On the Relationship Between Fonnation
Resistivity Factor and Porosity
Candelario Perez-Rosales, Inst.Mexicano del Petroleo
Abstract
A theory on the relationship between fonnation resistivi-
ty factor and porosity is presented. This theory considers
that, from the standpoint of the flow of electric current
within a porous medium saturated with a conducting
fluid, the pore space can be divided into flowing and
stagnant regions. This assumption leads to a general ex-
pression, and fonnulas currently used in practice are
special cases of this expression. The validity of the new
expression is established by the use of data correspond- .
jng to sandstones and packings and suspensions of par-
ticles. For the case of natural rocks, the theory confinns
Archie's equation and gives an interpretation of the
physical significance of the so-called cementation
exponent.
Introduction
The fonnation resistivity factor of a porous medium is a
valuable concept in the area of fonnation evalUation. It
has been defined as the ratio of the resistivity of the
medium when completely saturated with a conducting
fluid to the resistivity of the saturating fluid. I In this
paper, a theory on the relationship between fonnation
resistivity factor and porosity is presented . The theory
evolves from the assumption that, from the standpoint of
the flow of electric current, the pore space can be divided
into traps and channels. The fonner are regions of
stagnation, whereas the latter are portions that participate
actively in the flow of electric current. This assumption,
in conjunction with some ideas developed originally by
Maxwell,2 leads to some interesting results. Among
other things, the theory indicates that, in the case of
natural rocks, a considerable portion of the pore space
comprises traps, thus indicating that the internal
geometry of rocks is extremely complex. Also. the
0197·752018210081·0546$00.25
Copyright 1962 Society of Petroleum Engineers ot AIME
AUGUST 1982
theory confirms the validity of the Archie equation I and
provides a plausible explanation of the physical
signiticance of the cementation exponent.
Attempts have been made to find a general correlation
between fonnation resistivity factor and porosity. Max-
weil 2 studied this problem from the theoretical point of
view for the case of dispersed spherical particles. From
his ideas, a relationship known as the Maxwell equation
can be deduced. 3 In a theoretical paper, Fricke 4
generalized the Maxwell equation to apply to systems of
dispersed oblate and prolate spheroids. On the other
hand, Archie I obtained an empirical fonnula bearing his
name that is applicable to natural rocks. Following the
ideas of Archie, other workers 5-7 have obtained em-
pirical correlations similar to that of Archie. Finally,
Perez-Rosales,3 in an attempt to generalize the Maxwell
equation, arrived at a fonnula which, in general, gives
good results but fails at low porosity values. In this
paper, this limitation is eliminated and a more general
equation is obtained. It can be shown that the fonnulas
currently used in practice are special cases of the equa-
tion proposed in this paper. To test the validity of the
theory, experimental data corresponding to natural rocks
and to packings and suspensions of particles are used.
Theory
Consider the following experiment. A nonconducting
porous rock is saturated with a conducting fluid, and
then an electric current is passed through the system.
Does the whole pore space participate in the flow of elec-
tric current? Laboratory studies indicate that the pore
walls are extremely irregular, which in tum indicates
regions of stagnation called traps. As a consequence, the
total porosity, cP, can be divided into two parts: a flowing
porosity, ¢ f, associated with the channels, and a stag-
nant porosity, ¢ s' associated with the traps. That is,
531
 Fig. 1-Schematic of a portion of porous rock.
¢=¢j+¢S' .............................. (1)
Fig. 1 is a two-dimensional schematic representation
of a portion of a porous rock. It can be seen that the elec-
tric current can flow only through the channel indicated
by C's, whereas no current can flow through the traps in-
dicated by T's. The traps are not necessarily of the dead-
end type shown in Fig. I. They also can comprise open
spaces, where symmetry conditions generate regions of
stagnation (Fig. 2). Here, the region indicated by T can-
not participate in the flow of electric current.
Through study of theoretical work of Maxwell 2 and
Fricke,4 a relationship 3 between formation resistivity
factor and flowing porosity was postulated:
G(I-¢j)
FR=l + , ........................ (2)
¢j
where G is a parameter whose value depends on the in-
ternal geometry of porous media. In Ref. 3, it was con-
sidered a linear relationship between flowing porosity
and total porosity of the form
¢j=C 1¢+C 2 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
where C 1 and C 2 are constants. In general, this relation-
ship leads to good results but fails at low porosity values.
Hence, it is necessary to look for a better relationship.
To facilitate the search for a better and more general
relationship, note that the flowing porosity must satisfy
the following conditions.
¢ j = 1 when ¢ = 1,
¢j = ° when ¢=O, and
¢ j :5 ¢ in the interval 0:5 ¢:5 1.
The first two conditions are necessary because at those
532
Fig. 2-Schematic of an open or symmetry trap.
porosity values traps cannot exist, and the third condition
is a direct consequence of Eq. 1.
The most simple relationship that satisfies all three
conditions is
¢j=¢m, ................................. (4)
where m2: 1. It has been found that this relation ex-
presses very well the connection between both kinds of
porosity, as explained in the following.
Substituting Eq. 4 into Eq. 2 gives
F R =I+G(¢-m 1) ........................ (5)
This formula allows the validity of the theory to be tested
because both F Rand ¢ can be measured accurately in the
laboratory .
In the following, some interesting properties of Eq. 5
are indicated.
If G= 1, the equation becomes
FR -m . . .............................. (6)
This is Archie's formula. 1
Further, if G = 1 and m = 1, Eq. 5 reduces to
F R-'I'
-A.-I , ............................... (7)
which applies to systems of parallel tubes.
On the other hand, Eq. 5 can be expressed as
F R =G¢-m+(1_G) . ...................... (8)
As shown in the next section, the value of G, for the case
of natural rocks, is close to unity. This implies that for
normal values of ¢ and m, G¢ -m > > (I-G). Hence,
an approximate form of Eq. 8 is
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 10
20
• EXPER. POINTS ex
8 • EXPER. POINTS
EQ.5
ex EQUATION 5 0
e 10
(.)
I-6
(.)

~ 5
~
8 >-
I-
~ :;; 4
:;; 6 t=
t; 5 en
c;; 4 c;; 3
LIJ
LIJ
ex ex
z 3 z
52 2 2
I-
~ 2 c
::II
::II ex
ex 0
~ u..

20 30 40 60 80 100 20 30 40 50 60 80 100
POROSITY,'- PO R 0 SIT Y , "
Fig. 3- Formation resistivity factors for packings and suspen- Fig. 4-Formation resistivity factors for packings of cubes.
sions of spheres.

F R = G¢ -m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
In practice, this is the most widely used equation,
known as the generalized Archie formula. However,
note that it is fundamentally incorrect because it does not
satisfy the necessary condition establishing that F R 1
when ¢ = 1. In spite of this limitation, Eq. 9 is a good ap-
proximation to reality.
Finally, for large values of ¢, the quantity ¢m is ap-
proximately equal to ¢. In this case, Eq. 5 can be ex-
pressed as
G(l-¢)
FR=1 + ......................... (10)
¢
This is Fricke's formula 4 for dispersed spheroids, of
which the Maxwell equation 3 is a special case.
Thus, the formulas most frequently uscd in practice
are special cases of the more general relationship in-
dicated by Eq. 5.
Experimental Values of G and m
To determine the value of parameters G and m of Eq. 5,
we used experimental data of Ref. 3 corresfonding to
measurements made by different authors 5,6, -12 for the
cases of sandstones, packings, and suspensions of
spheres, and packings of cubes. To those data, some
values corresponding to sandstones 13 were added. The
results are shown in Table 1.
In Figs. 3, 4, and 5, plots of Eq. 5 are presented for
the three types Of porous media. Some of the experimen-
AUGUST 1982
tal points from which the values of G and m were deter-
mined are indicated also. These plots show a good agree-
ment between theory and experiment.
From Table 1, it is seen that for the case of sandstones
Eq. 5 becomes
FR 1+1.03(¢-1.73 1) ................... (11)
It is interesting to compare graphically this expression
with other formulas currently used. Through the analysis
of data for more than 1,800 sandstone samples, Timur et
at. 7 obtained the following equation.
F R =1.13¢ 1.73 .......................... (12)
On the other hand, a commonly used equation is the
HumbleS formula, expressed as
F R =0.62¢ -2.15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
Plots of Eqs. 11, 12, and 13 on log-log paper are
shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen that the three formulas
give approximate results within the region of practical
interest; however, Eq. 11 gives a curved line that
satisfies the condition F R = 1 when ¢ = 1, whereas Eqs.
12 and 13 are straight lines not satisfying that condition.
Significance of Parameters G and m
What is the physical meaning of the parameters G and
m? Part of this question can be answered by means of
Eq. 4, where it can be seen that m is the power to which
533
 TABLE 1-PARAMETER VALUES FOR
DIFFERENT TYPES OF POROUS MEDIA
G m
Spheres 1.49 1.09
Cubes 1.33 1.28
Sandstones 1.03 1.73
the total porosity should be raised to obtain the flowing
porosity. In other words, according to the theory
developed in this paper, m is a parameter that allows
determination of which portion of the pore volume par-
ticipates actively in the flow of electric current and
which portion corresponds to stagnant regions.
Two examples are considered. Laboratory
measurements made on a Berea sandstone core indicate
that ¢=0.216 and F R = 13.7. For sandstones, Archie's
formula is a good approximation to reality; therefore, by
using Eq. 6, it is found that m= 1.71 and, according to
Eq. 4, the flowing porosity is
¢/=0.216 1.71 =0.073,
so that the stagnant porosity is
¢s =¢-¢/=0.143.
This means that 66% of the pore volume corresponds
to traps and only 34% to channels. At first, the value ob-
tained for the stagnant regions seems too large.
However, note that the phenomenon analyzed is of the
electric type. If the flow of a viscous fluid were con-
sidered, different results would be obtained because
viscous forces give rise to fluid transfer between stagnant
and flowing regions, which causes a considerable reduc-
tion in the volume of the stagnant regions. The analysis
of the flow of viscous fluids lies outside the scope of this
paper.
The second example refers to a packing of spheres.
For comparison, the same porosity as the Berea sand-
stone core is considered. From Table 1, m= 1.09 for
spheres. Consequently,
¢/=0.2161.09 =0.188
and
¢s =0.216-0.188=0.028.
Contrary to results obtained for the sandstone core, in
this case one notes that the stagnant porosity is much
smaller than the flowing porosity. This was expected
because the internal geometry of a packing of spheres is
much simpler than that of a natural rock.
The minimum value of m is 1.00, which corresponds
to media devoid of stagnant regions. This is the
theoretical value for a system of dispersed spheres, and it
is the approximate value obtained experimentally for
suspensions and packings of spheres.
It has been found that G is related to the internal
geometry of porous media. Its maximum value for a
three-dimensional, homogeneous, isotropic system is
534
1.50, which corresponds to the theoretical value for a
system of dispersed spheres. This is the simplest type of
system. As the geometry of a system becomes more
complex, the value of G decreases. For the case of sand-
stones, the value of G is close to unity. Obviously the
range of variation of G is not large.
The values appearing in Table 1 show that as G
becomes larger, m becomes smaller. There is probably a
functional relationship between both parameters;
however, the analytical expression cannot be deduced
from the available theoretical and experimental
information.
Relationship Between Tortuosity
and Stagnant Porosity
At this point, the relationship between the stagnant
porosity and the concept of tortuosity is addressed. In-
tuitively, the term tortuosity is associated with the ir-
regularity of the path followed by the flowlines within a
porous medium. If a porous sample has a length Land
the mean length of the flow lines is L m , the tortuosity
usually is defined 5 as
Lm
T=-, ................................ (14)
L
although some workers 12 define it as T=(L m IL)2.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to measure Lm direct-
ly. Hence, it is necessary to define tortuosity in terms of·
other quantities that can be measured in the laboratory.
A practical definition of tortuosity is as follows. Con-
sider a system where the pore space comprises parallel
tubes. In this case, the resistivity factor is
1
F R = - ............................... (15)
¢
and the tortuosity is unity. ~upposc now that the internal
geometry is modified in such a way that it becomes
similar to that of a porous rock, but the porosity is kept
constant. As a consequence of this change, the resistivity
factor increases, and the increment depends on the
degree of irregularity reached by the internal surface. If
the new resistivity factor is T times as large as that cor-
responding to the parallel tubes,
T
F R = - . .............................. (16)
C/>
The increase in the resistivity factor usually is inter-
preted as caused by a T-fold increment in the path length
of the flowlines. Therefore, T of Eq. 16 can be taken as a
practical definition of tortuosity. Substituting Eq. 8 into
Eq. 16 gives
T=¢(G¢-m+I-G) . ..................... (17)
This is a general expression for tortuosity. As noted
earlier, the value of G is close to unity for porous rock.
Hence, an approximate form of Eq. 17 is
T= ¢ ................................ (18)
¢m
By combining Eqs. 1,4, and 18,
¢s
T=l+ ............................ (19)
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 60
60 50
50 40
40 • EX PER. POINTS
",30
30 -EQ.5 0
I-

0::
~20
u..
~
20
(,) ~
if I-
>
....
~

10
t= I 0
s: en
en 8
t; 8 LI.I
:3. 6
0:: 6 '"
z 5
z 5 0
0 I- 4
4 c
~ =-0'" 3
=-
0:: 3 u..
~
2 EQ.13
2

I~----~----~~~~~~~
10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100
POROSI TY t ~

Fig. 5-Formation resistivity factors for sandstones. Fig. 6- Graphical comparison of Eqs. 11, 12, and 13.

This is a simplified expression that indicates clearly
the physical significance of tortuosity in terms of the
stagnant and flowing porosities. However, note that Eq.
19 is an approximation valid only for natural rocks.
When dealing with unconsolidated media (such as pack-
ings of spheres), the general expression given by Eq. 17
should be used.
For illustration, the tortuosities of the two systems
considered in the preceding section are calculated. For
the sandstone sample, Eq. 19 can be used.
0.143
T=I+--- 2.96. . ................... (20)
0.073
If Eq. 17, with m=1.71 and G=1.03, were used, T
would equal 3.05.
On the other hand, for the packing of spheres, the use
of Eq. 17 with m= 1.09 and G= 1.49 (see Table 1) gives
T= 1.60. Both results seem reasonable.
Conclusions
A new relationship between formation resistivity factor
and porosity has been established. The basic assump-
tions made in its derivation are as follows.
1. Porous media satisfy a relationship given by Eq. 2.
This is a Maxwell-type equation obtained from Max-
·well's relation by substituting the total porosity for the
flowing porosity.
2. There is a simple relationship between flowing
porosity and total porosity, given by Eq. 4. This rela-
tionship was determined through use of some necessary
boundary conditions that must be satisfied.
The importance of Eqs. 2 and 4 is that the former
recognizes the existence of stagnant regions, or traps,
whereas the latter indicates how to calculate the
magnitude of these regions of stagnation.
These fundamental assumptions lead to the proposed
relationship indicated by Eq. 5. ·rhis is a general rela-
tionship that, under certain conditions, reduces to the
formulas most frequently used in practice.
From the results presented in this paper, the following
conclusions can be drawn.
1. A theory leading to a new equation relating forma-
tion resistivity factor and porosity has been described. It
has been shown that the equations most widely used in
practice are special cases of the proposed relation.
2. For the case of natural rocks, the theory confirms
Archie's equation and establishes the physical
significance of the cementation exponent.

AUGUST 1982 535

 3. From the standpoint of the flow of electric current, 4. Fricke, H.: "A Mathematical Treatment of the Electric Conduc-
tivity and Capacity of Disperse Systems," Physical Review (1924)
the theory allows the determination of the stagnant and 24, 575-587.
flowing volumes. 5. Winsauer, W.O., Shearin, H.M. Jr., Masson, P.H., and
4. The large values of the stagnant volumes obtained Williams, M.: "Resistivity of Brine-Saturated Sands in Relation
for porous rocks reveal that the internal geometry of to Pore Geometry," Bull., AAPG (1952) 36, No.2, 253-277.
6. Wyllie, M.RJ. and Gregory, A.R.: "Formation Factors of Un-
these systems is extremely complex. This is in accord-
consolidated Porous Media: Influence of Particle Shape and Effect
ance with microscopic observations indicating that traps of Cementation," Trans., AIME (1953) 198,103-110.
should be the rule rather than the exception. 7. Timur, A., Hemkins, W.B., and Worthington, A.E.: ','.Porosity
and Pressure Dependence of Formation Resistivity Factor for
Nomenclature Sandstones," Proc., Cdn. Well Logging Soc. Fourth Formation
Evaluation Symposium, Calgary, May 9-10, 1972.
CI = constant in Eq. 3 8. Klinkenberg, LJ.: "Analogy Between Diffusion and Electrical
C2 = constant in Eq. 3 Conductivity in Porous Rocks," Bull., GSA (1951) 62,559-563.
FR = formation resistivity factor 9. Balderas-Joers, C.: "Estudio Experimental del Factor de
Resistividad y la Porosidad en Medios no Consolidados de muy
G = geometric parameter Alta Porosidad," MS Thesis, U. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
L length of a porous sample, in. (cm) (1975).
Lm mean length of the flowlines, in. (em) 10. Wyllie, M.R.J. and Rose, W.O.: "Some Theoretical Considera-
tions Related to the Quantitative Evaluation of the Physical
m exponent defined by Eq. 4 Characteristics of Reservoir Rock from Electrical Log Data,"
T = tortuosity Trans., AlME (1950) 89,105-118.
cp = total porosity, fraction 11. Sanyal, S.K., Marsden, S.S. Jr., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "The Ef-
fect of Temperature on Electrical Resistivity of Porous Media,"
cP f = flowing porosity, fraction The Log Analyst (March-April 1973) 10-24.
cP s = stagnant porosity, fraction 12. Wyllie, M.R.J. and Spangler, M.B.: "Application of Electrical
Resistivity Measurements to Problem of Fluid Flow in Porous
References Media," Bull., AAPG (1952) 36, No.2, 359-403.
13. Perez-Rosales, C. and Martinez, J.J.: "Determination of
I. Archie, G.E.: "The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Deter- Petrophysical Properties by Stereo logical Techniques," Soc. Pet.
mining Some Reservoir Characteristics," Trans., AIME (1942) Eng. 1. (Dec. 1977) 441-443.
146, 54:~7.
2. Maxwell, J. C.: A. Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Dover
Publications ·Inc., New York City (1954) 1.
3. Perez-Rosales, C.: "Generalization of the Maxwell Equation for SPEJ
Formation Resistivity Factors," J. Pet. Tech. (July 1976) Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July 6, 1981.
819-824. ,.. Revised manuscript received and accepted for publication March 22, 1982.

536 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL