European Journal of Remote Sensing

ISSN: (Print) 2279-7254 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejr20

Analysis of the relationships between the

thermophysical properties of rocks in the
Dandong Area of China

Wei Zhu, XiaoSi Su & Qiang Liu

To cite this article: Wei Zhu, XiaoSi Su & Qiang Liu (2020): Analysis of the relationships between
the thermophysical properties of rocks in the Dandong Area of China, European Journal of Remote
Sensing, DOI: 10.1080/22797254.2020.1763205

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2020.1763205

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 19 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tejr20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2020.1763205

Analysis of the relationships between the thermophysical properties of rocks

in the Dandong Area of China
Wei Zhua,b,c, XiaoSi Sua,b and Qiang Liuc
a
College of New Energy and environment, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China; bKey Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and
Environment, Ministry of Education, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China; cShenyang Geological Survey Center of China Geological
Survey, Shenyang, Liaoning, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Data of this paper analysis indicates that the thermal conductivity increases with increasing Received 10 March 2020
water content. X-ray diffraction was used to analyze the mineral compositions of the rock Revised 14 April 2020
samples. The rock samples were found to contain quartz, alkali-feldspar, and plagioclase. A Accepted 27 April 2020
theoretical equation was applied to calculate the skeleton thermal conductivity (λs)of the rocks KEYWORDS
in the Dandong region and the thermal conductivity of the saturated rocks (λsat)after conver- Rock; interaction relation;
sion occurred, which were later compared to the quartz content. The quartz content was found thermal conductivity;
to positively correlate with the skeleton thermal conductivity. Scanning electron microscopy thermophysical parameter;
was used to obtain images of the rock samples, which were used to determine the microscopic mathematic model; X-ray
structure of the different rock types and to determine the relationship between the thermal diffraction spectra
conductivity and the porosity. We determined that the mineral content and porosity of igneous
rocks is far higher than that of sedimentary rocks, and the thermal conductivity of igneous
rocks is generally higher than that of sedimentary rocks. The relationship between thermal
conductivity and porosity was investigated using eight different thermal conductivity-porosity
models. The results indicate that thermal conductivity decreases with increasing porosity.

Introduction et al., 2004; Gao et al., 2015), such as oil and natural
gas exploration and development; the development of
As global warming and energy resource depletion
hydrothermal resources and underground thermal
become more extensive, the need for exploration and
energy; hydrogeological issues; civil engineering; com-
development of geothermal energy is becoming more
posite material production and use; and environmen-
widely recognized, accepted, and valued. By 2010,
tal and geotechnical engineering.
there were 40 countries invested in the development
Many studies have been conducted to determine
and use of geothermal energy. Because geothermal
the relationships between the various thermophysical
energy is based on rich reserves, stable temperatures,
properties of various types of rock. For example, when
and is environmentally friendly, it has attracted a lot of
the influence of the shape and structure of the particles
attention from many governments. In the last few
is not taken into consideration, a correlation is
decades, the development and use of geothermal
observed between the thermal conductivity and the
energy (Figure 1) has rapidly increased, and the col-
porosity of the dry and saturated states. In addition,
lection capacity of geothermal energy installations
models were applied to analyze the relationship
reached 19.8 GW in 2015 in Country.
between the thermal conductivity and the porosity of
In nature, thermal conduction, thermal convection,
low porosity (10–30%) crystalline rocks (Aichlmayr &
and thermal radiation are the three major mechanisms
Kulacki, 2006; Keller et al., 1999; Schön, 2015). These
of thermal energy transmission. Currently, in the field
studies demonstrate that the thermal conductivity of
of geothermal energy exploration, thermal convection
sedimentary rock is smaller in the dry state than in the
and thermal radiation are thought to have a relatively
saturated state (Abid et al., 2014; Cho & Kwon, 2010;
small effect on geothermal energy transport. This
Cho et al., 2009; Schärli & Rybach, 1984; Walsh &
paper primarily investigates the geothermal conduc-
Decker, 1966), air (thermal conductivity: 0.025 W/
tion of various types of rocks, and the primary ther-
(m·K)) fills the pore spaces of rocks in the dry state,
mophysical properties that control the thermal
while water and/or other liquids (the thermal conduc-
conduction process, e.g., the coefficient of thermal
tivity of water: 0.6 W/(m·K); thermal conductivity of
conduction (thermal conductivity), specific heat capa-
oil: 0.1–0.2 W/(m·K)) fill the pores of rocks in the
city, water content, porosity, mineral composition,
saturated state. Using the effective continuity method,
Thermophysical properties play very important roles
Singh et al. (1990) proposed a model for the thermal
in many research fields (Cheng et al., 2013; Demırci

CONTACT Wei Zhu wei_zhu1114@outlook.com College of New Energy and environment, Jilin University, Changchun Jilin, China
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 W. ZHU ET AL.
Figure 1. Geothermal energy use from 1950 to 2.
conductivity of ternary unsaturated porous material;
Cosenza et al. (2003)used a numerical simulation to
investigate the influence of water content and the
degree of saturation on the thermal conductivity; and
Bakker (1997)used the finite element method to deter-
mine the thermophysical properties of a porous med-
ium. Based on the results of previous studies and the
relevant theoretical relationships, this study investi-
gates the thermal physical properties of the rocks in
the vicinity of Dandong, China. We use a variety of
theoretical models, to analyze the relationships
between each of the thermal physical parameters.
The study area is Dandong City in northeastern
China. It is an intermediate-to-high altitude region
characterized by low hills. The samples analyzed
were primarily rocks from the main strata in the
study area. A total of 97 groups of rock samples were
collected including granodiorites, syenogranites, mon-
zonitic granites, siltstones, fine sandstones, sand-
stones, and mudstones. In particular, the thermal
conductivity, water content, and porosity of 26 groups
of samples were analyzed to determine the relation-
ship between the thermal conductivity and water con-
tent. The thermal conductivity, porosity, and mineral
composition of six groups of samples were analyzed to
investigate the relationship between the thermal con-
ductivity and mineral composition. In addition, the
thermal conductivity, porosity, and specific heat capa-
city of 20 groups of samples were analyzed to deter-
mine the relationship between the thermal
conductivity, specific heat capacity, and porosity.
Article have done some work on the topic of this
paper.:1. The main thermophysical property para-
meters involved in the formation rock mass in the
geothermal energy conduction are studied, including
thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, water
content, porosity, mineral composition.2. With the
increase of water content, the thermal conductivity
tends to increase, and the granitic diorite has the least
influence, while the sandstone has the most influ-
ence.3. The X-ray diffraction technology mineral
composition analysis of rock samples, rock samples
containing quartz, alkali feldspar and plagioclase,
using the theoretical formula to calculate the rock
in the area after the skeleton (lambda _s) and the
thermal conductivity coefficient of thermal conduc-
tivity of saturated rocks (lambda _sat), compared
with quartz content, shows a high content of quartz
rock, skeleton coefficient of thermal conductivity is
higher;4. In order to comprehensively analyze the
relationship between thermal conductivity and por-
osity, SEM technology was used to take photographs
of rock samples to obtain the microstructure of dif-
ferent types of rocks. The mineral content and por-
osity of magmatic rocks were obviously better than
that of sedimentary rocks, and the thermal conduc-
tivity of magmatic rocks was generally higher than
that of sedimentary rocks.5. The relationship
between thermal conductivity and porosity was
further studied theoretically more accurately, and 8
thermal conductivity – porosity relationship models
were analyzed. The results showed that thermal con-
ductivity tended to decrease with the increase of
porosity.
Research methods
Experimental methods
The thermal conductivity of the rock was measured in
the laboratory, using a thermal conductivity sensor
(TCS) (Figure 2). The TCS was used to measure the

Figure 2. (a)TCS Thermal conductivity measuring device (b)BRR Geotechnical specific heat capacity tester.
anisotropic thermal conductivity of various types of
rocks along each direction in space.
The specific heat capacity measurements were con-
ducted using a BRR specific heat capacity device, the
combined cooling method, and a high-precision tem-
perature recorder and thermocoupler (Figure 2). The
porosity was obtained using a KS-1 gas permeation
device and the gas method with nitrogen as the testing
medium. Sandstone and mudstone samples were
imaged using a scanning electron microscope (SEM)
in order to analyze the relationship between the thermal
conductivity and porosity of the rocks. Field-emission
environmental SEM (model XL30ESEM-FEG) was
used to investigate the microscopic structures, the
microscopic surface structures, and the distribution of
the micro-pores within the various rocks, thus allowing
for the complete characterization of the relationship
between the thermal conductivity and porosity of the
rocks. Mineral compositions were analyzed using X-ray
diffraction.
Analysis methods
1) The water content of the rock samples was analyzed
in order to determine the relationship between water
content, thermal conductivity, and porosity. The rela-
tionship between the thermal conductivity of the dif-
ferent rock types and water content was obtained after
these properties were measured for the collected sam-
ples. Based on the variations in thermal conductivity,
water content, and porosity of the test specimens in
the dry state (low water content) and the saturated
state (high water content), the relationship between
water content and thermal conductivity due to poros-
ity was determined.
2) X-ray diffraction was used to analyze the mineral
composition of representative rock samples. Fuchs
et al. proposed a geometrical mean model of the ther-
mal conductivity of the rock skeleton where the ther-
mal coefficient of the rock skeleton is equal to the
product of the thermal conductivity of each of the
mineral components forming the rock. Based on
the measured mineral contents of the different rock
samples, modeling was used to calculate the skeleton
thermal conductivity of each rock sample. The thermal
conductivity of each rock skeleton was converted into
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 3
the thermal conductivity of the saturated rock to com-
pare the accuracy of the calculation results. The
mineral component that affected the thermal conduc-
tivity the most was evaluated by comparing the skele-
ton thermal conductivity after the calculation was
performed, the thermal conductivity of the saturated
rock after the conversion was performed, and the
measured laboratory thermal conductivity.
3) The thermal conductivity, porosity, and specific
heat capacity of the rock samples were measured and
compared to investigate the relationships between the
various properties. The data was plotted to investigate
how the thermal conductivity and the specific heat
capacity of the rock varied with porosity. The SEM
images were used to analyze the microscopic structure
of different types of rocks and to compare their
mineral compositions and porosities and determine
the relationship between the thermal conductivity
and the porosity.
Based on the aforementioned analysis, eight practical
theoretical models were used to construct curves of the
thermal conductivity versus porosity for the different
types of rocks. The results were then compared with the
measured values, and the fit of the two data sets was
calculated. In addition, while summarizing the relation-
ship between the thermal conductivity and the porosity,
the most practical of the eight models was selected for
use with the data from the study area. Part of the
coefficient of thermal conductivity of the rock samples
is consistent with the calculated results of the individual
models. Research to try to decrease the skeleton of the
thermal conductivity of the rock sample to the thermal
conductivity of sandstone, 2.55 W/(m·K), if the matrix
thermal conductivity of the sandstone is decreased to
2.55 W/(m·K), We have made relevant attempts. If the
thermal conductivity of the sandstone skeleton is
reduced to 2.55 W/(m·K), It is compared with various
models, The comparison shows that the thermal con-
ductivity of the sandstone fits the result of the Litovskii
model well.
Theoretical models have been widely applied to
study the relationship between porosity and thermal
conductivity. Table 1 shows some theoretical research
models in which the thermal conductivity of the por-
ous material is a function of porosity. In these models,
the thermal conductivity is a function of the skeleton
4 W. ZHU ET AL.

Table 1. Summary of models of the thermal conductivity of a porous medium.

No. Model description Reference
1 λmax ¼ ϕλf þ ð1  ϕÞλs , the geometrical mean model Aichlmayr and Kulacki (2006)
2 3 Litovskii (1980)
λ ¼ λs ð1 
ϕÞ =2 
3 1 2 Ribaud (1937)
λ ¼ λa ϕ =3 þ λs 1  ϕ =3



4 2= 2= 2= Russell (1935)
ϕ 3 þQ 1ϕ 3 1ϕ 3
λ ¼ λs
 ; Q ¼ λs=λ ; λ ¼ λs
 whenϕ ! 1
2= 2= f 2=
ϕ 3 ϕþQ 1ϕ 3 þϕ 1ϕ 3 þϕ
2   3
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h i2 3ϕ 1λs=λ
λ ¼ 4 ½ð3f  1Þλs  þ
1 ð3f 1Þλs λ
; f ¼ 1  Q; For s=λf ¼ 30  Q; Foλ ¼ λs 1  4  f 5; For
3ð1ϕÞ 1λs=λ
4
  f
h i 1 λs=λ
5 Odelevskii (1951)
λs= ! 0; λ ¼ λs 1  3ϕ ; λ ¼ λs 1ϕ ;  ¼  f  ; the corrected Wiener hybrid model, where α is the
λf
1þα λs=λ
2þϕ 1þαϕ
f

h fluid in the i pores

6 λ= ¼ ð1  ϕÞexp n= Huang (1971)
λs ð1  ϕÞ ; n isthegeometricporefactor
λ ¼ ð1  AÞλs ; A ¼ 2n21 ½11ð1 þ ϕÞn ; λ=λs ! 0
n
7 Sugawara and Yoshizawa
2  3 (1961)
8 2þ b=a
Keller et al. (1999)
4 αp b2 5;1
λ2λs 1 þ αg a 2
1þb=a
α  2  
ϕ ¼ αpg ba 2 ¼ ba ; αp is the pore shape; αg is the particle shape; 2b is the pore size; and 2a is tl

thermal conductivity (λs), the thermal conductivity of

the saturated fluid (λf), and the porosity (φ).

Figure 3. Plot of thermal conductivity versus water content for the various rock types (a)Granodiorite; (b) syenogranite; (c) fine
sandstone; and (d) sandstone.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 5

Discussion thermal conductivity of the mineral components.

X-ray diffraction was used to analyze the mineral
Properties that affect thermal conductivity
components of representative rock samples
Relationship between thermal conductivity, water (Table 2). The results indicate that all of the rock
content, and porosity samples contain quartz, alkali-feldspar, and plagio-
The effect of water content on the thermal conductiv- clase, but the contents of these minerals vary among
ity of a rock is mainly due to the fact that the thermal the rock samples.
conductivity of water is higher than that of air. Thus, Fuchs and Förster (2010) proposed a geometrical
when a rock’s pores are filled with water, the thermal mean model in which the thermal conductivity of
conductivity of the rock is higher than when the pores a rock’s matrix is the product of the thermal conduc-
are filled with air. As shown in Figure 3, as water tivity of each of the mineral components in the rock,
content increases, the thermal conductivity of the which is illustrated by the following equation:
rock increases. Because water is the medium within
Y
n
the rock that conducts the heat, different water con- λs ¼ λvoli
(1)
i
tents result in different thermal conductivities i¼1
(Seipold, 1998).
Test results indicate that the thermal conductivity In Equation (1), λs is the thermal conductivity of the
of rock samples in the dry state ranged from 1.2 to rock skeleton in W/(m·°C); λi is the thermal conduc-
3.1 W/(m·K), while the thermal conductivity of rock tivity of the ith mineral in the rock in W/(m·K), and
samples in the saturated state ranged from 1.8 to voli is the content of the ith mineral of the rock.
3.3 W/(m·K). The thermal conductivity of the gran- Based on the mineral contents of the different rock
odiorites in the dry state ranged from 2.6 to samples listed in Table 2, Equation (1) can be used to
2.8 W/(m·K), while that of granodiorites in the satu- calculate the matrix thermal conductivity of each rock
rated state ranged from 2.7 to 3.1 W/(m·K). The sample. Then, the geometrical mean model can be
thermal conductivity of the syenogranites in the dry used to convert the thermal conductivity of the rock
state ranged from 2.2 to 2.8 W/(m·K), while that of skeleton into the thermal conductivity of the saturated
syenogranites in the saturated state ranged from 2.8 rock and to compare the accuracy of the calculations.
to 3.3 W/(m·K). The thermal conductivity of the fine Assuming that the pores are all filled with water (ther-
sandstones in the dry state ranged from 2.2 to 2.5 W/ mal conductivity: 0.6 W/(m·K), the conversion equa-
(m·K), while that of sandstones in the saturated state tion is as follows:
ranged from 2.7 to 4.3 W/(m·K). The thermal con- ϕ
λsat ¼ λs1ϕ λf (2)
ductivity ranges of the different types of rocks in the
dry state are not the same, and the thermal conduc- In Equation (2), λsat is the thermal conductivity of the
tivity ranges of the different types of rocks in the saturated rock in W/(m·K); λf is the thermal conduc-
saturated state are not the same, which is most likely
tivity of the fluid in the pores in W/(m·K); and ϕ is the
due to factors such as the mineral composition and
porosity of the rock.
structure of the rocks. The difference in the water
Table 3 presents the skeleton thermal conductivity
contents of the different types of rocks is related to
of the rock samples, the thermal conductivity of the
porosity. For example, granodiorite has a low poros-
saturated rock after the conversion was performed,
ity and a correspondingly low water content of
and the measured thermal conductivity. The matrix
approximately 2%, while sandstone has a relatively
thermal conductivity is closely related to the quartz
high porosity and a correspondingly high water con-
content of the rock (Table 3). Rocks with a high quartz
tent of approximately 20%.
content also have a relatively high matrix thermal
Based on the above analysis, the thermal conduc-
conductivity because the thermal conductivity of
tivity of the dry and saturated states are not as different
quartz is higher than that of the other minerals. By
for lower porosity rocks, i.e., the lower the porosity of
comparing the calculated thermal conductivity and
the rock, the less affect water content has on the rock’s
thermal conductivity. Conversely, the greater the por-
osity, the greater affect water content has on the rock’s Table 2. Mineral contents of the rock samples.
thermal conductivity (Figure 3). Relative mineral contents (%)
Alkali-
Sample # Rock type Quartz feldspar Plagioclase Other
Relationship between thermal conductivity and HGSC4-7 Granodiorite 28 17 25 30
mineral composition HGSC9-16 41 13 19 27
The thermal conductivity is a combination of the ZCHG4-7 Syenogranite 55 19 24 3
S1-6 Sandstone 53 16 13 18
thermal conductivity of the minerals and that of XS5-7 Fine 31 5 4 60
the fluids within the pore spaces of the rock. Thus, sandstone
N3-7 Mudstone 27 3 4 66
the thermal conductivity of the rock is related to the
6 W. ZHU ET AL.

Table 3. Thermal conductivity, saturated thermal conductivity, from Figure 4, there is no significant relationship
and measured values for different rock samples after between specific heat capacity and porosity, i.e.,
calculation. thermal conductivity is relatively low when porosity
Calculated ther-
mal conductivity is relatively high. This is because the thermal con-
Measured thermal
(W/(m·K)) conductivity (W/ ductivity of a liquid or a gas is far smaller than that
Sample # Rock type λs λsat (m·K)) of a mineral. For different types of rocks, the poros-
HGSC4-7 Granodiorite 3.311 3.092 2.870 ity can vary substantially due to differences in the
HGSC9-16 3.818 3.678 2.912
ZCHG4-7 Syenogranite 4.382 3.741 3.129 conditions under which the rock formed. The por-
S1-6 Sandstone 3.959 2.457 2.224 osity of the granodiorite is the lowest (<5%), while
XS5-7 Fine sandstone 3.513 2.440 2.415
N3-7 Mudstone 3.529 3.271 3.212
the porosity of the sandstone is relatively
Note. The thermal conductivity of the different minerals: quartz = 7.7 W/ high (>10%).
(m·K); alkali-feldspar = 2.3 W/(m·K); and alkali-feld = 2.31 W/(mK). SEM imaging was performed on representative
samples of granodiorite, syenogranite, sandstone, and
mudstone to more fully analyze the relationship
the measured thermal conductivity of the saturated between the thermal conductivity and porosity of
rocks, it becomes apparent that the two thermal con- these rocks. These SEM images (Figure 5) illustrate
ductivity values of the partial samples are similar. the differences in the microscopic structures of the
However, some samples still exhibit relatively large different types of rocks. The mineral content and
differences, which may be due to the accuracy of the porosity of igneous rocks are far higher than that of
equation used for the calculation and/or the error in the sedimentary rocks, which is reflected by the ther-
the measured values introduced by the equipment mal conductivity of the rock, i.e., the thermal conduc-
used. Based on these comparisons, we conclude that tivity of igneous rocks is typically higher than that of
there is a relationship between the thermal conductiv- sedimentary rocks.
ity of the rock and its mineral composition, and thus, Based on the aforementioned analysis, the models
the thermal conductivity of a rock can be calculated in Table 1 were used to create and compare the var-
based on its mineral composition. iance curves of thermal conductivity versus porosity of
the different types of rocks. The curve that best fit the
Relationship between thermal conductivity, specific measured data is that of the model most suitable for
heat capacity, and porosity determining the thermal conductivity.
The porosity of a rock is one of the most important In this study, the thermal conductivity in these
variables that influence its thermophysical proper- models is a function of the skeleton thermal conduc-
ties. By measuring the thermal conductivity, poros- tivity (λs), the saturated fluid thermal conductivity (λf),
ity, and specific heat capacity of the different types and the porosity (φ). The thermal conductivity model
of rocks (Table 4), the variation in thermal conduc- is related to the solid-to-fluid thermal conductivity
tivity and specific heat capacity can be determined ratio (λs/λf).]Aichlmayr and Kulacki (2006)divided all
as a function of porosity (Figure 4). As can be seen of the theoretical models into three categories: 1) those
with low solid-fluid thermal conductivity ratios (1 < λs
/λf< 10); 2) those with intermediate solid-fluid thermal
Table 4. Thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, and
porosity of the rock samples. conductivity ratios (10 < λs/λf< 103); and 3) those with
Specific high solid-fluid thermal conductivity ratios (103< λs
Thermal heat /λf). For a rock that is not influenced by water content,
conductivity Porosity capacity
# Rock type Sample # W/(m·K) (%) kJ/(kg·K)
i.e., a rock in the dry state, the thermal conductivity of
1 Granodiorite HGSC2-3 2.887 3.08 0.749 the rock has a high solid-fluid thermal conductivity
2 HGSC9-1 2.739 4.35 0.787 ratio.
3 HGSC6-2 2.791 4.27 0.762
4 HGSC4-1 2.871 3.32 0.818
By using the models in Table 1, Figure 6 compares
5 HGSC3-1 2.392 6.26 0.887 the measured values and the curves of thermal con-
6 HGSC5-2 2.295 7.59 0.907 ductivity vs. porosity for all seven models for the
7 HGSC2-16 2.708 1.91 0.779
8 HGSC3-15 2.912 1.73 0.760 granodiorite, syenogranite, and sandstone. As can be
9 Syenogranite ZCHG-32 2.508 8.54 0.938 seen from Figure 7, the variance curves of the thermal
10 ZCHG-21 2.607 6.85 0.867
11 ZCHG-15 2.459 8.87 0.859 conductivity versus porosity are different for the dif-
12 ZCHG-6 2.469 8.75 0.961 ferent types of rocks, which is primarily due to the
13 Sandstone S1-6 1.870 18.58 0.766
14 S2-9 1.868 18.12 0.738 different thermal conductivities of their rock skele-
15 Fine sandstone XS3–41 2.018 20.59 1.048 tons. In addition, it can be seen that the variance
16 XS4-19 2.507 13.31 0.893
17 XS5-22 2.271 9.87 0.952
curves of the syenogranite and the sandstone are
18 XS6-40 2.510 12.11 1.134 both greater than the measured values, indicating
19 XS7-9 2.329 10.87 1.029 that the thermal conductivity of the rocks cannot be
20 Mudstone N6-17 2.167 3.75 0.917
effectively calculated by these models. Only the
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 7

Figure 4. Plot of thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity versus porosity.

Figure 5. SEM images of the various rock types.(a) granodiorite; (b) syenogranite; (c) sandstone; and (d) mudstone.

thermal conductivity of the granodiorite is relatively
close to the model of Sugawara and Yoshizawa.; how-
ever, the models do not satisfactorily match the mea-
sured data, indicating that these models are not
effective for the rock samples studied in this paper.
The thermal conductivities of the partial rock sam-
ples are consistent with the results of several models.
The skeleton thermal conductivity of the rock sample
used affects the fit of the models, and the variance
curves of several models satisfactorily fit the measured
values. For example, if the skeleton thermal conduc-
tivity of the sandstone is decreased to 2.55 W/(m·K),
then the thermal conductivity of the sandstone fits the
result of the Litovskii model well.
Figure 7 shows the thermal conductivity curvesof
the different types of rocks calculated using the Keller
model, which accounts for the effect of the shape of
the pores on the thermal conductivity. This model
considers the impact of the ratio of the pore size to
the particle size (b/a, where 2b is the pore size and 2a
8 W. ZHU ET AL.

Figure 6. Plots of thermal conductivity versus porosity for the different types of rocks. (a)Thermal conductivity calculated by the
various theoretical models and (b) the measurement thermal conductivity values. The measured thermal conductivity values are
from the 1: geometrical mean model; 2: Russell model (Russell, 1935); 3: Odeleyskii model(Odelevskii, 1951); 4: Litovskii model
(Litovskii, 1980); 5: Ribaud model (Ribaud, 1937); 6: Huang model (Huang, 1971); and 7: Sugawara and Yoshizawa model
(Sugawara & Yoshizawa, 1961).

is the particle size) on the thermal conductivity. The
curves of thermal conductivity versus porosity fit the
measured results of the rock samples well; thus, we
conclude that this model can be used to calculate the
thermal conductivity of the various types of rocks.
Conclusions
(1) The thermal conductivity of the rock samples
increased with increasing water content. The differ-
ences in the water contents of the various types of rock
are related to differences in their porosities, i.e., lower
porosity results in the saturated state affecting the
thermal conductivity of the rock less.
(2) Rocks are composed of minerals and the pore
space between them. Therefore, the thermal conductiv-
ity of a rock is the combined result of the thermal
conductivity of the minerals forming the rock and the
fluids in the pore spaces. Thermal conductivity is closely
related to the quartz content of the rock because quartz
has a high thermal conductivity.
(3) If two samples have the same mineral content, then
the thermal conductivity of the high porosity sample will
be lower. By comparing the plot of thermal conductivity
versus porosity of the eight models of the different types of
rocks with the corresponding measured values we
assessed the effectiveness of the various models in deter-
mining the thermal conductivities of the different types of
rocks. We conclude that the Keller model is the most
appropriate model for the samples in the study area.
Because of the importance of heat conduction in the
geothermal field, thermal conductivity is the key factor in
studying geothermal energy transport. The thermal con-
ductivity of the rock is closely related to its influencing
factors. Therefore, even for the same rock sample, when
different influencing factors are considered, the thermal
conductivity determined by different scholars can be sig-
nificantly different. Thus, in this paper, the rocks in the
Dandong region were studied in detail to determine the
relationship between the coefficient of thermal conductiv-
ity and its various influencing factors. Our results provide
important information that can be used in the develop-
ment of geothermal energy exploitation and development.
Key Points
● The interaction between thermal and physical para-
meters of rock was analyzed by using X-ray diffraction,
SEM imaging and the model of thermal conductivity -
porosity function.

Figure 7. Plots of thermal conductivity versus porosity for the different types of rocks.Calculated using (a) the Keller model(Keller
et al., 1999)and (b) the measured thermal conductivity values.
● The thermal conductivity of rock increases with the increase
of water content.The quartz content of rock is high and the
thermal conductivity is high.The thermal conductivity of
rock decreases with the increase of porosity.
● Our results provide important information that can be used in
the development of geothermal energy exploitation and
development.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 9
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the journal editors and the
reviewers, their comments help to improve the paper con-
siderably. We also thank the staff of jilin university and
shenyang geological survey center for their help in this
field.
10 W. ZHU ET AL.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding
The research was financially supported by China’s ministry
of natural resources China geological survey project (ref.:
12120114086501 and DD20189504)
References
Abid M Hammerschmidt U, K€ohler J. (2014). Temperature
and moisture dependent thermophysical properties of
Sander sandstone. International Journal of Thermal
Sciences, 86, 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijther
malsci.2014.06.021
Aichlmayr, H, & Kulacki, F. (2006). The effective thermal con-
ductivity of saturated porous media. Advances in Heat
Transfer, 39, 377–460. doi:10.1016/S0065-2717(06)39004-1
Bakker, K. (1997). Using the finite element method to compute
the influence of complex porosity and inclusion structures on
the thermal and electrical conductivity. International Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer, 40(15), 3503–3511. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0017-9310(97)00017-3
Wen-Long Cheng, Yong-Le Nian, Tong-Tong Li, Chang-
Long Wang, 2013. Estimation of oil reservoir thermal
properties through temperature log data using inversion
method. Energy, 55, 1186-1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2013.04.044
Cho, W., & Kwon, S. (2010). Estimation of the thermal
properties for partially saturated granite. Engineering
Geology, 115(1–2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2010.06.007
Cho, W., Kwon, S., & Choi, J. (2009). The thermal conductivity for
granite with various water contents. Engineering Geology, 107
(3–4), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.05.012
Cosenza, P., Guerin, R., & Tabbagh, A. (2003). Relationship
between thermal conductivity and water content of soils
using numerical modelling. European Journal of Soil
Science, 54(3), 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2389.2003.00539.x
Demırci, A., Görgülü, K., & Durutürk, Y. (2004). Thermal
conductivity of rocks and its variation with uniaxial and
triaxial stress. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 41(7), 1133–1138. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.04.010
Fuchs, S., & Förster, A. J. (2010). Rock thermal conductivity
of mesozoic geothermal aquifers in the northeast german
basin. Chemie Der Erde-geochemistry, 70(S3). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chemer.2010.05.010
Gao, P, Zhang, Yan,J, Zi, W, Fang, J, & Zhang, Q. (2015).
Correlation study of shallow layer rock and soil thermal
physical tests in laboratory and field. Geothermics, 53,
508-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2014.09.
005
Huang, J. H. (1971). Effective thermal conductivity of
porous rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research, 76
(26), 6420–6427. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB076i026
p06420
Keller, T., Motschmann, U., & Engelhard, L. (1999).
Modelling the poroelasticity of rocks and ice.
Geophysical Prospecting, 47(4), 509–526. https://doi.org/
10.1046/j.1365-2478.1999.00131.x
Litovskii, E. Y. (1980). Interpolation formula for the expres-
sion of thermal conductivity of solid materials on poros-
ity. Izvestiia Akademii Nauk Sssr Seriianeorganicheskie
Materialy, 16, 559–560.
Odelevskii, V. (1951). Calculation of the generalized con-
ductivity of heterogeneous systems. Journal of Technical
Physics (USSR), 21(6), 678–685.
Ribaud, M. (1937). Theoretical study of thermal conductiv-
ity of porous and pulverulent materials. Chaleur and
Industry, 18, 36.
Russell, H. (1935). Principles of heat flow in porous
insulators. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 18
(1–12), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151–2916.1935.
tb19340.x
Schärli, U., & Rybach, L. (1984). On the thermal conductivity
of low-porosity crystalline rocks. Tectonophysics, 103(1–4),
307–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(84)90092-1
Schön, J. H. (2015). Physical properties of rocks: Fundamentals
and principles of petrophysics (Vol. 65). Elsevier.
Seipold, U. (1998). Temperature dependence of thermal
transport properties of crystalline rocks—a general law.
Tectonophysics, 291(1–4), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0040-1951(98)00037-7
Singh, A. K., Singh, R., & Chaudhary, D. (1990). Prediction
of effective thermal conductivity of moist porous
materials. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 23(6),
698. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/23/6/010
Sugawara, A., & Yoshizawa, Y. (1961). An investigation on
the thermal conductivity of porous materials and its
application to porous Rook. Australian Journal of
Physics, 14(4), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1071/
PH610469
Walsh, J., & Decker, E. (1966). Effect of pressure and satur-
ating fluid on the thermal conductivity of compact rock.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 71(12), 3053–3061.
https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ071i012p03053