@

Pore-Volume Compressibility of
Consolidated, Friable, and Unconsolidated
Reservoir Rocks Under Hydrostatic Loading
G. H. Newman, SPE-AIME, Chevron Oil Field Research Co.

Introduction
The ~Seof pOre.vQ!Urn.~
~~rn.nrewihilitv-norositv
d----------= =_. --.-,
cor-
___
relations in engineering calculations is well known.
The correlations developed by Hall’ for both sand-
stones and limestones have been widely distributed.
Van der Knaap’ published a similar correlation using
limestone samples from a single well and also corre-
lated the data with net pressure.
Such correlations are attractive because of the
simple relationship established. However, those cor-
relations were intended only for well consolidated
samples; correlations for friable or unconsolidated
samples have not been published.
This study compares our laboratory data with the
published correlations of consolidated samples as
well as with values for friable and unconsolidated
sandstones. Compressibility values are presented for
256 rock samplesfrom 40 reservoirs — ] 97 samples
from 29 sandstone reservoirs and 59 samples from 11
limestone reservoirs. Porosities ranged from less than
1 percent to 35 percent. Compressibility values from
the literature*3,s.$ for 79 samples are added, includ-
ing Halls and Van der Knaap’s.
The Experiments
Sampliig
To obtain a representative sample of a formation for
testing, one must avoid grain rearrangement. This
problem is unlikely to occur with consolidated sam-
ples or friable samples containing some cementation,
although the effect of removing the overburden is still
unknown. Unconsolidated samples, on the other
hand. present a much more complex problem, in that
grain rearrangement is very likely during either coring
or subsequent handling. The advent of the rubber-
sleeve core barrel much improved the chances of ob-
taining representative samples. We have some evi-
dence that, if carefully handled, rubber-sleeve cores
will provide reasonably undisturbed samples. How-
ever, even if the sand is captured undisturbed in the
rubber sleeve, internal gas can expand the core during
the trip to the surface.
The history of all the samples used in this study is
not complete, but most of the unconsolidated samples
were obtained from rubber-sleeve cores.
Preparing the Samples
The consolidated and friable samples used in this
study were generally plugs 1 in. in diameter and 3 in.
long. and their condition ranged from well preserved
to dry and weathered. The core plugs were extracted
in solvent to remove water and hydrocarbons, put
into a flexible jacket, and saturated with a refined oil.
The unconsolidated samples of about the same
dimensions were generally cored from rubber-sleeve
cores that had been frozen in liquid nitrogen and for
which liquid nitrogen had been used as a drilling
fluid.” The frozen samples were placed in a Teflon
sleeve and allowed to thaw. End plates and screens
were then placed on the ends of the samples. At this
point the bulk volume of the sample was determined

The pore-volume compressibilities and porosities presented here were derived from 256
samples of sandstone and limestone representing 40 reservoirs. These and previously
published data are in poor agreement with compressibility-porosity correlations in the
literature. The salient conclusion is that to evaluate rock compressibility for a given
reservoir it is necessary to measure compressibility in the laboratory.

FEBRUARY. 1973 129

from linear dimensions and the sample was placed in the following:
the test cell. A hydrostatic overburden pressure of
about 50 psi was exerted on the samples before they
~=ldv.
—— ,.. . . . .0 (1)
were cleaned with solvents and resaturated with a Vp
P
dpeff

refined oil. The change in the bulk volume at about where

50 psi was recorded. At the end of the compressibility
test the sample was extracted in toluene and the sand-
grain volume was determined. The sand-grain vol-
ume was subtracted from the initial bulk volume to
obtain a pore volume (porosity) at zero effective pres-
sure. This porosity value at zero pressure was chosen
to compare with pore-voiume compressibility because
the zero pressure porosity is normally what the reser-
voir engineer has available from routine core analy-
sis data.
Measuring Porosity
With the exception of the unconsolidated sandstone
porosities previously discussed, initial porosities were
determined by API-approved methods,’” which con-
sisted of determining the pore volume by resaturation
and the bulk volume by either displacement or caliber
measurement.
Applying Stress
Overburden Pressure. All of our data were obtained
from samples under uniform hydrostatic stress. This
was accomplished by transmitting the overburden
pressure to the jacketed test sample with hydraulic
fluid. The tests were conducted under either constant
or varying overburden pressure.
Co = pore volume compressibility, vol/vol/psi
VP = pore volume of the sample at a given
effective pressure
dVp = incremental change in pore volume re-
sulting from an incremental change in
effective pressure
dp,ff = incremental change in effective pressure.
Eq. 1 contains the assumption that most of the pore-
volume change results from efiective pressure differ-
ence. This is a valid approximation for higher-
porosity samples. A more comprehensive discussion
has been given by Geertsma.*2
Effects of Cycling, Time, and Temperature
Cycling
Cycling is defined as a repeated application of the
stress cycle. In other words, the sample is placed in
the test cell and the effective pressure is increased to
some predetermined value. (This value is sometimes
higher than any stress the sample will ever be sub-
jected to during reservoir depletion.) The pressure is
then released and a second, third, or even fourth
cycle can be performed. Except for the case of ex-
ceedingly high-strength elastic rocks, each cycle pro-

Pore Pressure. The pore pressure was controlled

.L--.. -I. +L
Lll IUU&fl Llle
..== . ,CM-
wll~p!e
i..kat wa]l
,.
and omlld he varied
. . ... -- --
CODE 0
independently of the overburden pressure during _G_SANOSTONES 0
tests. The tests were conducted with either constant ● LIMESTONES *8
or varying pore pressures.
00

●
Effective Pressure. The ability to vary the overburden .0 o

and pore pressures independently made it necessary ‘e

●
to express the data at a common stress condition.
o
o
0 00
O*
This was established as a function of the effective
pressure, defined as the difference between the over-
burden (lithostatic) and pore pressures.
Determining Volume Changes o

The change in sample pore volume as a function of

effective stress was obtained by various laboratory
methods.:” These included (1) direct measurement
of fluids expelled from the samples, and (2) inferred
pore-volume changes determined by measuring di-
mensional changes of the samples. The values were
(
obtained during both increasing and decreasing effec- 00
tive stress. A pore-volume vs effective-stress relation-
ship was found for each sample by increasing the 0 ‘(
effective stress in about 500-psi increments to an
effective stress equal to or greater than lithostatic
pressure based on individual sample depths. Litho-
gatic pressure was assumed to be 1 psi./ft.

Calculating Pore-Volume Compressibility

- .400-.
15
+-
INITIAL POROSITY &T ZERO NET PRESSURE
The compressibility values shown in Fig. 1 were
Fig. l—Porevolume compressibility at 75 percent
obtained by graphically differentiating the pore- Iithostatic pressure vs initial sample porosity for
volume: effective-pressure relationships by means of both sandstone and limestone samples.

