Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Soil Permeability From PSD
Soil Permeability From PSD
Permeability, andgrain-size
distribution
ofselected
Pliocene sediments
and0uaternary
Basin
in theAlbuquerque
by DanielM. Detmer,361Bonita Drive, Ojai, C493023
F +
size and abundance of fine grains in the sediment samples. ao i + +
Pearson correlation coef{icients for permeabilitv correlated with : +
!) + +
sample parameters are in Table 1. Complete sample values were
d
derived from the entire sediment sample, and cut samr:le values o
i
were calculated with clasts larger-morethan 2 mm in diameter exclud- 1 ""-.----'........-- "--'f'
+
ed. Data points are clustered densely for the cut samples
than for the complete distributions. However, correlation of mea-
sured permeability with drc, drc, and dy in phi units is better for
the complete samples than the cut samples. moderate
uncemented cementation
Figs. 3 and 4 are scatter plots of d16 and d2gof the complete sam-
ples plotted with measured permeability. The d16 diameter in mil- 0.1
limeters has a correlation of r = 0.803 with measured permeabili-
ty. The effective diameter d16 in phi units has a correlation coeffi-
cient of r = 0.836, whereas d2ghas a correlation coefficient of r = Degree of Cementadon
0.818. Squaring the correlation coefficients reveals how much of
the variance in the permeability values is explained by each para- FIGURE 2-Influence of cementation on permeability
meter. The effective diameter d16 in millimeters explains 64.5% of
the variability in permeability, and d16 in phi units explains 69.9%
of the variability in the permeability measurements. The Kruger
effective diameter, determined from the entire grain-size distribu-
tion of each sample, has a correlation of r = 0.621 with measured found in this study to have a correlation coefficient of only r =
permeability (Fig. 5). 0.654 with measured permeability. Correlation is slightly better
, The correlatioi of (drc)2, (d1)2, and (d2g)2with permeability for with souared diameters taken from the cut samples.
the complete samples is considerably worse than correlation with Grain-size-distribution parameters, determined by moment
unsquared effective diameters. The effective diameter term (d16)2 measurements, are compared with permeability. Mean grain size
is used in several published permeability equations, including the is the only traditional statistical distribution parameter with
Beyer and Hazen equations (Vukovic and Soro, 1992), and is meaningfui correlation with permeability. Skewness, percent
100 100
9 I
d
:+
h
o I
i+
o o
I I
0.1 0.1
-l
dro Grain Size, Complete Sample (phi) Kruger Effecdve Dameter, Complete Sample (phi)
FIGURE 3-Influence of d1g phi on permeability, complete distribution. FIGURE S-Influence of Kruger effective diameter on permeabiiit5r
1000
^ 100
0.629 0.713
a9
Hazen 0.697 0.653 100
Kruger 0.783 0.723 I
USBR 0.584 0.772 I
Zarnarin 0.753 0.690 W.'{j
ttt
o"o
.:o
aa !
i . i/ ^ e " -i
i o *q - -- -.--.-.-
-^|----
,i ..2/tf.b..l,
l0 ;--:--y'--,*-^-^d ^--.
^o
effective diameters in phi units than in millimeters. The correla- o
.F
tion coefficient betweeh d1g and permeability is r = 0.851 for the
complete samples, and / = 0.846 for the cut samples. Correlation
between d2g and permeability for the complete samples is / =
0.834, and r = 0.863 for the cut samples. The mean grain diameter
of the cut samples correlate well with the lo916 of measured per-
meability, with a coefficient of r = 0.872. Squaring this term shows
that 76% of the variabilitv in the measured permeabilitv values
can be explained by the mean grain size of the samples.
Correlation of the lo916 of permeability with the standard devia-
tion, skewness, percent pebbles, and maximum intermediate l0
diameter of the largest clast of the samples is poor.
( Darcys)
Permeability
Measured
Comparison of measured permeability
FIGURE 7-Permeability predicted by Hazen equation, compared to
with published permeability equations
measuredvalues.
Table 3 presents Pearson correlation coefficients for measured
permeabilily values compared to values predicted by a number of
published empirical permeability equations. Comparisons are which is converted to darcys for comparison with measured per-
based on 100 outcrop samples, representing the most common meability values. A water temperature of 10-C was used for all
beds in the deposits studied in this report, having permeabilities conversions. Figs. 6 through 10 compare measured permeability
in the measurement range of the air-minipermeameter. The Beyer, values to those predicted by the equations listed below.
Hazen, Kruger, USBR, and Zarr.arin equations were applied to the The Bever equation has the form
outcrop samples. AII equations are taken from Vukovic and Soro
(1992). The original equations predict hydraulic conductivity, x= C.(dn)2
h
i
i
i '
i
i '&4i"
"./i#{?
t+/hi ooo
9
a6.
i
eai o
oo
o+
!
i,./&6.t: +a
>: i i /,"io'o
i .i,/
+i,/ '
o oloi
o + 9i o
o
! i
-i-----1- . - - ----- o
o 10 /:t--t--'- i o 10
.i ' ./-i"o. i
o '17.6otr.n.
oi i
o
1 ,1. '1 i o
i , a,-{
i i
i :
0.r
0.1 10 100 1000 0.1 10 100 1000
FIGURE 8-Permeability ptedicted by Kruger equation, compared to FIGURE 10-Permeability predicted by Zamarin equation, compared to
measured values. measured values.
1000
ples, providing one of the best fits of the models applied here.
USBRCOMI
USBRCUT T
ii * +. The Hazen equation is
-J j
:./ K=A.c.t(dzd2 e)
t i,/:i
100 i ""f-$***:
I
*+.9---. The term A determinesthe dimensions of hydraulic conductivity,
t " * oo6
ood. being 1 for K in meters per day, and 0.00116for K in centimeters
9 ^ +i . * tj O r
'.i
&o o per second. C is a function of porosity, approximated by C =
H i * 1 o5o. 400+40(n-26),where ,?is percent p^orosity.The f term is a correc-
i
i./
/-rt +
o
di oo
rp
i'^ tion for water viscosity,0.70+0.03("C),and d16is in millimeters.
i1- ...-.--..2... -.t'qt"-- Measured permeability values coffelate well with Hazen values
o
o
t0
ii , /
/l
I
ia
t-'i:
tb o
oi for the complete samples, with a correlation coefficient of r =
0.697.Hazen values for the cut samples tend to underestimate
./c
i,/
i,/ +t ,f, The Kruger equation is
i,/ - 3 i0
oi
9:_. n
----./-----^-t-
100
*'+
:
i+
i '*/i+i+*
r.fr
i * f./:tt,
o o i,,/,'tti : +
jt+-
:
t.5 |
-f
+ '/i r+ !
.9 10
i' vi' i
o o
&
,.i7 i " "- " il------
''f;- '-.----",--
d q) ,/! *,
o i :
ii:
+
+
0.5 ri*.ii
FICURE 12-- Permeability predicted by regression MSP1, compared to FIGURE 14-Permeability predicted by regression LMSP1, compared to
measureo values. measured values.
I I
+
+
2.5 2.5
.4
+
+ +,/ +. +
o o
'a
ri-/-l:
- t< t< ....1/.+.+........:..-a
/r* * o
'!
E1 vl .....-i................-,-,.
d d
o .l i+
+i
i +' ./i+
+/ i* +
/ +i
u.) +------i*-- --.-.
ii /t
t/
i
FIGURE 13-Permeability predicted by d10 regression, compared to mea- FIGURE 15-Permeability predicted by regression LMSP4, compared to
sured values. measured values.
cemented samples and coarse, poorly sorted samples are Consequently, studies have dealt primarily with sandstone that
removed from the plot, correlation between porosity and perme- has been buried to significant depths and compacted by the
abilitv remains Door. weight of overlying sediments. Diagenesis is common at depth,
Some researchers have documented a strong positive relation- with pore-filling cements and comPaction causing reductions in
ship between porosity and permeability, as summarized by porosity and permeability, resulting in a Positive correlation
Nelson (1994). The motivation for most of these studies was eval- between porosity and permeability. InsPection of plots relating
uation of the quality of reservoir rocks for oil and gas recovery. permeability to porosity in many of these reservoir studies reveals