Journal of Applied Geophysics 140 (2017) 135–144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Geophysics

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

Determining the relationship of thermal conductivity and compressional

wave velocity of common rock types as a basis for
reservoir characterization
P. Mielke ⁎, K. Bär, I. Sass
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Department of Geothermal Science and Technology, Germany

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

Article history: A comprehensive dataset detailing thermal conductivity and acoustic (compressional) wave velocity of 1430
Received 7 August 2016 oven-dry rock samples from clastic sedimentary (sandstone, arkose, greywacke), carbonatic (limestone, marl,
Received in revised form 31 March 2017 dolomite, marble, coquina), plutonic (gabbro, gabbrodiorite, diorite, granodiorite, granite) and volcanic (basalt,
Accepted 1 April 2017
andesite, rhyolite) rock types is presented. Correlation of thermal conductivity, compressional wave velocity
Available online 6 April 2017
and porosity are discussed in detail for each tested rock type. The study confirms that thermal conductivity of
Keywords:
dry rocks can be predicted from acoustic velocity for porous rock types such as volcanites and sandstones,
Thermal conductivity prediction while non- and low-porous rocks show no to minor trends. With a prediction accuracy ±0.5 W m−1 K−1 and
Compressional wave velocity a confidence of N80% for sediments and mafic volcanites the calculated data is far more comprehensive than
Porosity data collected from literature, and is likely accurate enough for most first exploration approaches or geoscientific
Saturation models before detailed site-scale investigation or modelling is conducted.
To investigate the effect of water saturation on thermal conductivity and compressional wave velocity 118 sed-
imentary samples (arkose and fine-, medium- and coarse sandstones) were saturated in de-aired water and the
heat conduction and acoustic velocity were remeasured. The obtained data shows that both thermal conductivity
and compressional wave velocity of saturated samples markedly increase in contrast to dry samples. The extent
of the thermal conductivity and compressional wave velocity gain is mainly controlled by porosity. Thermal con-
ductivity of saturated samples increases twice as much for higher porous samples than for low porous fine and
medium sandstones. In contrast, the gain of compressional wave velocity of saturated sandstones decreases
with increasing porosity.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Individual rock types typically exhibit a great variability of thermal

Thermal conductivity characterizes the heat transfer capabilities of
materials as a result of a temperature gradient. It is a key property for
various geoscientific applications such as geothermal modelling, sedi-
mentary and basin studies, but also for geotechnical and construction
applications. The heat transfer through a rock formation is typically re-
alized through conduction and convection. Conduction (Fourier's law)
dominates in dense, low-porous and impermeable rock types such as
most plutonic and metamorphic rocks, but also in low permeable to im-
permeable sediments such as mudstones, dense carbonates or highly
compacted sandstones. Under in-situ conditions convective heat trans-
port dominates in permeable rock formations such as porous sediments
or highly fractured or karstified rocks, where fluids can circulate
through the interconnected pores, fractures and cavities.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mielke@geo.tu-darmstadt.de (P. Mielke).
conductivity due to heterogeneous mineral composition, variable tex-
tures and different porosity (Schön, 2015). Collections of thermal data
of rocks (e.g. Bär et al., 2015; Cermak and Rybach, 1982; Clark, 1966;
Clauser and Huenges, 1995) show the variability of rock thermal con-
ductivities (Fig. 1). Most rock types typically exhibit a thermal conduc-
tivity range that spans over 3 to 4 W m−1 K−1.
The correlation of thermal conductivity of rocks and other parame-
ters or properties such as mineral composition, density and porosity,
and fluid saturation has been investigated by numerous studies
(Brigaud and Vasseur, 1989; Robertson, 1979; Schön, 2015; Somerton,
1958, 1992; Zimmerman, 1989). These studies have shown that the
thermal conductivity of rocks is primarily controlled by mineral compo-
sition and porosity. In non- to very low-porous rocks, such as plutonic
and metamorphic rocks, thermal conductivity is mainly controlled by
the mineral composition and texture. In porous rocks, such as most sed-
iments and extrusive rocks, thermal conductivity is primarily controlled
by the porosity and structure of the pore space, which in turn primarily

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.04.002
0926-9851/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
136 P. Mielke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 140 (2017) 135–144
Fig. 1. Thermal conductivity ranges of common rocks.
After Cermak and Rybach, 1982.
depend on grain size distribution and sorting, and secondarily by miner-
al composition and cement type.
However, as the range of reported values is commonly quite large
and do not reflect the local geological circumstances, the validity of lit-
erature values for a specific problem is often considered questionable
(e.g. Fuchs and Balling, 2016a, 2016b; Schintgen et al., 2015). To obtain
reliable thermal conductivity values it is essential to conduct large
numbers of measurements that take the lithological and structural
variability of the local strata into consideration.
1.1. Thermal conductivity measurement methods
Common direct measurement methods in laboratory are the divided
bar method (Bullard, 1939; Sass et al., 1971), the line source method
(Jaeger, 1958, and recent developments of this method e.g. Abid et al.,
2014; Hammerschmidt and Meier, 2006), the laser flash method
(Parker et al., 1961), and the optical scanning method (Popov et al.,
1999). Unfortunately, laboratory measurements are often constrained
by sample accessibility. In deep boreholes thermal conductivity can
be measured by a range of downhole tools (e.g. Beck et al., 1971;
Burkhardt et al., 1995; Hyndman et al., 1979; Kuriyagawa et al., 1983),
but these methods typically work discontinuously and are uneconomic.
In shallow boreholes the thermal response test (e.g. Gehlin, 2002) has
emerged to a common tool. Deeper boreholes can be investigated di-
rectly applying the optical frequency domain reflectometry method
(Lehr and Sass, 2014). Unconsolidated rocks need to be measured
with a changeable water content and under increasing or decreasing
compaction pressure (Sass and Stegner, 2012).
Consequently, indirect methods to determine thermal conductivity
of rocks from other rock properties such as density, porosity, and miner-
al composition have been explored in many studies (e.g. Fuchs et al.,
2013; Goutorbe et al., 2006; Gross and Combs, 1976; Hartmann et al.,
2005). An extensive literature compilation of various empirical relation-
ships and proposed equations for the indirect determination of the ther-
mal conductivity of a rock formation is given by Fuchs et al. (2013), and
an overview of most common model concepts is given by Schön (2015).
In conclusion, these regression-based empirical equations are typically
limited to the specific rocks on which they were established for and
are therefore not universally applicable.
1.2. Thermal conductivity and acoustic velocity
Another indirect method to predict thermal conductivity is its rela-
tionship to acoustic (compressional) wave velocity. Applying acoustic
velocity as a proxy to predict thermal conductivity of rocks or entire
rock formations has the advantage of relying on a standard method
that has been successfully applied in reservoir and basin exploration
for decades, and can be applied in the laboratory as well as in boreholes
and large-scale field surveys. The relationship between thermal conduc-
tivity and acoustic velocity is based on the phonon conduction theory,
that assumes thermal energy transfer occurring through the propaga-
tion of acoustic wave packets (phonons) along a thermal gradient
(Horai and Simmons, 1969; Pribnow et al., 1993; Williams and
Anderson, 1990). Both thermal conductivity and acoustic velocity are
primarily controlled by the heat and acoustic wave conduction of the
rock-forming minerals and the type and amount of cementation,
which connects the individual grains. In contrast, “defects” such as
pores, microfractures and associated grain-to-grain boundary effects in-
terfere with the phonon flow through the rock. Consequently, both
thermal conductivity and acoustic velocity decrease with increasing
porosity (hence increase with bulk density).
By contrast, the mineral composition can influence thermal conduc-
tivity and acoustic velocity in opposing directions. Generally, mafic min-
erals exhibit higher densities than felsic minerals, hence both rock
properties should increase for mafic rocks. However, quartz exhibits
low density but high thermal conductivity as compared to other rock-
forming mafic and felsic minerals (mostly feldspar and other silicate
minerals). As quartz is the main constituent of felsic rock types, its rela-
tively high thermal conductivity causes an increase of thermal conduc-
tivity from basic/mafic (e.g. gabbro, basalt) to acid/felsic (e.g. granite,
rhyolite) rock types, while acoustic wave velocity decreases due to the
lower density of felsic rocks as compared to mafic rocks (Schön, 2015).
1.3. Existing data
Published studies that substantiate or disprove the applicability of
predicting thermal conductivity from acoustic velocity are rare and
show inconsistent results. Esteban et al. (2015) predicted the thermal
conductivity of 179 dry and wet sandstones from the Perth basin
(Australia) and Soultz-sous-Forêts (France) from acoustic velocity, po-
rosity and simplified mineralogy using a model from Pimienta et al.
(2014), and reported a good match with measured thermal conductiv-
ity data from the same samples. Kukkonen and Peltoniemi (1998) mea-
sured petro-physical data including compressional wave velocity and
thermal conductivity of more than 700 crystalline core samples from
Finland, but found no significant correlation. Popov et al. (2003) pub-
lished data from more than 800 core samples of sedimentary rocks
from different Russian hydrocarbon deposits and impact rocks from
the well “Nördlingen 1973” drilled in the Ries impact structure
(Germany), and concluded that correlations exist between thermal
conductivity and acoustic velocity, but strongly depend on the local con-
ditions. A study by Hartmann et al. (2005) investigated the correlation
of thermal conductivity and compressional wave velocity for shaly
sandstones and marls, and suggested that good correlations exist, but
strongly depend on the local conditions and diagenesis of the rock.
Gegenhuber and Schön (2012) measured both thermal conductivity
and compressional wave velocity on a total of 35 samples consisting of
mainly granite, basalt and sandstone and concluded that good correla-
tions exist. A good correlation of both properties was also confirmed
by Özkahraman et al. (2004) who tested a small sample set of
limestones and andesite.
Large quantities of laboratory measurements of thermal conductivi-
ty and acoustic velocity are typically done on dry samples at ambient
conditions. The standardized measurement conditions allow direct
comparison of the different rock types, but do not reflect the in-situ con-
ditions at depth. Porosity commonly decreases with depth due to in-
creasing overburden stress, which in turn facilitates improved heat
and acoustic wave conduction by up to 30% (e.g. Birch, 1960; Clauser
and Huenges, 1995; Horai and Susaki, 1989; Schön, 2015; Walsh and
Decker, 1966). In contrast, elevated temperatures at depth can cause
 P. Mielke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 140 (2017) 135–144 137

the formation of micro cracks (“thermal cracking”) due the differential
thermal expansion of the rock forming minerals. This can increase po-
rosity (e.g. Bauer and Handin, 1983; Chaki et al., 2008; David et al.,
1999), which in turn reduces both heat and acoustic wave conduction
by up to 50% due to increased contact resistance (e.g. Clauser and
Huenges, 1995; Fortin et al., 2011; Nara et al., 2011; Schön, 2015;
Vinciguerra et al., 2005; Vosteen and Schellschmidt, 2003). Rocks at
depth are typically saturated, which increases thermal conductivity
and compressional wave velocity (as compared to dry conditions), as
fluids conduct heat and compressional waves much better than air.
This study reports an extensive assessment of the relationship be-
tween thermal conductivity and compressional velocity. Additionally,
the effect of water saturation on both properties are investigated.
2. Materials and methods
A total of 1430 core and plug samples from 18 rock types were se-
lected from the rock archive of the Department of Geothermal Science
and Technology at the Technische Universität Darmstadt. The collection
consists of rock samples taken from various projects that have been
carried out in the past decade. Selected samples comprise of plutonic,
volcanic, clastic sedimentary and carbonatic rock types, and originate
from various outcrops, quarries and cored boreholes. While the place
of origin was documented for most samples, it could not be precisely de-
termined for a small subset of samples. A comprehensive list of the sam-
pled rock types, their place of origin and stratigraphic classification
(where available) is given in Table 1. The collection of plutonic and

Table 1
Rock type, place of origin, stratigraphic classification, number of specimen tested and the original literature reference for all tested samples.

Rock type n Country and region Lithostratigraphy n Ref

Clastic sediments
Fine sandstone 91 DE Black Forest Triassic (Buntsandstein) 2 1
DE Odenwald Triassic (Buntsandstein) 8 1
DE Saar Nahe Basin Permo-Carboniferous (Rotliegend) 61 2
DE South German Scarplands Triassic (Keuper) 12 1
DE Spessart Triassic (Buntsandstein) 3 1
DE Wetterau Permo-Carboniferous (Rotliegend) 5 1
Medium sandstone 349 DE Black Forest Triassic (Buntsandstein) 13 1
DE Odenwald Triassic (Buntsandstein) 46 1
DE Pfalz Triassic (Buntsandstein) 21 1
DE Saar Nahe Basin Permo-Carboniferous (Rotliegend) 222 2
DE Spessart Triassic (Buntsandstein) 34 1
DE Wetterau Permo-Carboniferous (Rotliegend) 13 1
Coarse sandstone 114 DE Black Forest Triassic (Buntsandstein) 19 –
DE Saar Nahe Basin Permo-Carboniferous (Rotliegend) 48 2
DE Spessart Triassic (Buntsandstein) 7 –
DE Sprendlinger Horst Permo-Carboniferous (Rotliegend) 34 1
DE Wetterau Permo-Carboniferous (Rotliegend) 6 1
Arkose 29 DE Saar Nahe Basin Permo-Carboniferous (Rotliegend) 29 2
Greywacke 36 DE Kellerwald Carboniferous 11 1
DE n/a n/a 5 –
NZ Central Volcanic Zone Mesozoic 20 3

Carbonates
Limestone 108 DE Franconian Jura Jurassic (Malm) 31 4
DE Swabian Jura Jurassic (Malm) 64 4
DE n/a n/a 13 –
Marl 43 DE Swabian Jura Jurassic (Malm) 43 4
Dolomite 24 DE Kellerwald Permian (Zechstein) 2 1
DE Swabian Jura Jurassic (Malm) 22 4
Marble 38 GR n/a n/a 24 –
IT Piemont n/a 14 –
Coquina 48 DE n/a n/a 48 –

Plutonites
Gabbro 84 DE Odenwald Paleozoic 65 –
SA Karoo n/a 19 –
Gabbrodiorite 17 DE Odenwald Paleozoic 17 5
Diorite 24 DE Sprendlinger Horst Paleozoic 24 5
Granodiorite 72 DE Odenwald Paleozoic 64 1
DE Sprendlinger Horst Paleozoic 8 5
Granite 153 CN Gonghe Basin Triassic 93 –
DE Odenwald Paleozoic 26 1
DE Sprendlinger Horst Paleozoic 3 5
n/a n/a n/a 31 –

Volcanites
Basalt 75 DE Rhön n/a 2 1
DE Odenwald n/a 10 5
DE Vogelsberg Tertiary 4 1
DE n/a n/a 16 –
IS Reykjavik Quaternary 16 –
IS n/a Quaternary, Tertiary 15 –
JO Jordanian Harrat Tertiary 12 6
Andesite 46 NZ Central Volcanic Zone Quaternary 46 3
Rhyolite 79 DE Odenwald Permian 63 –
NZ Central Volcanic Zone Quaternary 16 3

References: 1 — Bär (2012); 2 — Aretz et al. (2015); 3 — Mielke et al. (2015); Mielke et al. (2016); 4 — Homuth et al. (2015); 5 — Sass et al. (2015); 6 — Al-Zyoud et al. (2014).
138 P. Mielke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 140 (2017) 135–144
volcanic rocks reflects the most common rock types of each group, and
comprise of rocks types ranging from felsic (granite and rhyolite) to
mafic (diorite, gabbro, basalt, and andesite).
2.1. Sample description
Gabbro, gabbrodiorite, diorite, granodiorite and parts of the
granite mainly derive from the variscan basement of the Odenwald
and Sprendlinger Horst (both located in Hesse, Germany). The
majority of the granite originates from the uplifted basement of the
Gonghe Basin, Eastern Tibet Plateau (China) and the Odenwald.
Most specimens come from active open cast mines and are generally
fresh and unaltered, and exhibit no visible porosity. Diorites and
some granodiorites and granites exhibit minor microcracks along
grain boundaries.
Volcanites mainly derive from active volcanic zones in Iceland and
New Zealand, but also from extinct regional volcanic zones in Central
Germany and Jordan. Specimens exhibit pore space ranging from mas-
sive, non-porous (mainly basalts and andesite) to well-developed con-
nected or isolated pore structures (some andesite). Rhyolite samples
exhibit either abundant or minor porosity and were therefore separated
in two subgroups.
Clastic sedimentary rocks mainly derive from reservoir potential
studies of the Permian Rotliegend- and Triassic Buntsandstein-
formations in Hesse, Germany (Aretz et al., 2015; Bär, 2012). Within
the scope of both studies rocks were sampled in large number from
quarries, outcrops and boreholes. Both studies generated large amounts
of data, and existing thermal conductivity and porosity measurements
of the regional sedimentary Rotliegend survey were integrated in this
study. Sedimentary rocks were classified depending on the modal
composition and matrix content into sandstone, arkose, and greywacke.
The dominant grain size of the sandstones was defined macroscopi-
cally, and the samples were grouped by a simplified grain size
classification into a) fine sandstone (N 0.0625 mm to b0.25 mm);
b) medium sandstone (N0.25 mm to b0.5 mm); and c) coarse sand-
stone (N 0.5 mm to b2 mm). Sampled arkoses were primarily coarse-
grained, while greywacke was fine-grained.
Limestone, marl and dolomite originate from quarries in the Swabi-
an and Franconian Jura in Southern Germany. The specimens are
micritic, massive and exhibit no visible porosity (Homuth et al., 2015).
Marble and coquina derives from unknown locations in Greece and
Germany, respectively.
2.2. Methodology
The specimens selected for this study were either present in the
sample archive as drill cores or plugs. Drill cores had a common diame-
ter of 64 mm and axial lengths of about 80 mm to 150 mm. Core end
faces were often rough and fractured. Where necessary, both end
faces of the samples were cut to be parallel. Plugs had a diameter of
about 40 mm and axial lengths of about 20 mm to 40 mm with parallel
cut end faces. The samples were then oven-dried at 65 °C (carbonates)
or 105 °C (all other rock types) for at least 48 h. About 24 h before the
actual measurements samples were removed from the oven and stored
in a desiccator for cooling down to ambient temperature.
2.2.1. Thermal conductivity
Bulk thermal conductivity (λ) was measured using the optical scan-
ning method after Popov et al. (1999). The method is based on heating
the sample with a contactless heat emitter, and measuring the subse-
quent cooling rate with contactless temperature sensors. By comparison
with a set of standards with known thermal conductivity the thermal
conductivity of the sample can be calculated. The thermal conductivity
was scanned in 2 mm intervals along a measuring line on the plan par-
allel end faces of the cores. Thus, the thermal vector detected by the de-
vice is parallel to the core or plug axis and therefore oriented in the
same direction as the compressional wave velocity measurements.
Boundary effects on the sample edges were removed during the post-
processing phase. The device has an accuracy of 3% in the supported
measuring range from 0.5 to 25 W m−1 K−1 as specified by the manu-
facturer Lippmann & Rauen.
2.2.2. Compressional wave velocity
Acoustic velocity (or compressional wave velocity, vp) was deter-
mined using a commercial ultrasound generator (Geotron USG 40)
with mounted emitter and receiver probes. Measurements were con-
ducted along the axis of the core. The specimens were mounted on a
framework, and the emitter and receiver were pressed against the cen-
tre of the plan parallel grinded end surfaces with a contact pressure of
2000 kPa. To facilitate a better connection between probes and sample
a shear gel (Magnaflux 54-T04) was applied. Continuous measurements
were performed with a frequency of 80 Hz for samples with an axial
length N 12 cm, and with 250 MHz for samples with an axial
length b 12 cm length. Measured data was averaged out of 8 single mea-
surements on each specimen.
Both thermal conductivity and acoustic velocity for all samples were
determined on oven-dry rocks and at ambient conditions (0.1 MPa at-
mospheric pressure and 25 °C). To be able to investigate the effect of
fluid saturation on thermal conductivity and compressional wave veloc-
ity also, selected sets of clastic sandstones and arkose with known po-
rosities were remeasured under saturated conditions. Sets of samples
from the same rock type and place of origin were selected and measur-
ing results were averaged to compensate for possible heterogeneities of
an individual specimen. For each rock type, series exhibiting differing
porosities were selected. A total of 118 samples were selected,
consisting of 3 series of fine sandstone, 6 series of medium sandstone,
3 series of coarse sandstone and 3 series of arkose. The specimens
were evacuated and subsequently immersed in de-aired water for
48 h inside an evacuated container.
2.2.3. Porosity
Porosity (ϕ) data was available from previous studies for about 50%
of all tested specimens. In all those studies (published and unpublished)
porosity was measured using the same commercial gas expansion pyc-
nometer (AccuPyc II 1340) in combination with an envelope density
analyser (GeoPyc 1360).
3. Results and discussion
The obtained thermal conductivity and compressional wave velocity
data (Fig. 2) correspond to ranges reported by other studies (e.g. Bär
et al., 2015; Birch, 1960; Cermak and Rybach, 1982; Clark, 1966;
Clauser and Huenges, 1995; Popov et al., 2011; Schön, 2015). A compre-
hensive overview of the measured thermal conductivity and acoustic
velocity results, as well as corresponding porosity data is given in
Table 2. A detailed list of all thermal conductivity, compressional wave
velocity and associated porosity values is provided in Appendix A as
supplementary material.
In porous rocks, both thermal conductivity and compressional wave
velocity are mainly controlled by porosity (Fig. 3). Both thermal conduc-
tivity and compressional wave velocity of most porous rock types, such
as sediments and volcanites, generally decreases with increasing poros-
ity. Some coarse sandstones and (coarse) arkoses exhibit increased
thermal conductivity and deviate from the general regression trend of
similar material. These deviations are likely to be caused by different
types and amounts of cementation in the pore space (e.g. Aretz et al.,
2015). By contrast, low-porous rocks such as plutonites, greywacke
and carbonates exhibit no or only weak correlation of thermal conduc-
tivity and porosity, or acoustic velocity and porosity. Fig. 3 shows that
the influence of the rock type is less striking for the compressional
wave velocity than for thermal conductivity. For example, volcanites and
plutonites form clearly delimitable point clusters in the porosity vs.
 P. Mielke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 140 (2017) 135–144 139

Fig. 2. Box-Whisker plots of thermal conductivity (λ) and compressional wave velocity (vp) at dry condition for all tested rock types.

thermal conductivity plot (Fig. 3a), but cannot be distinguished in the po- velocities than the sandstones. Greywacke has commonly about 10%
rosity vs. compressional wave velocity plot (Fig. 3b). The reason for this higher thermal conductivities than the other tested sediments, while
are the differing heat conduction properties of the rock forming minerals, the compressional wave velocity is about twice as high as compared
which cause significantly differing thermal conductivities of the whole to the sandstones due to the significantly lower porosity (b2%). Carbon-
rock, but have little influence on the acoustic velocity. ates exhibit thermal conductivities between 2 W m−1 K−1 and
Fine, medium and coarse sandstones exhibit nearly equal mean 3 W m−1 K−1, where limestone has the lowest and dolomite has the
thermal conductivities, while the range is relatively wide. Porosity of highest values, which corresponds to reported values (Clauser and
clastic sandstones commonly ranges from about 5% up to about 22%, Huenges, 1995). Although porosity is generally low (b 5%) and homoge-
and increases with grain size. As the compressional wave velocity is neous, carbonates exhibit a wide range of acoustic velocities, ranging
mainly controlled by porosity, it decreases with increasing grain size. from 2.2 km s−1 up to 7 km s−1.
Arkoses have porosities comparable to medium and coarse sandstones, Thermal conductivity of plutonites is lowest for mafic rocks (gabbro,
but marginally higher mean thermal conductivity and mean acoustic gabbrodiorite) and highest for felsic rocks (granodiorite, granite) due to
the relatively high thermal conductivity of quartz. Compressional wave
velocity decreases with the increasing felsic character of the rock, which
Table 2
corresponds to previous studies (Schön, 2015). Porosity of plutonites is
Results of the thermal conductivity (λ) and compressional wave velocity (vp) measure-
ments at dry condition and corresponding porosity values (Φ) from published and unpub-
generally b2%.
lished internal data. Volcanites have about 50% lower thermal conductivity than
plutonites but span over a wider range. Within the here presented sam-
λ vp Φ
ple set thermal conductivity of porous felsic volcanites (rhyolite) is
W m−1 K−1 km s−1 % lower than that of the porous mafic volcanites (andesite, basalt),
Mean Std. Mean Std. n Mean Std. n Ref. which contradicts the trend from the plutonites and is most likely
Clastic sediments strongly related to porosity of the volcanic sample sets. Volcanites ex-
Fine sandstone 2.49 0.43 3.31 0.72 91 11.1 5.3 65 1, 2 hibit a wide range of porosities, which greatly influences both thermal
Medium sandstone 2.5 0.37 2.93 0.57 349 15 4.5 219 1, 2 conductivity and acoustic velocity.
Coarse sandstone 2.47 0.63 2.64 0.55 114 17.7 3.7 51 1, 2
Arkose 2.64 0.18 2.81 0.32 29 19.1 2.6 29 2
Greywacke 2.86 0.45 5.05 0.79 36 1.7 1.4 29 3
3.1. Correlation of thermal conductivity and acoustic velocity

Carbonates The strength and direction of the correlation between thermal

Limestone 2.45 0.22 5.03 0.73 108 3 1.3 45 4
Marl 2.59 0.12 5.01 0.94 43 1.3 0.7 40 4
conductivity and acoustic velocity differ for the rock groups (Fig. 4).
Dolomite 2.68 0.1 5.14 1.12 24 2.4 1.6 22 1, 4 While most porous rocks exhibit minor to good correlation of both
Marble 2.84 0.17 3.18 0.99 38 n/a n/a n/a – properties, no or only weak correlations are present for non-porous or
Coquina 1.86 0.17 3.85 0.34 48 n/a n/a n/a – low-porous rock types.
Plutonites In detail, fine, medium and coarse sandstones exhibit moderate to
Gabbro 2.42 0.19 6.25 0.48 84 2.6 1.9 3 – good correlations of thermal conductivity and acoustic velocity with re-
Gabbrodiorite 2.55 0.13 5.85 0.26 17 n/a n/a n/a 5 gression gradients gradually increasing with grain size (and consequently
Diorite 2.48 0.2 5.73 0.84 24 1 0.6 20 5
porosity), while the intercept is gradually decreasing (Fig. 4a–c). Arkose
Granodiorite 2.7 0.34 4.69 1.04 72 1.6 2.2 46 1, 5
Granite 2.79 0.29 5.14 0.96 153 0.2 0.8 46 1, 5 (Fig. 4d) and greywacke (Fig. 4e) exhibit no correlation, which could be
due to a mixture of samples of a different origin and thus different
Volcanites
modal compositions, matrix contents and cementation types. Thus,
Basalt 1.7 0.47 4.73 1.16 75 11.8 9.6 15 1, 5, 6
Andesite 1.68 0.37 4.2 0.82 49 4.7 5.2 49 3 these influences might mask correlations, which might well exist for
Rhyolite (massive) 2.84 0.16 4.22 0.47 63 n/a n/a n/a - samples with homogeneous composition from one geological setting
Rhyolite (porous) 1.04 0.12 2.02 0.54 16 19.1 9 16 3 but differences in grain size and porosity.
References: 1 — Bär, 2012; 2 — Aretz et al., 2015; 3 — Mielke et al., 2015, 2016; 4 — Homuth Carbonates exhibit no correlation between thermal conductivity and
et al., 2015; 5 — Sass et al., 2015; 6 — Al-Zyoud et al., 2014. compressional wave velocity. The massive, low-porous limestones
140 P. Mielke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 140 (2017) 135–144

Fig. 3. Cross plots of porosity and compressional wave velocity (vp), and porosity and thermal conductivity (λ) at dry condition for all samples grouped according to rock type.

Fig. 4. Cross plots of thermal conductivity and compressional wave velocity of all tested rock types at dry condition.
 P. Mielke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 140 (2017) 135–144
(Fig. 4f), marls (Fig. 4g), dolomites (Fig. 4h) and marbles (Fig. 4i) exhibit
relatively equal results, which span over a wide range of compressional
wave velocities, but exhibit little deviations in the thermal conductivity.
Coquina, which exhibits a considerable amount of visible pore space,
was included in this study to check whether porosity in carbonates
causes a correlation between thermal conductivity and compressional
wave velocity comparable to clastic sandstones. As shown in Fig. 4j, co-
quina plots within a dense point cloud with a weak negative correlation,
which may be attributed to the heterogeneous and chaotic distribution
of the pore space in the rock forming shells.
The tested plutonic rock types mainly exhibit weak correlations be-
tween thermal conductivity and compressional wave velocity that grad-
ually change from a negative to a positive regression with increasing
felsic character of the rock (Fig. 4k–o). A detailed explanation on this ob-
servation is given in the Introduction. Altogether, the results match to
the point clusters published by Kukkonen and Peltoniemi (1998), and
widely confirm their assumption that thermal conductivity of plutonites
does not correlate well with acoustic velocity.
Volcanites exhibit the best correlation of thermal conductivity and
compressional wave velocity among all tested rock types (Fig. 4p–r).
Both rock properties are primarily controlled by porosity, while mineral
composition and texture has a subordinate impact under the given
porosity range of the sample set (Fig. 3). This effect is particularly well
noticeable for the rhyolites, which were subdivided in a massive (i.e.
no visible pore space) and a porous (i.e. visible pore space) group
(Fig. 4r). While the regression of both the massive and porous rhyolite
is about the same, the intercept of the porous specimens is much
lower than that of the massive specimens.
The data suggests that the thermal conductivity of dry porous
rocks such as sandstone, basalt and andesite can be predicted
from compressional wave velocities with an accuracy of about
± 0.5 W m− 1 K− 1 without exact knowledge of porosity and miner-
alogy. In contrast, for carbonates and plutonites (except for diorite
and granodiorite) the correlation of thermal conductivity and com-
pressional wave velocity is only poorly established. Therefore, for
these rock types a prediction of thermal conductivity from acoustic
data seems widely impossible.
3.2. Effect of water saturation
The effect of saturation on the thermal conductivity and compres-
sional wave velocity of sandstone and arkose is shown in Fig. 5. Gener-
ally, both thermal conductivity and compressional wave velocity of
dry samples decrease with increasing porosity. Once saturated, both
Fig. 5. Boxplots of porosity, thermal conductivity and compressional wave velocity of tested sandstones and arkose at dry and saturated conditions.
141
properties markedly increase (Fig. 6a). Thermal conductivity of saturat-
ed samples increases notably stronger for higher porous samples
(Fig. 6b). For example, the thermal conductivity of low porous fine
and medium sandstones (sample series FS 1 and MS 1 in Fig. 5) in-
creases by 0.68 W m−1 K−1 and 0.76 W m−1 K−1, respectively, while
the thermal conductivity of higher porous sandstones such as sample
series FS 3 and MS 6 increases twice as high. In fact, the resulting ther-
mal conductivity of saturated highly porous sandstones exceeds the
thermal conductivity of saturated lower porous samples, although the
initial dry thermal conductivity of the latter was markedly higher. In
contrast, the gain of the compressional wave velocity of saturated sand-
stones decreases with increasing porosity (Fig. 6c).
The effective gain of thermal conductivity and compressional wave
velocity with saturation, expressed as the difference of λsat. − λdry and
vp,sat. − vp,dry, respectively, in relation to porosity is shown in Fig. 6d
and e, which illustrate the contrasting effects of saturation on both
properties as a function of porosity.
3.3. Predicting thermal conductivity from acoustic velocity
The data suggests that the thermal conductivity of dry porous
rocks such as sandstone, basalt and andesite can be predicted from com-
pressional wave velocities without exact knowledge of porosity and
mineralogy. In contrast, the correlation of thermal conductivity and
compressional wave velocity of carbonates and plutonites (except for
diorite and granodiorite) is only poorly established and therefore ren-
ders a prediction of thermal conductivity from acoustic data widely im-
possible. Given these conditions an approach for the prediction of
thermal conductivity for sandstones and volcanites can be proposed,
which bases on the linear increase of thermal conductivity with acoustic
velocity. In our case, where both parameters are primarily controlled by
the porosity, this linear increase is independent from origin and strati-
graphic association of the respective rock types. As the effect of the
grain size of sandstones is negligible, all sandstone types and arkose
were merged and one linear regression was calculated. The regression
equation facilitates the calculation of thermal conductivity from
acoustic data with an accuracy of ±0.5 W m−1 K−1 and a confidence
of N 80% for both rock types (Fig. 7).
Table 3 lists calculated thermal conductivities for volcanites and
sandstones in 1000 m s−1 intervals. The thermal conductivity of
volcanites increases by 0.27 W m−1 K−1 for each 1000 m s−1 acoustic
wave velocity interval, while sandstones exhibit an increase of
0.43 W m−1 K−1.
142 P. Mielke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 140 (2017) 135–144

Fig. 6. Cross plots of averaged thermal conductivity and compressional wave velocity (a), thermal conductivity and porosity (b) and compressional wave velocity and porosity (c) for dry
and saturated sandstone and arkose. Plots d and e show the correlation of λsat. − λdry and vp,sat. − vp,dry, respectively, with porosity.

4. Conclusions
In this study the data of the measurement of thermal conductivity
and acoustic wave velocity of 1430 rock samples from 18 clastic sedi-
mentary, carbonatic, plutonic and volcanic rock types on oven-dry
cores and plugs was presented. Additionally, 118 samples were selected
for measurements of both properties under water saturated conditions.
The study confirms that thermal conductivity of dry rocks can be
predicted from the acoustic velocity for porous rock types such as
volcanites and sandstones, while non- and low-porous rocks show no
to minor trends.
Acoustic velocity data is often routinely collected within the scope of
various exploration projects (2D or 3D seismic investigations or vertical
seismic profiles in boreholes), and can therefore easily be used for
predicting thermal conductivity (e.g. Gu et al., 2017). With a prediction
accuracy ±0.5 W m−1 K−1 for sediments and mafic volcanites the cal-
culated data is far more comprehensive than any data collected from
literature, and is likely accurate enough for most first exploration ap-
proaches or geoscientific models before detailed site-scale investigation
or modelling is conducted.
For a large scale in-situ application the effects of saturation, stress
and temperature of the rocks need to be considered. Most effects can
be calculated by generic equations to transfer data from measurements
at lab conditions on dry samples to in-situ conditions considering the
temperature, pressure degree of saturation and the saturating fluid
(see references given above). The comparative study of dry and saturat-
ed sandstones showed contrasting effects of saturation on thermal
conductivity and compressional wave velocity, which render the pre-
diction very complex and clearly illustrate, that rock type specific em-
piric relations need to be defined. To date, few studies have been
conducted that included all factors. New methods are necessary to val-
idate the results obtained for oven-dry rocks at reservoir conditions.
Promising approaches include the application of high temperature tri-
axial cells to measure rock properties at elevated temperature and

Table 3
Acoustic wave velocity intervals of volcanites and sandstones, and the predicted thermal
conductivity for each interval.

vp λ
−1
km s W m−1 K−1

±0.5

Volcanites Sandstones

1 0.68 1.68
2 0.96 2.11
3 1.24 2.53
4 1.53 2.96
5 1.81 3.39
6 2.09
Fig. 7. Cross plot with confidence intervals of compressional wave velocity (vp) and
7 2.37
thermal conductivity (λ) for sediments and mafic volcanites.
 P. Mielke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 140 (2017) 135–144
pressure (e.g. Milsch et al., 2008; Pei et al., 2014; Siratovich et al., 2015),
but the tests are complicated and time-consuming. Once the results
have been confirmed and transferred to empiric relationships for reser-
voir conditions, the application of well-log data for predicting thermal
conductivity at depth will take one significant step forward.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article are archived under
dataset #874146 (Mielke et al., 2017) in the PANGAEA database hosted
by the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine
Research (AWI) and the Center for Marine Environmental Sciences,
University of Bremen (MARUM).
References
Abid, M., Hammerschmidt, U., Köhler, J., 2014. Temperature and moisture dependent
thermophysical properties of Sander sandstone. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 86:88–94. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2014.06.021.
Al-Zyoud, S., Rühaak, W., Sass, I., 2014. Dynamic numerical modeling of the usage of
groundwater for cooling in north east Jordan — a geothermal case study. Renew.
Energy 62:63–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.06.027.
Aretz, A., Bär, K., Götz, A.E., Sass, I., 2015. Outcrop analogue study of Permocarboniferous
geothermal sandstone reservoir formations (northern Upper Rhine Graben,
Germany): impact of mineral content, depositional environment and diagenesis on
petrophysical properties. Int. J. Earth Sci. (Geol. Rundsch.) http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s00531-015-1263-2.
Bär, K., 2012. Untersuchung der tiefengeothermischen Potenziale von Hessen
(Dissertation, Darmstadt).
Bär, K., Reinsch, T., Freymark, J., Mielke, P., Strom, A., Wiesner, P., 2015. International rock
property database — fast access to a comprehensive dataset. Der Geothermiekongress
2015. Der Geothermiekongress, Essen. 02.-04.11.2015.
Bauer, S.J., Handin, J., 1983. Thermal expansion and cracking of three confined water-
saturated igneous rocks to 800 °C. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 16 (3):181–198. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01033279.
Beck, A.E., Anglin, F.M., Sass, J.H., 1971. Analysis of heat flow data — in situ thermal con-
ductivity measurements. Can. J. Earth Sci. 8 (1):1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/
e71-001.
Birch, F., 1960. The velocity of compressional waves in rocks to 10 kilobars: 1. J. Geophys.
Res. 65 (4):1083–1102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JZ065i004p01083.
Brigaud, F., Vasseur, G., 1989. Mineralogy, porosity and fluid control on thermal conduc-
tivity of sedimentary rocks. Geophys. J. Int. 98 (3):525–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1365-246X.1989.tb02287.x.
Bullard, E.C., 1939. Heat flow in South Africa. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci. 173
(955):474–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1939.0159.
Burkhardt, H., Honarmand, H., Pribnow, D., 1995. Test measurements with a new thermal
conductivity borehole tool. Heat flow and thermal regimes of continental lithosphere
244 (1–3):161–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(94)00224-W.
Cermak, V., Rybach, L., 1982. Thermal Properties, in: Angenheister, G., Cermák, V.,
Hellwege, K.-H., Landolt, H. (Eds.), Zahlenwerte und Funktionen aus
Naturwissenschaft und Technik: Neue Serie. — Numerical Data and Functional Rela-
tionships in Science and Technology: New Series c. Springer, Berlin, pp. 310–314.
Chaki, S., Takarli, M., Agbodjan, W.P., 2008. Influence of thermal damage on physical
properties of a granite rock: porosity, permeability and ultrasonic wave evolutions.
Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (7):1456–1461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2007.04.002.
Clark, S.P., 1966. Handbook of Physical Constants. Geological Society of America, New
York.
Clauser, C., Huenges, E., 1995. Thermal conductivity of rocks and minerals. Am. Geophys.
Union http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/RF003p0105 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.
1029/RF003p0105/pdf, 105 pp.).
David, C., Menéndez, B., Darot, M., 1999. Influence of stress-induced and thermal cracking
on physical properties and microstructure of La Peyratte granite. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 36 (4):433–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-9062(99)00010-8.
Esteban, L., Pimienta, L., Sarout, J., Piane, C.D., Haffen, S., Geraud, Y., Timms, N.E., 2015.
Study cases of thermal conductivity prediction from P-wave velocity and porosity.
Geothermics 53:255–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2014.06.003.
Fortin, J., Stanchits, S., Vinciguerra, S., Guéguen, Y., 2011. Influence of thermal and me-
chanical cracks on permeability and elastic wave velocities in a basalt from Mt.
Etna volcano subjected to elevated pressure. Tectonophysics 503 (1–2):60–74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2010.09.028.
Fuchs, S., Balling, N., 2016a. Improving the temperature predictions of subsurface thermal
models by using high-quality input data. Part 1: uncertainty analysis of the thermal-
conductivity parameterization. Geothermics 64:42–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2016.04.010.
Fuchs, S., Balling, N., 2016b. Improving the temperature predictions of subsurface
thermal models by using high-quality input data. Part 2: a case study from the
Danish-German border region. Geothermics 64:1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2016.04.004.
143
Fuchs, S., Förster, A., Fuchs, S., Forster, A., 2013. Well-log based prediction of thermal con-
ductivity of sedimentary successions: a case study from the North German Basin.
Geophys. J. Int. 196 (1), ggt382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt382.
Gegenhuber, N., Schön, J., 2012. New approaches for the relationship between compres-
sional wave velocity and thermal conductivity. J. Appl. Geophys. 76:50–55. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.10.005.
Gehlin, S., 2002. Thermal Response Test Method Development and Evaluation. Luleå
University of Technology, Luleå.
Goutorbe, B., Lucazeau, F., Bonneville, A., 2006. Using neural networks to predict thermal
conductivity from geophysical well logs. Geophys. J. Int. 166 (1):115–125. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02924.x.
Gross, R., Combs, J., 1976. Thermal conductivity measurement and prediction from
geophysical well log parameters with borehole application. NASA STI/Recon
Technical Report N 77.
Gu, Y., Rühaak, W., Bär, K., Sass, I., 2017. Using seismic data to estimate the spatial
distribution of rock thermal conductivity at reservoir scale. Geothermics 66:61–72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2016.11.007.
Hammerschmidt, U., Meier, V., 2006. New transient hot-bridge sensor to measure
thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity, and volumetric specific heat. Int.
J. Thermophys. 27 (3):840–865. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10765-006-0061-2.
Hartmann, A., Rath, V., Clauser, C., 2005. Thermal Conductivity from Core and Well log
Data. Rock Physics and GeomechanicsRock Physics and Geomechanics 42 (7–8):
pp. 1042–1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.05.015.
Homuth, S., Götz, A.E., Sass, I., 2015. Reservoir characterization of the Upper Jurassic
geothermal target formations (Molasse Basin, Germany): role of thermofacies as
exploration tool. Geotherm. Energy Sci. 3 (1):41–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gtes-
3-41-2015.
Horai, K.-I., Simmons, G., 1969. Thermal conductivity of rock-forming minerals. Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 6 (5):359–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(69)90186-1.
Horai, K.-I., Susaki, J.-I., 1989. The effect of pressure on the thermal conductivity of silicate
rocks up to 12 kbar. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 55 (3–4):292–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/0031-9201(89)90077-0.
Hyndman, R.D., Davis, E.E., Wright, J.A., 1979. The measurement of marine geothermal
heat flow by a multipenetration probe with digital acoustic telemetry and in situ
thermal conductivity. Mar. Geophys. Res. 4 (2):181–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF00286404.
Jaeger, J.C., 1958. The measurement of thermal conductivity and diffusivity with cylindri-
cal probes. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 39 (4):708–710. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1029/TR039i004p00708.
Kukkonen, I.T., Peltoniemi, S., 1998. Relationships between thermal and other
petrophysical properties of rocks in Finland. Phys. Chem. Earth 23 (3):341–349.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0079-1946(98)00035-4.
Kuriyagawa, M., Matsunaga, I., Yamaguchi, T., 1983. An In Situ Determination of the Ther-
mal Conductivity of Granitic Rock. International Society for Rock Mechanics.
Lehr, C., Sass, I., 2014. Thermo-optical parameter acquisition and characterization of geo-
logic properties: a 400-m deep BHE in a karstic alpine marble aquifer. Environ. Earth
Sci. 72 (5):1403–1419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3310-x.
Mielke, P., Bär, K., Sass, I., 2017. Determining the relationship of thermal conductivity and
compressional wave velocity of common rock types. PANGAEA http://dx.doi.org/10.
1594/PANGAEA.874146.
Mielke, P., Nehler, M., Bignall, G., Sass, I., 2015. Thermo-physical rock properties and the
impact of advancing hydrothermal alteration — a case study from the Tauhara geo-
thermal field, New Zealand. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 301:14–28. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2015.04.007.
Mielke, P., Weinert, S., Bignall, G., Sass, I., 2016. Thermo-physical rock properties of
greywacke basement rock and intrusive lavas from the Taupo Volcanic Zone, New
Zealand. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.
Milsch, H.H., Spangenberg, E., Kulenkampff, J., Meyhöfer, S., 2008. A new apparatus for
long-term petrophysical investigations on geothermal reservoir rocks at simulated
in-situ conditions. Transp. Porous Media 74 (1):73–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11242-007-9186-4.
Nara, Y., Meredith, P.G., Yoneda, T., Kaneko, K., 2011. Influence of macro-fractures and
micro-fractures on permeability and elastic wave velocities in basalt at elevated pres-
sure. Tectonophysics 503 (1–2):52–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2010.09.027.
Özkahraman, H.T., Selver, R., Işık, E.C., 2004. Determination of the thermal conductivity of
rock from P-wave velocity. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41 (4):703–708. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.01.002.
Parker, W.J., Jenkins, R.J., Butler, C.P., Abbott, G.L., 1961. Flash method of determining ther-
mal diffusivity, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity. J. Appl. Phys. 32 (9):1679.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1728417.
Pei, L., Rühaak, W., Stegner, J., Bär, K., Homuth, S., Mielk, P., Sass, I., 2014. Thermo-Triax: an
apparatus for testing petrophysical properties of rocks under simulated geothermal
reservoir conditions. Geotech. Test. J. 38 (1):20140056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/
GTJ20140056.
Pimienta, L., Sarout, J., Esteban, L., Piane, C.D., 2014. Prediction of rocks thermal conductiv-
ity from elastic wave velocities, mineralogy and microstructure. Geophys. J. Int. 197
(2):860–874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggu034.
Popov, Y.A., Pribnow, D.F., Sass, J.H., Williams, C.F., Burkhardt, H., 1999. Characterization of
rock thermal conductivity by high-resolution optical scanning. Geothermics 28 (2):
253–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-6505(99)00007-3.
Popov, Y., Romushkevich, R., Korobkov, D., Mayr, S., Bayuk, I., Burkhardt, H., Wilhelm, H.,
2011. Thermal properties of rocks of the borehole Yaxcopoil-1 (Impact Crater
Chicxulub, Mexico). Geophys. J. Int. 184 (2):729–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-246X.2010.04839.x.
Popov, Y., Tertychnyi, V., Romushkevich, R., Korobkov, D., Pohl, J., 2003. Interrelations be-
tween thermal conductivity and other physical properties of rocks: experimental
144 P. Mielke et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 140 (2017) 135–144
data. Pure Appl. Geophys. 160 (5–6):1137–1161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
PL00012565.
Pribnow, D., Williams, C.F., Burkhardt, H., 1993. Well log-derived estimates of thermal
conductivity in crystalline rocks penetrated by the 4-km deep KTB Vorbohrung.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 20 (12):1155–1158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/93GL00480.
Robertson, E.C., 1979. Thermal Conductivity of Rocks (Open File Report 79-356).
Sass, J.H., Lachenbruch, A.H., Munroe, R.J., 1971. Thermal conductivity of rocks from mea-
surements on fragments and its application to heat-flow determinations. J. Geophys.
Res. 76 (14):3391–3401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JB076i014p03391.
Sass, I., Stegner, J., 2012. Coupled measurements of thermophysical and hydraulic
properties of unsaturated and unconsolidated rocks. Thirty-Seventh Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford (30.01–01.02.2012).
Sass, I., Welsch, B., Bär, K., Schulte, D.O., Rühaak, W., Chauhan, S., 2015. Report 375/13-14:
Simulation und Evaluierung von Kopplungs- und Speicherkonzepten regenerativer
Energieformen zur Heizwärmeversorgung.
Schintgen, T., Förster, A., Förster, H.-J., Norden, B., 2015. Surface heat flow and lithosphere
thermal structure of the Rhenohercynian Zone in the greater Luxembourg region.
Geothermics 56:93–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.03.007.
Schön, J. (Ed.), 2015. Physical Properties of Rocks: Fundamentals and Principles of
Petrophysics. Elsevier, Amsterdam Netherlands (1 online resource).
Siratovich, P.A., Villeneuve, M.C., Cole, J.W., Kennedy, B.M., Bégué, F., 2015. Saturated
heating and quenching of three crustal rocks and implications for thermal
stimulation of permeability in geothermal reservoirs. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 80:
265–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.09.023.
Somerton, W.H., 1958. Some Thermal Characteristics of Porous Rocks. Society of Petro-
leum Engineers.
Somerton, W.H., 1992. Thermal properties and temperature-related behavior of rock/
fluid systems *rock-fluid*. Elsevier, Amsterdam u.a., VIII, 257 S.
Vinciguerra, S., Trovato, C., Meredith, P.G., Benson, P.M., 2005. Relating seismic velocities,
thermal cracking and permeability in Mt. Etna and Iceland basalts. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 42 (7–8):900–910. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.05.022.
Vosteen, H.-D., Schellschmidt, R., 2003. Influence of temperature on thermal conductivity,
thermal capacity and thermal diffusivity for different types of rock. Phys. Chem. Earth
A/B/C 28 (9–11):499–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-7065(03)00069-X.
Walsh, J.B., Decker, E.R., 1966. Effect of pressure and saturating fluid on the thermal con-
ductivity of compact rock. J. Geophys. Res. 71 (12):3053–3061. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1029/JZ071i012p03053.
Williams, C.F., Anderson, R.N., 1990. Thermophysical properties of the Earth's crust: in situ
measurements from continental and ocean drilling. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 95
(B6):9209–9236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JB095iB06p09209.
Zimmerman, R.W., 1989. Thermal conductivity of fluid-saturated rocks. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 3
(3):219–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0920-4105(89)90019-3.