130 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

\
vides a lower compressibility value as a result of an
irreversible change in the rock’s internal structure.
Some investigators’ found it necessary to cycle the
samples in order to form a copper jacket around the
test sample. This was done so that the pore volumes
expelled during subsequent loading were not affected
by the penetration of the copper jacket into the an-
nular space between the jacket and the sample, as
well as into the surface pores. Other investigators,
including King,’ have cycled the samples until they
exhibit elastic behavior; that is, until there is no addi-
tional pore-volume hysteresis between cycles. Cycling,
for either reason, can result in lower compressibility
values on a rock that has failed internally, and the
resulting condition is certainly not the condition of
the sample as it is received in the laboratory. This
internal failure is easily exposed with scanning elec-
tron micrographs, with thin-sections, or in the case
of unconsolidated sands, with grain-size anaiysis be-
#--- cI1lU
lUIG
....~ tZILG1
o%-. &y-1,-l;-”
b,,,,,&
A n .avr-.antinn
fi,l WAW&y U”Jl
tn thic wmJh+
.“ .s..- .. “ ..
he
“-
in a compacting reservoir that had failed in situ dur-
ing pressure depletion or a highly fractured reservoir
that had failed as a result of tectonic forces during
its hi~t~ry: The effects of cycling can be even more
serious on friable or unconsolidated sands because of
their inelastic behavior.
We have only one example where cycling may lead
to a closer approximation of in-situ compressibility,
and that is in testing highly disturbed unconsolidated
sands, when grains have been rearranged during cor-
ing. Rearrangement of grains from that in-situ condi-
tion generally tends to provide a looser packing,
which results in a higher pore-volume compressibility
value during the laboratory tests. We have demon-
strated this by taking sets of adjacent samples from
a carefully handled and preserved rubber-sleeve core.
One set of samples was carefully handled and the
other set was purposely rearranged. The results have
shown that the disturbed samples had much higher
compressibilities. Cycling the ‘disturbed samples- re-
+,,eo,-1 +h.arn
LuLll&u
rnnv
.I, w,li ,tlv. e -, V=W.
PICK-IV
J tn.V tha
...w ... ---- nat.kino
in-ck
~-- .....a rnn
---- -
dition, but significant internal failure occurred.
The values of pore-volume compressibility in this
study were obtained by methods that did not require
cycling. In addition, the reported compressibility
values were obtained during the initial application of
effective pressure.
Time
Our pore -volume compressibility values presented
here were obtained from pore-volume: effective-stress
relationships that had been obtained using pressure
increments of about 30 minutes (30 min/500 psi).
This time was generaiiy sufficient to reach a practicai
stress equilibrium for most samples. We are aware
that true stress equilibrium cannot be obtained in the
laboratory in any practical time. However, the most
-:--: c--- . -1------- .,.1.,. ..1 ..,. h., +L - G-t f=,,,
slgnlll~iint ~diiine Gilttll&GS 1-G pl~d 111 LUG 111OL Iew
minutes of applied stress. It is not within the scope
of this report to investigate these time effects; we only
point out that they exist.
Temperature
Of the compressibility values presented in Fig. 1, 81
FEBRUARY, 1973
percent were measured at 74”F; the remainder were
measured between 130° and 275 ‘F. While we have
not made a systematic study of the effect of tempera-
ture, a statistical analysis of pore-volume compressi-
bility conducted on a suite of sandstone and lime-
stone samples at various temperatures within the
indicated temperature range showed no significant
temperature effects. The results, however, were not
conclusive, since the scatter of the compressibility
data at any one temperature was as great as any
observable temperature effects, or greater. Von Gon-
ten and Choudhary,’ in discussing the effects of tem-
perature on compressibility, show increases as high
as 12 percent at 400”F. We recommend, therefore,
that all compressibility measurements be made at
reservoir temperature.
Presentation of Data
ihe pore-voiume compressibility vaiues shown in this
~~ld~y ~~~, in !n.o~t ~a~e~, r.---_.-
nressure dependent. To
compare samples that had been obtained from various
depths. which means the samples were subjected to
various effective stresses under reservoir conditions,
a common effective pressure base of 75 percent of
the lithostatic pressure was used. This value was
seiected as the most probal.ie average efiective stress
the sample would encounter during reservoir deple-
tion. The lithostatic pressure was assumed to be 1
psi per foot of depth.
The values obtained at this pressure base, plotted
against the initial sample porosity, are shown on Fig.
1, along with Hall’s correlation. Compressibility-
porosity values obtained from the literature, for both
sandstones and limestones, are shown on Fig. 2.
Analysis of Data
Limestones
The limestone values shown on Fig. 1 are compared
with both Hall’s and Van der Knaap’s correlations
on Fig. 3. No attempt was made to separate the lime-
~?~~~ ~~rn.pi~~ by geography Or litholoe~.
Sandstones
To analyze further the porosity and pore-volume
compressibility of the sandstone samples shown in
Fig. 1, we used a qualitative rock-typing system. The
samples were grouped as consolidated, friable, or
unconsolidated:
1. Consolidated samples consisted of “hard” rocks
(thin edges could not be broken off by hand).
2. Friable samples could be cut into cylinders, but
the edges could be broken off by hand.
3. Unconsolidated samples would fall apart under
their own weight unit?% they had iiiidergull~ ---- SpCLldI
--,. ...,.1
treatment such as freezing.
Each rock type was replotted under this crude
classification system (Figs. 4 through 6). HaiYs cor-
-~lmt;-”
1b,,=””.. 99A
“. hk
w SJ>.7 .anrlctnne data nnint~ are alcn chmw~-.
Ji-11..s>”..w . . . y--...” --- ---- “.. -
The results of this classification system are com-
pared in Fig. 7 by “class averaging” the compressi-
bility values from Fig. 1 and Figs. 3 through 6 in
porosity increments of 5 percent. For example, the
compressibilities for each rock type having between
O and 5 percent porosity were averaged and piotteci
131
at 2.5 percent porosity. Hall’s correlation is also porosity. This is evident on Fig. 6 as well. The un-
shown. consolidated samples also show significant inelastic
These class-averaging curves are intended for in- behavior (permanent volume reduction with pressur-
ternal comparison of the data only. They are not for ization, resulting from internal grain failure).
correlation, because of the wide variations in the The friable samples in Figs. 1 and 5 also show this
compressibility values. This wide variation can be inelastic behavior, but there is apparently very little
seen on Fig. 8, which shows the range of the data correlation between compressibility and initial sam-
points making up the class average for the consoli- ple porosity.
dated sandstones. Besides showing wide variations in compressibility
as a function of porosity -and rock type, our results
-- ..;
Discussion are in poor agreement wth Halls correlation. ~ltem-
Fig. 1 shows that our lower-porosity limestone and ture values of compressibility for 79 samples (in-
sandstone samples follow the general trend obtained cluding Hall’s data), shown in Fig. 2, support our
by Hall: the pore-volume compressibility values in- results and have about the same scatter. Van der
crease with decreasing porosity. This is more pro- Knaap obtained a good correlation for 23 limestone
nounced on Fig. 3, where only the consolidated samples taken from a single well; but his values are
limestone data are compared with Hall’s and Van der also in poor agreement with Hall%.
Knaap’s correlations, and on Fig. 4, where only the We believe the poor agreement between our data
consolidated sandstones are compared with Hall’s and Hall’s is in part because Hall’s are based on only
data. 12 samples — 7 limestones and 5 sandstones in the
The individual compressibility curves for these porosity range of 2 to 26 percent. Our data are based
consolidated samples showed substantially elastic be- on 256 samples, 194 in the same porosity range as
havior; most of the volume was recovered when the Hall’s.
pressure was released.
The samples with the higher porosity in Fig. 1 tend Conclusions
to be unconsolidated, and behave contrary to HalI’s 1. The pore-volume compressibility-porosity val-
general trend; compressibility tends to increase with ues obtained in this study are in poor agreement with

