
has developed a comprehensive re-
view of the literature, and he has identified five major
categories of permeability models based on the physical rock
attributes used in the model development: The five major
model categories specified by Nelson are:
1. Petrophysical models,
2. Models based on grain size and mineralogy,
3. Models based on surface area and water saturation,
4. Well log models, and
5. Models based on basic rock pore dimensions.
In this paper, we focus on models that incorporate basic rock
pore characteristics and dimensions, and specifically, pore
characteristics as determined from capillary pressure data.
Nelson has further classified these particular models as direct
types since they not only relate rock permeability directly to
the pore dimensions and connectivity, but also incorporate
fundamental theories of fluid flow through porous media.
Most of these direct methods especially the early models
developed in the 1940s and 1950s use mercury-injection
capillary pressure data to quantify the rock pore and pore
throat characteristics.
Although the physical basis for the existing direct models is
similar, we have observed varying (even inconsistent) results
among the various "theoretical" models. The primary motiva-
tion for our work is to "close the loop" on relating mercury-
injection capillary pressure data and the simplified "bundle of
tubes" permeability models proposed by Purcell
1
and Bur-
dine
2
and extended to incorporate the power law p
c
(S
w
) model
by Brooks-Corey.
3

Consequently, the principal objective of this work is to deve-
lop and document a "universal" model which provides a more
consistent correlation of permeability with mercury capillary
pressure data for a much wider range of rock types. We begin
with a review of the models developed previously and we
then document the validation of our generalization of the
Purcell-Burdine-Brooks-Corey k(H
g
) model.

Permeability ModelsHistorical Perspective
Leverett J-Function (J(S
w
)): (ref. 5)
One of the first correlation models for petrophysical properties
was proposed by Leverett
5
who developed a relationship
between wetting phase saturation and the interfacial curvature
between the wetting and non-wetting fluids in the pore throats
(this relationship is based primarily on a dimensional balance
of the parameters (e.g., / k is an "equivalent length")). This
concept (i.e., the "J-function") was proposed by Leverett as a
dimensionless function that could be used to normalize capil-
lary pressure data for a range of rock properties.

The Leverett J-function is defined as

/
cos
) ( k
p
S J
c
w
= ..................................................... (1)

Where:
k = permeability, cm
2
(1 D = 9.86923x10
-9
cm
2
)

IPTC 10994
A Modified Purcell/Burdine Model for Estimating Absolute Permeability From Mercury-
Injection Capillary Pressure Data
C.C. Huet, SPE, Texas A&M U.; J .A. Rushing, SPE, Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; K.E. Newsham, SPE, Apache Corp.; and
T.A. Blasingame, SPE, Texas A&M U.
2 IPTC 10994
J(S
w
) = dimensionless capillary pressure-saturation function
= interfacial tension, dynes/cm
= contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians
= porosity, fraction of pore volume
S
w
= wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
p
c
= capillary pressure, dynes/cm
2

/ k = equivalent length, cm

Purcell Permeability Relation: (ref. 1)
In 1949, Purcell
1
developed an equation relating absolute
permeability to the area under the capillary pressure curve
generated from mercury injection. We note that Purcell's
equation assumes that fluid flow can be modeled using
Poiseuille's Law where the rock pore system is represented by
a bundle of parallel (but tortuous) capillary tubes of various
radii. Further, the range of tube radii are characterized by the
pore size distribution as computed from the area under the
capillary pressure curve.
Purcell's original permeability model is given by:
w
c
P air Hg
dS
p
F . k
1
1
0
) cos ( 66 10
2
2

= .....................(2)

where:
k = permeability, md
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)
2
/(dynes/cm)
2

F
P
= Purcell lithology factor, dimensionless

Hg-air
= mercury-air interfacial tension, dynes/cm
= contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians
= porosity, fraction of pore volume
S
w
= wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
p
c
= capillary pressure, psia

We note that F
P
is the Purcell "lithology factor" which is used
to represent the differences between the hypothetical model
and actual rock pore system. The F
P
"lithology factor" is an
empirical correction that Purcell determined for several differ-
ent core samples over a range of absolute permeability values.
Rose and Bruce Study: (ref. 6)
In 1949, Rose and Bruce
6
conducted a sensitivity study of rock
properties and their impact on the shape of mercury-injection
capillary pressure curves. They showed that the measured
capillary pressure depends on pore configuration, rock surface
properties and fluid properties. Rose and Bruce also found
that capillary pressure curves can be used to characterize the
distribution, orientation, shape and tortuosity of the pore
system as well as the interfacial and interstitial surface
area. Although Rose and Bruce did not propose a perme-
ability relation, they did demonstrate the use of the Leverett J-
Function (Eq. 1) (with extensions of their own) to generate
relative permeability-saturation profiles.
Calhoun, et al Permeability Relation: (ref. 7)
In 1949, Calhoun, et al
7
showed that the Purcell
1
lithology
factor (F
P
) is inversely proportional to the formation tortuosity
factor (). Their study also determined that the internal rock
surface area could be defined in terms of the fluid interfacial
tension, rock-wetting phase fluid contact angle, and the area
under the capillary pressure curve. Additionally, Calhoun, et
al developed a semi-empirical relationship for absolute per-
meability as a function of effective porosity, adhesive tension,
capillary displacement pressure, and the value of the J-Func-
tion at 100 percent wetting phase saturation. Calhoun, et al's
7

semi-empirical relationship is given as:
[ ]
2 2
0 1
2
) cos ( ) (
1
. w
d
S J
p
k = ....................................... (3)

where:
k = permeability, cm
2
(1 D = 9.86923x10
-9
cm
2
)
J(S
w
)
1.0
= dimensionless capillary pressure function at S
w
=1.0
= interfacial tension, dynes/cm
= contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians
= porosity, fraction of pore volume
S
w
= wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
p
d
= capillary displacement pressure, dynes/cm
2


We note that Eq. 3 was validated by Calhoun, et al only for
high permeability rocks.
Burdine et al Permeability Relation: (ref. 2)
In 1950, Burdine et al
2
extended the Purcell
1
model for a
bundle of capillary tubes and showed that the absolute
permeability of a particular rock is a function of pore entry
radii and the mercury-filled pore volume. The Burdine equa-
tion is given by:
2
2
4
0
126
i
i
i
i
R X
R V
n
i
k

=
= ...................................................... (4)

where:
k = permeability, md (1 D = 9.86923x10
-9
cm
2
)
126 = units conversion constant (Poiseuille Darcy units)
V
i
= incremental pore volume filled by mercury, cm
3

R
i
= incremental pore entry radius, cm
i
R = average pore entry radius, cm
X
i
= tortuosity factor (X
i
=L
i
/L
tot
), fraction
L
i
= effective length of flow path, cm
L
tot
= actual length of flow path, cm

We note that the Burdine et al relation is fundamentally simi-
lar (in derivation) to the Purcell relation the interested
reader is also directed to an additional reference article (ref. 8)
by Burdine et al where additional detail and clarity of nomen-
clature are provided for Eq. 4.
Wyllie-Spangler Permeability Relation: (ref. 9)
In 1952, Wyllie and Spangler
9
developed a model using the
Purcell/Burdine concept, but Wyllie and Spangler used electric
log properties to determine the tortuosity factor (specifically,
this is given in terms of the formation factor which is defined
as the ratio of the resistivity of the formation at 100 percent
wetting phase saturation to the resistivity of the formation
brine).
The Wyllie-Spangler equation, which relates absolute perme-
ability to mercury-injection capillary-pressure curve proper-
ties, is given by
w
c
WS
air Hg
dS
p F
F
. k
1
1
0

1 1
) cos ( 66 10
2 2
2

......... (5)

IPTC 10994 3
where F is the Archie
10-11
formation factor, defined by
w
o
m
R
R a
F = =

..................................................................(6)

where:
k = permeability, md
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)
2
/(dynes/cm)
2

F
WS
= Wyllie-Spangler shape factor, dimensionless
= contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians
= porosity, fraction of pore volume
S
w
= wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
p
c
= capillary pressure, psia
F = Archie formation factor, dimensionless
R
o
= resistivity of formation at S
w
=1.0, ohm-m
R
w
= resistivity of formation brine, ohm-m
m = empirical constant (cementation factor), dimensionless
a = empirical constant, dimensionless

In Eq. 6, a is an empirical constant (a is often assumed to be
1) and m is the cementation factor (m is often assumed to be 2)
Note that m is a function of pore type, pore geometry and
lithology. Wyllie and Spangler also demonstrate that the
tortuosity factor can be related to the formation factor deter-
mined from electric log measurements (Wyllie and Spangler
actually made their developments in terms of the tortuosity
factor, then "converted" their result into a formulation which
uses the formation resistivity factor).
Thomeer Permeability Relation: (ref. 12)
In 1960, Thomeer
12
observed that a log-log plot of capillary
pressure could be approximated by a hyperbola. Thomeer
described the hyperbola location on the x-y coordinate system
by the position of the two end-point curve asymptotes, and he
defined the extrapolated asymptotes on the x- and y-axes as
the displacement pressure and the bulk volume occupied by
mercury at an infinite pressure, respectively.
In addition, Thomeer hypothesized that the shape of the
hyperbola reflects the pore geometry, so he used the curve
shape to define a pore geometrical factor. We note that
Thomeer assigned the pore geometric factor a value between 0
and 10, where low values represent large well-sorted pore
openings and high values represent high levels of variation in
pore opening sizes. As a result of these definitions, Thomeer
proposed an empirical equation relating air permeability to
capillary pressure, displacement pressure, non-wetting phase
saturation, and pore geometric factor.
The Thomeer model is given as:
[ ] ) / log( /
d c g
p p F
b
b
e
S
S

= ...................................................(7)

where:
k = permeability, md
p
c
= capillary pressure, psia
p
d
= capillary displacement pressure, psia
S
b
= Hg saturation, fraction of bulk volume
S
b
= Hg saturation at p
c
= , fraction of bulk volume
F
g
= pore geometrical factor, dimensionless

Using laboratory measurements from 165 sandstone and 114
carbonate samples, Thomeer
13
formulated the following equa-
tion that relates absolute permeability to effective porosity,
capillary displacement or threshold pressure, and the pore geo-
metric factor:

2
3334 1
8068 3

=

d
b
.
g
p
S
F . k ......................................... (8)

Swanson Permeability Relation: (ref. 14)
As a follow-up effort to Thomeer,
12,13
Swanson
14
developed an
equation to compute absolute permeability based on specific
capillary pressure curve characteristics. The form of Swan-
son's equation is: (using the same nomenclature as Thomeer)
2
1
a
A
c
b
p
S
a k

= .................................................................. (9)

where:
k = permeability, md
[S
b
/p
c
]
A
= Hg saturation/capillary pressure "apex," fraction/psia
A = "apex" point on log(p
c
) vs. log(S
b
) curve at which a 45
o

line becomes tangent

The subscript "A" (or apex) refers to the maximum ratio of the
mercury saturation to the capillary pressure. Swanson
hypothesized that the maximum ratio occurs at the point at
which all of the major connected pore space is filled with
mercury. Further, the capillary pressure at the apex reflects
the dominant inter-connected pores and pore throats con-
trolling most of the fluid flow characteristics.
The constants a
1
and a
2
in Eq. 9 represent various rock
lithologies and fluid types, respectively, in the system.
Swanson used regression analysis and correlated the constants
in Eq. 9 with properties from 203 sandstone samples from 41
formations and 116 carbonate samples from 330 formations.
The best fit of the air permeability data was obtained with
691 1
389
.
A
c
b
p
S
k

= .......................................................... (10)

Wells and Amaefule Permeability Relation: (ref. 15)
In 1985, Wells and Amaefule
15
modified the Swanson ap-
proach for low-permeability or "tight gas sands." Wells and
Amaefule found that by plotting the logarithm of mercury
saturation (S
b
, percent of bulk volume) against the square root
of capillary pressure-mercury saturation ratio (S
b
/p
c
), they
could observe a well-defined minimum which represents
the inflection point of the capillary pressure curve. Conse-
quently, (S
b
/p
c
) could be calculated as the inverse of the
squared minimum value. Wells and Amaefule then correlated
the Swanson
13
parameter with air permeabilities for 35 low-
permeability sandstone samples and developed the following
equations for calculating absolute permeability:
56 1
5 30
.
air A,Hg
c
b
p
S
. k

= ................................................ (11a)

4 IPTC 10994
61 1
22 1
.
air A,brine
c
b
p
S
. k

= .............................................(11b)

where:
k = permeability, md
p
c
= capillary pressure, psia
S
b
= non-wetting saturation, fraction of bulk volume
[S
b
/p
c
]
A
= non-wetting saturation/cap. pressure "apex," fraction/psia
A = "apex" point on log(p
c
) vs. log(S
b
) curve at which a 45
o

line becomes tangent

Winland Permeability Relation: (ref. 16-17)
A methodology attributed to Winland (no reference other than
company) was documented initially by Kolodzie
16
and extend-
ed by Pittman
17
where regression analysis was used to develop
an empirical relationship that is conceptually similar to Swan-
son.
14
The "Winland" equation describes the relationship for
absolute permeability, effective porosity, and a capillary pres-
sure parameter (R
35
) as follows:
log 864 . 0 log 588 . 0 732 . 0 log
35
+ = k R .....................(12)

where:
k = permeability, md
= porosity, fraction of pore volume
R
35
= pore throat radius at an Hg saturation of 35 percent, m

R
35
is the capillary pressure parameter used in the Winland
study specifically, R
35
is the pore throat radius (in m) at a
mercury saturation of 35 percent, where this value is a
function of both pore entry size and the sorting of pore throat
sizes. According to Nelson,
4
the R
35
parameter quantifies the
largest and best-connected pore throats. We note from refs.
16-17 that other capillary pressure parameters (i.e., R
30
, R
40

and R
50
values) were considered, but the R
35
capillary pressure
curve parameter provided the best statistical fit.
The Winland data set includes 56 sandstone and 26 carbonate
samples with permeability measurements corrected for gas
slippage or Klinkenberg
18
effects. This data set also includes
another 240 samples of various lithologies but without
permeabilities corrected for gas slippage effects. We note that
the permeability computed by Eq. 12 is not the Klinkenberg-
corrected permeability.

Development and Validation of New Model
The foundations of our correlation model are the classic
Purcell
1
and Burdine
2
equations which assume that the
porous medium can be modeled as a bundle of parallel (but
tortuous) capillary tubes of various radii. Further, the range of
tube radii are characterized by the pore size distribution as
computed from the area under the capillary pressure curve.
The classic Purcell-Burdine k-model (Eqs. 2 and 4, respect-
ively) has been re-derived by Nakornthap and Evans
19
and
this "redevelopment" includes considerations by Wyllie and
Spangler
9
and Wyllie and Gardner.
20

The final form of the Nakornthap and Evans result, solved for
formation permeability, is given as:
*
w
c
wi air Hg
dS
p
S
n
. k
2
1
0
3 3 2
1
) (1 ) cos (
2
1
66 10

......................................................................................... (13)
where: (written for an Hg-air system (i.e., S
w
=S
air
)
k = permeability, md
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)
2
/(dynes/cm)
2

= pore throat "impedance" factor, dimensionless
n = number of entrances/exits in a pore, dimensionless

Hg-air
= mercury-air interfacial tension, dynes/cm
= contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians
= porosity, fraction of pore volume
p
c
= capillary pressure, psia
S
w
= wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
S
wi
= irreducible wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore
volume
*
w
S = (S
w
-S
wi
)/(1-S
wi
), "effective" (or normalized) wetting
phase saturation function, dimensionless

The definition of the "effective" (or normalized) wetting phase
saturation function was first proposed by Burdine
2
and later
utilized directly by Wyllie and Gardner.
20
This definition is
given as:
wi
wi w *
w
S
S S
S

=
1
............................................................... (14)

In this approach, we incorporate the capillary pressure curve
characteristics using the Brooks-Corey
3
power-law model
which is given by:

1

1

=
wi
wi w
d c
S
S S
p p ................................................ (15)

Where: (writing for an Hg-air system (i.e., S
w
=S
air
))
p
c
= capillary pressure, psia
p
d
= displacement pressure, psia
S
w
= wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
S
wi
= irreducible wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore
volume
= Brooks-Corey index of pore-size distribution, dimen-
sionless

Where p
d
is the capillary displacement (or threshold) pressure,
and is the index of pore-size distribution. Combining Eqs.
13-15 yields the basic form of the permeability equation used
in our study:

+
=

2
1
) (1 ) cos ( 66 10
2
3 3 2

d
wi air Hg
p
S
n
. k (16)

While we could not find the explicit form given by Eq. 16 in
the literature, it has undoubtedly been derived as Eq. 16 is the
generalized formulation used to derive the relative per-
meability relations of Brooks and Corey,
3
the results of which
are also presented by Nakornthap and Evans.
19

Nakornthap and Evans assign the and n parameters to
address non-ideal flow behavior. To describe the -para-
IPTC 10994 5
meter, Nakornthap and Evans state:
"The parameter is inserted to recognize the fact that flow
through a pore of radius r overemphasizes the impedance
because it ignores the larger areas available for exit-flow at
either side of the constrictions formed where pores abut.
Thus it may be expected that > 1 and that the actual
magnitude of is a function of the average shape of pores in
the medium that the model represents. is assumed constant
for all pore sizes."

Similarly, Nakornthap and Evans describe the n-parameter, as
follows:
"The numerical constant n reflects the manner in which the
available interconnecting pore area is divided. In the most
favorable case for flow, all the exit area is concentrated in
one pore; then n = 1. It may be expected, therefore, that n >
1. It is assumed here that n is constant for all pore sizes."

Ali
21
has also suggested the following concept models for
representing and n:

1
= ..............................................................................(17)

) (1
1
wi
S
n

= ..................................................................(18)

Substituting Eqs. 17 and 18 into Eq. 16, we can eliminate the
and n terms directly, which yields:

+
=

2
1
) (1 ) cos ( 66 10
2
2 4 2

d
wi air Hg
p
S . k .(19)

Note that we have added an empirical parameter, , in Eq. 19
to represent any remaining non-idealities that have not been
accounted for by any other terms. If we were to attempt to
utilize Eq. 19, we would likely assume = 1, or attempt a
calibration of the -parameter for a particular data set. In fact,
we did use Eq. 19 in some of our early correlation efforts as a
"test function," where we plotted permeability computed using
Eq. 19 versus measured permeability on a log-log plot to
assess significant outlying data.
Perhaps the most significant contribution of this work will be
presentation of Eq. 16 as this relation clearly states that
permeability should be a power law function of displacement
pressure, index of pore-size distribution, irreducible wetting
phase saturation, and porosity. Recasting Eq. 16 as a power
law correlation model gives us:
5 4
3
2
) (1
2
) (
1
1
a a
wi
a
a
d
S
p
a k

+
= ........................(20)

where a
1
, a
2
, a
3
, a
4
, and a
5
are correlation constants coeffi-
cient a
1
incorporates all of the "constant" terms (i.e., 10.66,
/n, and (
Hg-air
cos())
2
).
The form of Eq. 20 (or a simplified modification) permits us to
create other relations specifically, we can make model sub-
stitutions for other parameters (in our case, p
d
and ) and
create a "universal" (albeit simplified) model for permeability
based solely on porosity () and irreducible wetting phase
saturation (S
wi
). This effort is presented in Appendix B.
We also utilize the power-law model form as a mechanism to
correlate the displacement pressure (p
d
). In this case, we
correlate the displacement pressure (p
d
) in terms of permeabil-
ity, porosity and irreducible wetting phase saturation using:
4 3 2
) 1 (
1
b
wi
b b
d
S k b p = ............................................... (21)

where b
1
, b
2
, b
3
, and b
4
are correlation parameters for the
capillary displacement (or threshold) pressure.
Lastly, we correlate the "index of pore-size distribution" ()
with permeability, porosity, irreducible wetting phase satura-
tion and capillary displacement pressure, again using a power-
law model. This formulation is given as:
5 4 3 2
) 1 (
1
c
d
c
wi
c c
p S k c = ........................................... (22)

where c
1
, c
2
, c
3
, c
4
, and c
5
are correlation parameters for the
pore geometric factor.
To calibrate the proposed power models (Eq. 20-22), we have
used mercury-injection capillary-pressure data from the
literature
1,10,20
and industry sources. Furthermore, we have
tested our new model using samples from both sandstone and
carbonate lithologies. Although we did not evaluate a range of
different carbonate rock types, we expect our new model to be
most applicable to carbonates with an inter-granular type of
porosity and not "vuggy" carbonates.
We reviewed approximately 120 data sets but used only 89
data sets in this work. The data not used in this study were set
aside for a variety of reasons (i.e., suspicious character in the
capillary pressure data (e.g., "double porosity" behavior),
erroneous capillary data (poor calibration, poor character), and
we also used only Hg-air capillary pressure data so air-oil,
and oil-water data were set aside for later studies).
The data sets used in our correlations have the following
ranges of properties:
0.0041 md < k < 8340 md
0.003 (fraction) < < 0.34 (fraction)
0.007 (fraction) < S
wi
< 0.33 (fraction)
2.32 psia < p
d
< 2176 psia

Results and Discussion
Estimation of p
d
, S
wi
and from Regression:
Our initial calibration process was performed to estimate the
capillary displacement pressure (p
d
), irreducible wetting-phase
saturation (S
wi
), and the index of pore-size distribution () on a
sample-by-sample basis using Eq. 15 (i.e., the Brooks-Corey
p
c
(S
w
) model).
We could have attempted a "global" calibration of the p
d
, S
wi

and parameters simultaneously with the model parameters in
Eqs. 20-22. Such a process would (in concept) be more robust
i.e., coupling the calibration of the Brooks-Corey model
with each of the regression models (Eqs. 20-22). However,
the quality of data, coupled with the bias (human intervention)
required to properly fit the Brooks-Corey p
c
(S
w
) model to an
individual sample data set, required that we perform this
calibration separately. The results of the p
d
, S
wi
and calibra-
tion, along with the input permeability (k) and porosity ()
data for this work are summarized in Appendix A.
6 IPTC 10994

In Fig. 1 we present a typical p
c
(S
w
) data-model regression to
illustrate our calibration process. We clearly note that, while
the data-model fit is good, human intervention is required to
ensure that the model is properly applied to the data.

Fig. 1 Example correlation of Brooks-Corey p
c
(S
w
) model to
a typical core data set for this study.

We believe that this "separate" calibration of the p
c
(S
w
) data-
model is appropriate, and we note that the majority of the
effort in our correlation work focused on this particular task.
Estimation of k, p
d
, and Using Regression:
The regression setup for Eqs. 20-22 is fairly straightforward,
as we used the Solver Module in Microsoft Excel
22
to perform
our regression work. We formulated each regression problem
in terms of the sum-of-squared residuals (SSQ), sum-of-
absolute relative error (ARE) and depending on the case
these regressions were performed using the residual or
absolute relative error based on the logarithm of a particular
variable. A summary of our results for the k, p
d
, and regres-
sions is given in Table 1.
Table 1 Overall regression statistics for k, p
d
, power
law models.


Case

Fig.
SSQ*
(ln(unit)
2
)
ARE
(percent)

k

2

2.8534 ln(md)
2


30.4243

p
d


3

1.5476 ln(psia)
2


24.9406



4

0.8367

17.7197

* SSQ statistics based on ln(k), ln(p
d
), and , respectively.

We present the results of our permeability (k) optimization in
Fig. 2. We note excellent agreement between the measured
permeabilities and those calculated from Eq. 20. The opti-
mized coefficients from the regression analysis of Eq. 20 are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 Regression summary for k (Eq. 20).

Optimized coefficients for k (Eq. 20):
Coefficient Optimized Value
a
1
1017003.2395 (md)
a
2
1.7846
a
3
1.6575
a
4
0.5475
a
5
1.6498

Statistical summary for k (Eq. 20):
Statistical Variable Value
Sum of Squared Residuals 2.8534 ln(md)
2

Variance 275036.1525 md
2

Standard Deviation 524.4389 md
Average Absolute Error 30.4243 percent

Substituting the coefficients from Table 2 into Eq. 20, we
have:
1.6498 0.5475 1.6575
1.7846
) (1
2
) (
1
95 1017003.23

wi
d
S
p
k

+
=


......................................................................................... (23)

Fig. 2 Permeability correlation based on mercury capillary
pressure data (Eq. 20 used for regression).

We note that Eq. 23 was used to calculate the entire perme-
ability range from low permeability (tight gas sands) to un-
consolidated sands. From our perspective, the generalized
permeability relation (Eq. 20) has theoretical rigor (see
Appendix A) and may be a "universal" permeability model
valid for different lithologies, pore systems, and pore struc-
tures.
We recommend that the generalized form (Eq. 20) continue to
be tested systematically. We will (again) note that care must
be taken in assessing p
c
(S
w
) suitable for such correlations. We
have elected to consider Hg-air systems only for simplicity
extensions to other systems must continue systematically, with
diligent data screening and a "simplest" model first mentality.
We also correlate the capillary displacement pressure with per-
IPTC 10994 7
meability, porosity and irreducible wetting phase saturation
the results of which are shown in Fig. 3 using a power law
correlation model (the regression summary for this case is
given in Table 3). Although we have developed more
complex models for the correlating the displacement pressure,
we believe that Eq. 24 is an excellent "general" model. We
also note that Thomas, Katz, and Tek
23
proposed a similar
formulation, where this model is also plotted on Fig. 3 for
comparison.
Table 3 Regression summary for p
c
(Eq. 21).

Optimized coefficients for p
c
(Eq. 21):
Coefficient Optimized Value
b
1

640.0538 (psia)
b
2
0.8210
b
3

-0.5285
b
4
0.8486
Statistical summary for p
c
(Eq. 21):
Statistical Variable Value
Sum of Squared Residuals 1.5473 ln(psia)
2

Variance 110928.0679 psia
2

Standard Deviation 333.0587 psia
Average Absolute Error 24.8721 percent

Substituting the coefficients in Table 3 into Eq. 21, we have:
0.8486 -0.5285 0.8210
) 1 ( 640.0538
wi d
S k p = ...........(24)


Fig. 3 Displacement pressure (p
d
) correlation based on
mercury capillary pressure data (Eq. 21 used for re-
gression).

In our effort to correlate the index of pore-size distribution ()
with permeability, porosity, irreducible wetting phase satura-
tion and displacement pressure, we found less conformity in
the resultant correlations. We believe that this behavior is due
to the character of the index of pore-size distribution recall
that this parameter is an exponent in the Brooks-Corey p
c
(S
w
)
relation (Eq. 15). We have observed that Eq. 15 is relatively
unaffected by the -parameter (i.e., the model is relatively
insensitive to the -parameter).
In addition, we believe this insensitivity may make it more
difficult to estimate the -parameter initially from p
c
(S
w
) data
than correlating the -parameter against other variables.
Regardless, our characterization and correlation of the -
parameter was less successful than our correlation of perme-
ability (k) and capillary displacement pressure (p
d
).
We present the correlation of the -parameter using a power
law model in Fig. 4, and we present the regression summary
for this case in Table 4.
Table 4 Regression summary for (Eq. 21).

Optimized coefficients for (Eq. 22):
Coefficient Optimized Value
c
1
0.00980
c
2
-0.6341
c
3
0.3792
c
4
-0.6835
c
5
0.6698

Statistical summary for (Eq. 22):
Statistical Variable Value
Sum of Squared Residuals 0.8367
Variance 0.0395
Standard Deviation 0.1988
Average Absolute Error 17.7197 percent

Substituting the coefficients in Table 4 into Eq. 22, we have:
0.6698 -0.6835 0.3792 -0.6341
) 1 ( 0.00980
d
wi
p S k = . (25)

Our correlation of the -parameter yielded the weakest results
(in terms of a graphical comparison (Fig. 4), not in terms of a
statistical regression). The results shown in Fig. 4. clearly
show weak (if not poor) conformance of the model to the data
(i.e., the blue circle symbols, relative to the red dashed line

Fig. 4 Pore geometric factor () correlation based on mer-
cury capillary pressure data (Eq. 22 used for regres-
sion).

8 IPTC 10994
(perfect correlation)). To better understand (but probably not
quantify) this deviation, we have also constructed a "non-
parametric" correlation of the -parameter using the methods
given in ref. 24.
A non-parametric correlation is the optimal statistical rela-
tionship for a given data set on a point-by-point basis any
parametric (i.e., functional) correlation which yields better
statistical metrics than the corresponding non-parametric cor-
relation has "over-fitted" the data (i.e., fitted the errors in the
data). Our non-parametric correlation of the -parameter for
this case is shown by the green square symbols on Fig. 4. The
relative similarity of the data in Fig. 4 suggest that our non-
parametric correlation and our correlation using a power law
model are comparable which validates our use of the
(relatively simple) power law model for this case.
As closure for this discussion regarding the correlation of the
-parameter, we believe that the very basis of the -parameter
(it is an exponent), coupled with the quality of data used to
define the -parameter are the causes of the relatively weak
correlation of the -parameter shown in Fig. 4. Based on the
non-parametric correlation for this case, we do not recommend
additional efforts to improve the parametric correlation. But,
we do suggest recasting the problem so that permeability is
directly related to the various measurable rock properties,
including porosity (), irreducible wetting phase saturation
(S
wi
), and displacement pressure (p
d
). We also recommend use
of some parameter other than the index of pore-size distribu-
tion () to represent the "curvature" of the capillary pressure
curve. Finally, we would also comment that Eq. 25 (i.e., the
power law correlation for the -parameter) is probably more
than sufficient for practical applications.

Summary and Conclusions
Summary:
Using the relations of Purcell,
1
Burdine,
2
Brooks and Corey,
3

Wyllie and Spangler,
9,20
and Nakornthap and Evans
19
we have
developed a base model to correlate permeability from mer-
cury capillary pressure data. Our base model for permeability
is given by Eq. 16:

+
=

2
1
) (1 ) cos ( 66 10
2
3 3 2

d
wi air Hg
p
S
n
. k .(16)

Generalizing Eq. 16 into a correlation form yields Eq. 20:
5 4
3
2
) (1
2
) (
1
1
a a
wi
a
a
d
S
p
a k

+
= ........................(20)

It is relevant to note that Eq. 16 suggests (under the assump-
tions of a "bundle of capillary tubes," Darcy's law, and other
constraints which are related to how the capillaries are con-
nected) that we can consider permeability to be a power law
function of , S
wi
, p
d
, and . We recognize this simplicity, but
we also suggest that Eq. 16 (or Eq. 20) should be a good
starting point for the correlation of permeability.
Summarizing, we achieved the following power law correla-
tions in this work:
k = f(, S
wi
, p
d
, and ): Fig. 2
1.6498 0.5475 1.6575
1.7846
) (1
2
) (
1
95 1017003.23

wi
d
S
p
k

+
=


......................................................................................... (23)
p
d
= f(, k, and S
wi
): Fig. 3
0.8486 -0.5285 0.8210
) 1 ( 640.0538
wi d
S k p = ........... (24)

= f(, k, S
wi
, and p
d
): Fig. 4
0.6698 -0.6835 0.3792 -0.6341
) 1 ( 0.00980
d
wi
p S k = . (25)

The results of our modeling efforts suggest that the correlating
properties of the porous media (k, , S
wi
, p
d
, and ) are not
specifically dependent upon lithology but rather, these
properties uniquely quantify the fluid flow behavior of the
porous medium. In that sense, we see this work as a
generalized correlation for flow in porous materials
including soils, filters, sintered metals, bead packs, and porous
rocks. As we noted earlier, we believe that this work is
applicable to carbonates with an inter-granular type of porosity
not to cases of "vuggy" carbonates.
Conclusions:
The following conclusions have been derived from this work:
1. The permeability (k) can be successfully correlated to the
porosity (), capillary displacement pressure (p
d
),
irreducible wetting-phase saturation (S
wi
), and the index of
pore-size distribution () using a theoretically defined
power law correlation model.
2. The capillary displacement pressure (p
d
) can also be
correlated using a power law model to the permeability
(k), porosity (), and irreducible wetting-phase saturation
(S
wi
). This observation confirms the fundamental work
proposed in ref. 23.
3. The correlation of the index of pore-size distribution () is
somewhat problematic the -parameter may be only
weakly defined. The p
c
(p
d
,S
wi
,,S
w
) model given by
Brooks-Corey (ref. 3) is robust and suitable for this work,
but we find that the model can be relatively insensitive
to the -parameter (i.e., a different combination of the
p
d
,S
wi
, and -parameters can yield equi-probable correla-
tions of p
c
. This is an issue that is most likely related to
the quality and character of the capillary pressure data.
Recommendations:
The following recommendations are proposed:
1. Consideration of more complex correlation models for:
k = f(, S
wi
, p
d
, and )
p
d
= f(, k, and S
wi
)
= f(, k, S
wi
, and p
d
)
Our experience with non-parametric regression (ref. 24)
as applied to this work suggests that the proposed power
law models are sufficient, and we would warn against
"over-fitting" data in this work with excessively complex
data models.
2. Extension of the results of this work to liquid-liquid and
gas-liquid systems.
IPTC 10994 9
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our thanks to Anadarko Petroleum
Corp. and Apache Corp. for providing portions of the core
data and for permission to publish results from this study.

Nomenclature
Variables are defined where a particular equation is given.
Superscripts, Subscripts, or other Characters:
air = air
H
g
= mercury
SSQ = sum-of-squared residuals
ARE = sum-of-absolute relative error

References
1. Purcell, W.R.: "Capillary Pressures-Their Measurement Using
Mercury and the Calculation of Permeability Therefrom," Trans.
AIME, 186 (1949), 39-48.
2. Burdine, N.T.: "Relative Permeability Calculations from Pore
Size Distribution Data", Trans. AIME, (1953), 198, 71-78.
3. Brooks, R.H., and Corey, A.T.: "Properties of Porous Media
Affecting Fluid Flow." J. Irrig. and Drain. Div. ASCE (1966)
92: 61-88.
4. Nelson, P.H.: "Permeability-Porosity Relationships in Sedimen-
tary Rock," The Log Analyst (May-June 1994), 38-62.
5. Leverett, M.C.: "Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids," Trans,
AIME 142 (1941), 341-358.
6. Rose, W. and Bruce, W.A.: "Evaluation of Capillary Character
in Petroleum Reservoir Rock," Trans. AIME, vol. 186 (1949),
pp 127-142.
7. Calhoun, J.C., Lewis, M. and Newman, R.C.: "Experiments on
the Capillary Properties of Porous Solids," Trans., AIME (1949)
186, 189-196.
8. Burdine, N.T., Gournay, L.S., and Reichertz, P.P.: "Pore Size
Distribution of Petroleum Reservoir Rocks", Trans. AIME,
(1950), 189, 195-204.
9. Wyllie M.R. and Spangler M. B.: "The Application of Electrical
Resistivity Measurements to the Problem of Fluid Flow in
Porous Media," Research Project 4-G-1 Geology Division
Report No. 15 (March 1951) Gulf Research and Development
Company.
10. Archie, G.E.: "Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determin-
ing Some Reservoir Characteristics," Trans. AIME (1942) 146,
54-62
11. Archie, G.E.: "Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks,"
Bull., AAPG (1950) 34, 943-961.
12. Thomeer, J.H.M.: "Introduction of a Pore Geometrical Factor
Defined by the Capillary Pressure Curve," Trans., AIME (1960)
213, 354-358.
13. Thomeer, J.H.M.: "Air Permeability as a Function of Three
Pore-Network Parameters," JPT (April 1983), 809-814.
14. Swanson, B.F.: "A Simple Correlation between Permeabilities
and Mercury Capillary Pressures," JPT, (Dec. 1981), 2488-
2504.
15. Wells, J.D. and Amaefule, J.O.: "Capillary Pressure and Per-
meability Relationships in Tight Gas Sands," paper SPE 13879
presented at the 1985 Low Permeability Gas Reservoir held in
Denver, CO, May 19-22.
16. Kolodzie, S., Jr.: "Analysis of Pore Throat Size and Use of the
Waxman-Smits Equation to Determine OOIP in Spindle Field,
Colorado," paper SPE 9382 presented at the 1980 Annual Fall
Technical Conference of Society of Petroleum Engineers, Sept.
21-24, 1980.
17. Pittman, E.D.: "Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to
Various Parameters Derived from Mercury Injection-Capillary
Pressure Curves for Sandstone," AAPG Bull., vol. 76, No. 2
(February 1992) 191-198.
18. Klinkenberg, L.J.: "The Permeability of Porous Media to Li-
quids and Gases," paper presented at the API 11
th
Mid-Year
Meeting, Tulsa, OK (May 1941); in API Drilling and Product-
ion Practice (1941) 200-213.
19. Nakornthap, K. and Evans, R.D.: "Temperature-Dependent
Relative Permeability and Its Effect on Oil Displacement by
Thermal Methods," SPERE (May 1986) 230-242.
20. Wyllie, M.R.J. and Gardner, G.H.F.: "The Generalized Kozeny
Carman Equation: Part II," World Oil, (1958), 146(5): 210228.
21. Ali, L., personal communication with T. Blasingame (1995).
22. MicrosoftOffice Excel 2003, Microsoft Corporation (1985-
2003).
23. Thomas, L.K., Katz, D.L., and Tek, M.R.: "Threshold Pressure
Phenomena in Porous Media," SPEJ (June 1968) 174-183.
24. Breiman, L. and Friedman, J.H.: "Estimating Optimal Trans-
formations for Multiple Regression and Correlation," Journal of
the American Statistical Association (September, 1985) 580-
598.
25. Timur, A.: "An Investigation of Permeability, Porosity, and
Residual Water Saturation Relationships for Sandstone Reser-
voirs," The Log Analyst , Vol. 9, No. 4, 8-17.

10 IPTC 10994
Appendix A: Summary of Data Used in This Study
Table A-1 Summary of data used in this study

Input Data p
d
, S
wi
and Calibration Results

No.

(fraction)
k
(md)
S
wi

(fraction)
p
d

(psia)

(dim-less)
1 0.125 0.187 0.010 123.28 0.534
2 0.162 0.184 0.008 435.11 0.850
3 0.129 0.020 0.020 580.15 0.600
4 0.068 0.004 0.007 1667.93 0.679
5 0.104 0.012 0.010 725.19 0.689
6 0.108 0.025 0.010 725.19 0.689
7 0.084 0.014 0.010 725.19 0.935
8 0.062 0.006 0.010 696.18 0.982
9 0.089 0.024 0.010 696.18 0.738
10 0.085 0.013 0.010 1174.81 0.896
11 0.117 0.057 0.020 391.60 0.680
12 0.111 0.036 0.017 435.11 0.575
13 0.079 0.028 0.020 522.14 0.754
14 0.123 0.018 0.008 1015.26 0.661
15 0.073 0.019 0.020 638.17 0.815
16 0.166 0.046 0.008 797.71 0.960
17 0.050 0.005 0.060 942.75 0.914
18 0.084 0.127 0.020 319.08 1.359
19 0.166 0.166 0.020 275.57 1.189
20 0.083 0.041 0.020 435.11 0.906
21 0.075 0.016 0.010 580.15 0.704
22 0.071 0.006 0.010 1667.93 1.625
23 0.066 0.017 0.010 652.67 1.116
24 0.069 0.007 0.010 1232.82 1.238
25 0.086 0.068 0.010 406.11 1.165
26 0.066 0.031 0.010 478.62 1.175
27 0.086 0.029 0.010 725.19 1.341
28 0.071 0.018 0.010 797.71 1.570
29 0.095 0.080 0.010 435.11 1.194
30 0.076 0.087 0.020 319.08 1.120
31 0.258 814.000 0.070 7.25 1.280
32 0.207 434.000 0.200 5.80 0.800
33 0.204 82.300 0.030 7.25 0.424
34 0.214 303.000 0.080 9.43 0.980
35 0.209 210.000 0.091 10.15 0.800
36 0.265 8340.000 0.030 2.90 1.511
37 0.235 438.000 0.080 8.70 1.130
38 0.320 868.000 0.150 8.70 1.718
39 0.335 4570.000 0.090 5.08 1.637
40 0.272 296.000 0.120 14.50 1.050
41 0.266 250.000 0.120 8.70 0.610
42 0.287 640.000 0.140 7.25 1.659
43 0.046 0.019 0.010 435.11 0.958
44 0.092 0.061 0.010 377.10 0.736
45 0.067 0.054 0.010 391.60 1.170
46 0.106 0.339 0.015 145.04 0.798
47 0.051 0.076 0.010 174.05 0.750
48 0.071 0.070 0.010 290.08 0.860
49 0.075 0.128 0.010 188.55 0.636
50 0.077 0.089 0.010 246.56 0.830



Table A-1 Summary of data used in this study (cont'd)

Input Data p
d
, S
wi
and Calibration Results

No.

(fraction)
k
(md)
S
wi

(fraction)
p
d

(fraction)

(dim-less)
51 0.056 0.054 0.010 290.08 1.003
52 0.088 0.069 0.010 333.59 0.760
53 0.116 0.178 0.010 246.56 0.848
54 0.127 0.191 0.010 246.56 0.850
55 0.089 0.085 0.010 319.08 0.903
56 0.056 0.070 0.010 224.81 0.897
57 0.091 0.037 0.010 435.11 0.748
58 0.083 0.042 0.010 435.11 0.920
59 0.069 0.033 0.010 507.63 0.943
60 0.103 0.057 0.010 362.59 0.750
61 0.043 0.046 0.010 261.07 0.945
62 0.044 0.089 0.010 188.55 0.890
63 0.039 0.057 0.010 217.56 1.212
64 0.115 0.016 0.010 1276.33 0.848
65 0.167 0.027 0.010 2175.57 1.050
66 0.371 14.600 0.090 52.21 0.759
67 0.265 11.500 0.050 72.52 1.400
68 0.247 3.800 0.190 75.76 1.011
69 0.220 116.000 0.330 14.50 1.500
70 0.133 48.000 0.030 8.70 0.707
71 0.132 467.000 0.030 2.90 0.753
72 0.125 174.000 0.050 7.25 1.400
73 0.110 351.000 0.030 2.32 0.587
74 0.148 117.000 0.060 14.50 1.061
75 0.109 16.600 0.020 18.85 0.982
76 0.136 72.200 0.020 8.70 0.844
77 0.126 16.500 0.020 23.21 1.015
78 0.153 209.000 0.020 13.05 1.200
79 0.260 170.000 0.320 11.17 1.159
80 0.250 950.000 0.290 4.64 0.816
81 0.137 0.027 0.060 725.19 0.913
82 0.123 0.014 0.020 1377.86 0.959
83 0.039 0.013 0.010 652.67 0.459
84 0.057 0.015 0.050 710.68 0.585
85 0.126 0.272 0.010 319.08 0.653
86 0.159 0.469 0.020 159.54 0.528
87 0.126 0.326 0.010 145.04 0.521
88 0.133 0.352 0.010 145.04 0.536
89 0.126 0.112 0.020 188.55 0.556

IPTC 10994 11
Appendix B: Comparison with Timurs Permeability
Model
Introduction to Timur's model for permeability:
Timur
25
proposed a generalized equation for permeability as
follows:
C
wi
B
Timur
S
A k

= ............................................................(B-1)

where: (A, B, C are generalized constants)
k
Timur
= Timur correlation for permeability, md
= porosity, fraction of pore volume
S
wi
= irreducible wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore
volume

Eq. B-1 can be evaluated in terms of the statistically deter-
mined parameters A, B, and C. Timur applied a reduced major
axis method of regression analysis to data obtained by
laboratory measurements conducted on 155 sandstone samples
from three different oil fields from North America. Based
both on the highest correlation coefficient and on the lowest
standard deviation, Timur chose the following result for per-
meability.
2
4 4
136 0
wi
.
Timur
S
. k

= .....................................................(B-2)

Derivation of Timur's formulation using models of perme-
ability, capillary displacement pressure, and the index of pore-
size distribution:
Our approach to the derivation of Timur's base relation (Eq. B-
1) is to note that in a general form, Timur's base relation can
be written as:

wi
Timur
S k = ....................................................... (B-3a)

where , , are generalized constants. Our goal in this parti-
cular proof is to provide a specific combination of relations
that, upon combination, yield the form given by Eq. B-3a (or
at least a result that is an identical form).
The model based model for permeability for this work is given
in the form of a generalized correlation as:
5 4
3
2
) (1
2
) (
1
1
a a
wi
a
a
d
S
p
a k

+
= ........................(20)

Clearly, Eq. 20 is almost in the "Timur" form in terms of the
porosity () and irreducible wetting phase saturation (S
wi
)
however, we note that because we use (1-S
wi
), then our final
model written in the "Timur" form should be:

) (1
wi Timur
S k = ...........................................(B-3b)

For simplicity, we will use a form of Eq. 20 that is written in
terms of , rather than /(+2). This modification will not
seriously affect the character of the correlation given by Eq.
20, and will provide the algebraic form that should mimic our
rendering of the Timur correlation (i.e., Eq. B-3b).
The "modified" formulation of Eq. 20 (i.e., the permeability
correlation) is given as:
5 4 3 2
) 1 ( ) (
1
a a
wi
a a
d
S p a k = ................................. (B-4)

As discussed in the body of this work, the generalized correla-
tion proposed for the capillary displacement pressure (p
d
) is
given by:
4 3 2
) 1 (
1
b
wi
b b
d
S k b p = .............................................. (21)

Lastly, the index of pore-size distribution () is represented by
the following generalized correlation as:
5 4 3 2
) 1 (
1
c
d
c
wi
c c
p S k c = .......................................... (22)

We first need to substitute Eq. 21 into Eq. 22 and reduce Eq.
22 into a form that only contains , k, and S
wi
. Making this
substitution yields:
) ( ) ( ) (
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
5 4 4 5 2 2 5 3 3 5
5 4 5 3 5 2 5 4 3 2
5
4 3 2 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
) 1 ( ) (
) 1 ( ) 1 (
) 1 ( ) 1 (
) 1 (
c b c
wi
c b c c b c c
c b
wi
c b c b c c
wi
c c
c
b
wi
b b c
wi
c c
c
d
c
wi
c c
S k b c
S k b S k c
S k b S k c
p S k c
+ + +
=

=
=

....................................................................................... (B-5)
We now substitute Eq. 22 into Eq. B-4 to reduce Eq. B-4 into
a form that only contains , k, S
wi
, and . This substitution
gives us:
3 4 2 4 2 2 5 3 2 2
5 4 3 4 2 3 2 2 2 2
5 4 3
2
4 3 2
5 4 3 2
) ( ) (
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
) 1 ( ) (
) 1 ( ) 1 (
) 1 ( ) 1 (
) 1 ( ) (
a b a a
wi
b a a b a a
a a
wi
a b a
wi
b a b a a
a a
wi
a
a
b
wi
b b
a a
wi
a a
d
S k b a
S S k b a
S S k b a
S p a k




+ +
=

=
=


....................................................................................... (B-6)
As an intermediate result, we raise Eq. (B-5) () to the power
of a
3
, which yields:
) ( ) (
) (
1 1
) ( ) (
) (
1 1
) ( ) ( ) (
1 1
5 4 3 4 3 5 2 3 2 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 5 3
3 5 4 4 3 5 2 2
3 5 3 3 3 5 3
3
5 4 4 5 2 2 5 3 3 5 3
) 1 (
) (
) 1 (
) (
) 1 ( ) (


c b a c a
wi
c b a c a
c b a c a a c a
a c b c
wi
a c b c
a c b c a c a
a
c b c
wi
c b c c b c c a
S
k b c
S
k b c
S k b c
+ +
+
+ +
+
+ + +

x
x

) ( ) (
) (
1 1
5 4 3 4 3 5 2 3 2 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3
) 1 (
) (
c b a c a
wi
c b a c a
c b a c a a c a a
S
k b c
+ +
+

x


12 IPTC 10994
We now substitute the previous result into Eq. (B-6) which
gives us the "composite equation", which is defined as:
[ ]
[ ]

=
=
+ + +
+ + +
+
+ +
+ +
+ +
+
+ +
+
+ +
+ +
) (
) (
1 1 1
) (
) ( ) (
) ( ) (
1 1 1 1
) (
) ( ) (
) (
1 1
) ( ) (
1 1
) ( ) (
1 1
4 5 4 3 4 3 4 2
5 2 3 5 2 3 2 2
3 5 3 2
5 3 3 3 3 3 2
5 4 3 4 3 4 2 4
5 2 3 2 3 2 2 5
5 3 3 2
5 3 3 3 3 3 2
5 4 3 4 3 5 2 3 2 3
5 3 3 3 3 5 3 3
4 2 4 2 2 5 3 2 2
3 4 2 4 2 2 5 3 2 2
) 1 (



) 1 ( ) 1 (

) )( (

) 1 (
) (
) 1 ( ) (
) 1 ( ) (
a c b a c a b a
wi
a c a c b a b a
a c a a
c b a c a b a
c b a c a
wi
b a a
wi
c b a c a b a a
c a a a
c b a c a b a
c b a c a
wi
c b a c a
c b a c a c a a
b a a
wi
b a a b a a
a b a a
wi
b a a b a a
S
c b a
k
S S
b c b a
k k
S
k b c
S k b a
S k b a k
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

where this form reduces to:
[ ]

=
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
) (
) (
1 1 1
) ( - 1
4 5 4 3 4 3 4 2
5 2 3 5 2 3 2 2
3 5 3 2 5 3 3 3 3 3 2
) 1 (

a c b a c a b a
wi
a c a c b a b a
a c a a c b a c a b a
S
c b a k
x
x

Or, solving for k, we have
[ ]
) ( - 1
) (
) ( - 1
) (
) ( - 1
1
1 1 1
5 3 3 3 3 3 2
4 5 4 3 4 3 4 2
5 3 3 3 3 3 2
4 5 4 3 4 3 4 2
5 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 5 3 2
) 1 (


c b a c a b a
a c b a c a b a
wi
c b a c a b a
a c b a c a b a
c b a c a b a a c a a
S
c b a k
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ + +

=
x
x

Upon final reduction, we obtain:

) (1
wi
S k = .......................................................(B-7)

where:
[ ]
) ( - 1
1
1 1 1
5 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 5 3 2

c b a c a b a a c a a
c b a
+ + +
= ...................(B-8)

) ( - 1
) (
5 3 3 3 3 3 2
4 5 4 3 4 3 4 2
c b a c a b a
a c b a c a b a
+ +
+ + +
= ................................(B-9)

) ( - 1
) (
5 3 3 3 3 3 2
4 5 4 3 4 3 4 2
c b a c a b a
a c b a c a b a
+ +
+ + +
= ..............................(B-10)

In this work we have tuned Eqs. B-4, 21, 22, and B-7 to our
database, and the results of this tuning exercise yields:
1.6423 0.5328 1.1472 -1.7828
) 1 ( ) ( 4 158064.175
wi d
S p k =

...................................................................................... (B-11)
0.8486 -0.5285 0.8210
) 1 ( 640.0538
wi d
S k p = ........... (24)

0.6698 -0.6835 0.3792 -0.6341
) 1 ( 0.00980
d
wi
p S k = . (25)

-11.0531 4.9250
) (1 15896.2440
wi
S k = .................. (B-12)

Eqs. B-11, 24, 25 are combined as prescribed by Eqs. B-7
through B-10, and the results are plotted with the tuned Timur
relation (Eq. B-12) in Fig. B-1. We note good agreement, the
points are identical, indicating that our algebraic exercise is
correct.


Fig. B-1 Comparison of tuned Timur relation (Eq. B-1) to the
combination solution (Eqs. B-7 to B-10) for the data
set used in this work.

This exercise proves that the Timur formulation can be de-
rived from a fundamental formulation, albeit the relation must
be tuned to a particular dataset.