!000 .
I I I I I I [ I
o 14ALL1. SANDSTONES
● I+ALL1, LIMESTONES
~ VAN OER KNAA$. SANDS1ONES
● VAN DER KNAA#, LIMESTONES 100
I I I I I I
D FA7T3, SANDSTONES
~ DOBRVN1N5, SANDSTONES
i
~ KOHLHAAS AND MILLERS. SANDSTONES
fi VDN GONTEN ANO CHWOHARY7, SANOSW)NES
I A VON GONTEN ANO CHOUDMARY7. LIMESTONES % (rlj
~ + CARPENTER ANO SPENCERS. SANDSTONES
? ‘e

~ VAN OSR KNAPP’S CORRELATION

,.o~
,,00-
I .~.+
15 20 25 35
0540152(1253rJ 354rJ45 INITIAL POROSITY AT ZERO NET MESSURE
INITIAL poRos17Y AT ZERO NET PRE5fWRE
Fig. 3-Pore-volume compressibility at 75 percent
Hg. 2—F’ore-volume compressibility vs initial sample Iithostatic pressure vs initial sample porosity
porosity obtained from literature source as indicated. for limestones.

132 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

.-

1
0

CONSOLIDATED SAMCSTONES
~o
A:”
0 0 0
1

k ,0
o
0°
‘?
:x i\
●
‘o

I 0 Ooo
0 0.O
0

,..-O
I I
0
I !
II 1!

20 25 30 35 INITIAL POROSITV AT ZERO NET PRESSURE

INITIAL POROSITY AT ZERO NET PRESSURE
Fig. 5-Porewolume compressibility at 75 percent
Fig. 4-Pore-volume compressibility at 75 percent
Iithostatic rwessure vs initial sample porosity for
Iithostatic pressure vs initial sample porosity for
friable sandstones.
consolidated sandstones.

I 1 I I 1 I

o ;8”
L+’ O.”
UNCONWLIOATEO SANDSTONES
00 c
0
o 0
0
uNCONSOLIOATEO —
0 00

0
0 Wc)

o
%0 o
o
00 %
/ ●
@e
o TOTAL ALL SAMPLES
00 0
HALL%
00 c1
CORRELATION lALLS
ORRELATION
\
“L. ~ CDNSULIOATED
SANDSTONES

-\A

,.., ~

Fig.
Iithostatic
INITIAL POROSITY AT ZERO NET PRESSURE

GPorwrolume
pressure
compressibility
vs initial sample
at 75
porosity
percent
for Fig.
,.o~
o

7-Class
5 10

averages
15

of pore-volume
20
INITIAL POROSITY AT ZERO NET PRE~RE
25 30

compressibility
i

vs initial sample porosity.

unconsolidated sandstones.

133
FEBRUARY, 1973
 to initial sample porosity.
These data- suggest that correlations might be ob-
tained for both well consolidated limestones and
sandstones with similar lithologies. That is, correla-
tions may be obtained from samples within a given
reservoir, provided lithologic variations are sm@l.
This would be similar to Van der Knaap’s correlation
for limestones from a single well. Much the same
approach is recommended for the friable and “uncon-
solidated samples, but here the pore-bolume com-
pressibility is not merely porosity dependent; other
stress parameters need to be investigated.
References
1. Hall, H. N.: “Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks,”

\/
AVERAGE FOR CONSOLIDATED
Tnzm., AIME ( 1953) 198, 309-311.
SANDSTONES 2, Van der Knaap, W.: “Nonlinear Behavior of Elastic Po-
\ rous Media.” Trans., AIME ( 1959) 216, 179-187.
\\ 3. Fatt, I.: “Pore Volume Compressibilities of Sandstone
Reservoir Rocks: Trans., A-ME ( i95tl j 213, 362-364.

IT
4. King, M. S.: “Wave Velocities in Rocks as a Function
of Changes in Overburden Pressure and Pore Fluid Satu-
ration: Geophysics ( 1966) 31, No. 1.
5. Dobrynin, V. M.: “Effect of Overburden Pressure on
RANGE OF THE Some Properties of Sandstones: Sot. Pet. l%?. J. (Dec.,
CLASS AVERAGE 1962) 360-366.
6. Kohlhaas, C. A. and Miller, F. G.: “Rock-Compaction
I and Pressure-Transient Analysis with Pressure-Dependent
. Rock Properties,” paper SPE 2563 presented at SPE 44th
;;6xd Fall Meeting, Denver, Colo., Sept. 28-Ott. 1,
1.0
o
I I
5
I
10
I
15
1 I
20
I
25
!

34
INITIAL POROSITYAT ZERO NET PRESSURE 7. Von Gonten, W. D. and Choudhary, B. K.: “The Effect
of Pressure and Temperature on Pore-Volume Com-
Fig. II-Class average of pore-voiume ccmipwssibiiitj W pressibiiity,” Paper @nc 9C9C FIw<...w..
~r~ /-.-” . . . . -t..+ U.
*t -CPF_ AA~~ .&&
initial sample porosity for consolidated sandstones. nual Fall Meeting, Denver, Colo., Sept. 28-Ott. 1, 1969.
8. Carpenter: C. B. and Spencer, G. B.: “Measurements of
published compressibility-porosity correlations. This Compressibility of Consolidated Oil-Bearing Sandstones,”
RI 3540, USBM (Oct., 1940).
is also supported by values in the literature. There
9. Jennings, H. Y.: “How to Handle and Process Soft and
is a need, therefore, for laboratory compressibility Unconsolidated Cores,” World Oil (June, 1965 ) 116-119.
measurements in evaluating rock compressibilityy for 10. API Recommended Practice for Core-A nalysis Procedure,
a given reservoir. API RP40, 1st cd., New York (Aug., 1960).
2. Pore-volume compressibilities for a given po- 11. Mann, R. L. and Fatt, I.: “Effect of Pore Fluids on the
Elastic Properties of Sandstone” Geophysics ( 1960) 25,
rosity can vary widely according to rock type. 433-444.
3. Attempts to correlate the data showed that 12. Geertsma, J.: “The Effect of Fluid Pressure Decline on
consolidated sandstones differed greatly from lime- Volume Changes of Porous Rocksfl Trans., AIME (1957)
-’la 2?1 720
ALU, JJ, -J2Z. .m~
stones and friable and unconsolidated sands, but the
data are too widely scattered for correlations to be
.-1;
L“’IQ. ”
nhle. we!! ~efin~~ trends were found only in the Original
... -
manuscript
-- . .,,
received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
omce uec. 44 19JJ. --..: ---
IWVISW --- ...-+”.,w, ,--.
,,l-{lb=u, -.-m;”.rl.-W .F.@”
. . . ~~, ~Q7~,
consolidated sandstones and limestones and in the Paper (SPE 3S35) was presented at SPE Rocky Mountain Regional
unconsolidated sands, whereas the compressiiiiiity of Wzeti rig, he!i! in 2!enver, (%!0., April 10-12, 1972, Q Copyright
1973 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
the friable samples showed little or no relationship Engineers, Inc.

134 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY