IPTC 10994

A Modified Purcell/Burdine Model for Estimating Absolute Permeability From MercuryInjection Capillary Pressure Data
C.C. Huet, SPE, Texas A&M U.; J.A. Rushing, SPE, Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; K.E. Newsham, SPE, Apache Corp.; and
T.A. Blasingame, SPE, Texas A&M U.

Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 2123 November 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper presents the development and validation of a new
semi-analytical, statistically-derived model for estimating
absolute permeability from mercury-injection capillary
pressure data. The foundations of our new model are the
classic Purcell1 and Burdine2 equations which relate absolute
permeability to capillary-pressure/wetting-phase-saturation
properties. We also incorporate characteristic capillary pressure behavior using the Brooks-Corey3 power-law model.
The final form of our proposed model allows us to compute
absolute permeability as a function of effective porosity, irreducible wetting phase saturation, displacement or threshold
pressure, and basic pore size characteristics. We tested and
correlated our model using 89 sets of mercury-injection (Hgair) capillary pressure data including core samples from
both carbonate and sandstone lithologies. In summary, we
found that our model consistently yields accurate results for a
wide range of rock properties.
Introduction
The fundamental relationships between pore size/geometry
and basic rock properties (e.g., effective porosity, absolute
permeability, etc.) are well-documented in the petroleum and
petrophysics literature. Moreover, the literature is replete with
models for estimating or predicting permeability from basic
rock properties. Nelson4 has developed a comprehensive review of the literature, and he has identified five major
categories of permeability models based on the physical rock
attributes used in the model development: The five major
model categories specified by Nelson are:
1. Petrophysical models,
2. Models based on grain size and mineralogy,
3. Models based on surface area and water saturation,
4. Well log models, and
5. Models based on basic rock pore dimensions.

In this paper, we focus on models that incorporate basic rock

pore characteristics and dimensions, and specifically, pore
characteristics as determined from capillary pressure data.
Nelson has further classified these particular models as direct
types since they not only relate rock permeability directly to
the pore dimensions and connectivity, but also incorporate
fundamental theories of fluid flow through porous media.
Most of these direct methods especially the early models
developed in the 1940s and 1950s use mercury-injection
capillary pressure data to quantify the rock pore and pore
throat characteristics.
Although the physical basis for the existing direct models is
similar, we have observed varying (even inconsistent) results
among the various "theoretical" models. The primary motivation for our work is to "close the loop" on relating mercuryinjection capillary pressure data and the simplified "bundle of
tubes" permeability models proposed by Purcell1 and Burdine2 and extended to incorporate the power law pc(Sw) model
by Brooks-Corey.3
Consequently, the principal objective of this work is to develop and document a "universal" model which provides a more
consistent correlation of permeability with mercury capillary
pressure data for a much wider range of rock types. We begin
with a review of the models developed previously and we
then document the validation of our generalization of the
Purcell-Burdine-Brooks-Corey k(Hg) model.
Permeability ModelsHistorical Perspective
Leverett J-Function (J(Sw)): (ref. 5)
One of the first correlation models for petrophysical properties
was proposed by Leverett5 who developed a relationship
between wetting phase saturation and the interfacial curvature
between the wetting and non-wetting fluids in the pore throats
(this relationship is based primarily on a dimensional balance
of the parameters (e.g., k/ is an "equivalent length")). This
concept (i.e., the "J-function") was proposed by Leverett as a
dimensionless function that could be used to normalize capillary pressure data for a range of rock properties.
The Leverett J-function is defined as
J (S w ) =

pc
cos

k/ ..................................................... (1)

Where:
k

= permeability, cm2 (1 D = 9.86923x10-9 cm2)

IPTC 10994

J(Sw) =

=
Sw =
pc =
k/ =

dimensionless capillary pressure-saturation function

interfacial tension, dynes/cm
contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians
porosity, fraction of pore volume
wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
capillary pressure, dynes/cm2
equivalent length, cm

Purcell Permeability Relation: (ref. 1)

In 1949, Purcell1 developed an equation relating absolute
permeability to the area under the capillary pressure curve
generated from mercury injection. We note that Purcell's
equation assumes that fluid flow can be modeled using
Poiseuille's Law where the rock pore system is represented by
a bundle of parallel (but tortuous) capillary tubes of various
radii. Further, the range of tube radii are characterized by the
pore size distribution as computed from the area under the
capillary pressure curve.
Purcell's original permeability model is given by:
k = 10.66 ( Hg air cos ) 2 FP

11

0 p

2
c

dS w .....................(2)

where:
k
= permeability, md
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)2/(dynes/cm)2
FP = Purcell lithology factor, dimensionless
Hg-air = mercury-air interfacial tension, dynes/cm

= contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians

= porosity, fraction of pore volume

Sw = wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
pc = capillary pressure, psia

We note that FP is the Purcell "lithology factor" which is used

to represent the differences between the hypothetical model
and actual rock pore system. The FP "lithology factor" is an
empirical correction that Purcell determined for several different core samples over a range of absolute permeability values.
Rose and Bruce Study: (ref. 6)
In 1949, Rose and Bruce6 conducted a sensitivity study of rock
properties and their impact on the shape of mercury-injection
capillary pressure curves. They showed that the measured
capillary pressure depends on pore configuration, rock surface
properties and fluid properties. Rose and Bruce also found
that capillary pressure curves can be used to characterize the
distribution, orientation, shape and tortuosity of the pore
system as well as the interfacial and interstitial surface
area. Although Rose and Bruce did not propose a permeability relation, they did demonstrate the use of the Leverett JFunction (Eq. 1) (with extensions of their own) to generate
relative permeability-saturation profiles.
Calhoun, et al Permeability Relation: (ref. 7)
In 1949, Calhoun, et al7 showed that the Purcell1 lithology
factor (FP) is inversely proportional to the formation tortuosity
factor (). Their study also determined that the internal rock
surface area could be defined in terms of the fluid interfacial
tension, rock-wetting phase fluid contact angle, and the area
under the capillary pressure curve. Additionally, Calhoun, et
al developed a semi-empirical relationship for absolute per-

meability as a function of effective porosity, adhesive tension,

capillary displacement pressure, and the value of the J-Function at 100 percent wetting phase saturation. Calhoun, et al's7
semi-empirical relationship is given as:
k=

1
pd2

[J ( S w )1.0 ]2 (cos ) 2

....................................... (3)

where:
k
=
J(Sw)1.0 =

=
Sw =
pd =

permeability, cm2 (1 D = 9.86923x10-9 cm2)

dimensionless capillary pressure function at Sw =1.0
interfacial tension, dynes/cm
contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians
porosity, fraction of pore volume
wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
capillary displacement pressure, dynes/cm2

We note that Eq. 3 was validated by Calhoun, et al only for

high permeability rocks.
Burdine et al Permeability Relation: (ref. 2)
In 1950, Burdine et al2 extended the Purcell1 model for a
bundle of capillary tubes and showed that the absolute
permeability of a particular rock is a function of pore entry
radii and the mercury-filled pore volume. The Burdine equation is given by:
k = 126

Vi R i

2
i = 0 X i Ri

...................................................... (4)

where:
k
126
Vi
Ri
Ri
Xi
Li
Ltot

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

permeability, md (1 D = 9.86923x10-9 cm2)

units conversion constant (Poiseuille Darcy units)
incremental pore volume filled by mercury, cm3
incremental pore entry radius, cm
average pore entry radius, cm
tortuosity factor (Xi=Li/Ltot), fraction
effective length of flow path, cm
actual length of flow path, cm

We note that the Burdine et al relation is fundamentally similar (in derivation) to the Purcell relation the interested
reader is also directed to an additional reference article (ref. 8)
by Burdine et al where additional detail and clarity of nomenclature are provided for Eq. 4.
Wyllie-Spangler Permeability Relation: (ref. 9)
In 1952, Wyllie and Spangler9 developed a model using the
Purcell/Burdine concept, but Wyllie and Spangler used electric
log properties to determine the tortuosity factor (specifically,
this is given in terms of the formation factor which is defined
as the ratio of the resistivity of the formation at 100 percent
wetting phase saturation to the resistivity of the formation
brine).
The Wyllie-Spangler equation, which relates absolute permeability to mercury-injection capillary-pressure curve properties, is given by
k = 10.66 ( Hg air cos ) 2

FWS F 2

1 1

0 p

2
c

dS w ......... (5)

IPTC 10994

where F is the Archie10-11 formation factor, defined by

F=

Ro
..................................................................(6)
Rw

where:

k
= permeability, md
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)2/(dynes/cm)2
FWS = Wyllie-Spangler shape factor, dimensionless

= contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians

= porosity, fraction of pore volume

Sw = wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
pc = capillary pressure, psia
F = Archie formation factor, dimensionless
Ro = resistivity of formation at Sw=1.0, ohm-m
Rw = resistivity of formation brine, ohm-m
m = empirical constant (cementation factor), dimensionless
a = empirical constant, dimensionless

In Eq. 6, a is an empirical constant (a is often assumed to be

1) and m is the cementation factor (m is often assumed to be 2)
Note that m is a function of pore type, pore geometry and
lithology. Wyllie and Spangler also demonstrate that the
tortuosity factor can be related to the formation factor determined from electric log measurements (Wyllie and Spangler
actually made their developments in terms of the tortuosity
factor, then "converted" their result into a formulation which
uses the formation resistivity factor).
Thomeer Permeability Relation: (ref. 12)
In 1960, Thomeer12 observed that a log-log plot of capillary
pressure could be approximated by a hyperbola. Thomeer
described the hyperbola location on the x-y coordinate system
by the position of the two end-point curve asymptotes, and he
defined the extrapolated asymptotes on the x- and y-axes as
the displacement pressure and the bulk volume occupied by
mercury at an infinite pressure, respectively.
In addition, Thomeer hypothesized that the shape of the
hyperbola reflects the pore geometry, so he used the curve
shape to define a pore geometrical factor. We note that
Thomeer assigned the pore geometric factor a value between 0
and 10, where low values represent large well-sorted pore
openings and high values represent high levels of variation in
pore opening sizes. As a result of these definitions, Thomeer
proposed an empirical equation relating air permeability to
capillary pressure, displacement pressure, non-wetting phase
saturation, and pore geometric factor.
The Thomeer model is given as:

Sb
F / [log( pc /pd )]
=e g
...................................................(7)
Sb
where:
k
pc
pd
Sb
Sb
Fg

carbonate samples, Thomeer13 formulated the following equation that relates absolute permeability to effective porosity,
capillary displacement or threshold pressure, and the pore geometric factor:

=
=
=
=
=
=

permeability, md
capillary pressure, psia
capillary displacement pressure, psia
Hg saturation, fraction of bulk volume
Hg saturation at pc = , fraction of bulk volume
pore geometrical factor, dimensionless

Using laboratory measurements from 165 sandstone and 114

Sb
k = 3.8068 Fg 1.3334 ......................................... (8)
pd
Swanson Permeability Relation: (ref. 14)
As a follow-up effort to Thomeer,12,13 Swanson14 developed an
equation to compute absolute permeability based on specific
capillary pressure curve characteristics. The form of Swanson's equation is: (using the same nomenclature as Thomeer)
a

S 2
k = a1 b .................................................................. (9)
pc A

where:
k

= permeability, md

= "apex" point on log(pc) vs. log(Sb) curve at which a 45o

line becomes tangent

[Sb/pc]A = Hg saturation/capillary pressure "apex," fraction/psia

The subscript "A" (or apex) refers to the maximum ratio of the
mercury saturation to the capillary pressure. Swanson
hypothesized that the maximum ratio occurs at the point at
which all of the major connected pore space is filled with
mercury. Further, the capillary pressure at the apex reflects
the dominant inter-connected pores and pore throats controlling most of the fluid flow characteristics.
The constants a1 and a2 in Eq. 9 represent various rock
lithologies and fluid types, respectively, in the system.
Swanson used regression analysis and correlated the constants
in Eq. 9 with properties from 203 sandstone samples from 41
formations and 116 carbonate samples from 330 formations.
The best fit of the air permeability data was obtained with
1.691

S
k = 389 b
pc A

.......................................................... (10)

Wells and Amaefule Permeability Relation: (ref. 15)

In 1985, Wells and Amaefule15 modified the Swanson approach for low-permeability or "tight gas sands." Wells and
Amaefule found that by plotting the logarithm of mercury
saturation (Sb, percent of bulk volume) against the square root
of capillary pressure-mercury saturation ratio (Sb/pc), they
could observe a well-defined minimum which represents
the inflection point of the capillary pressure curve. Consequently, (Sb/pc) could be calculated as the inverse of the
squared minimum value. Wells and Amaefule then correlated
the Swanson13 parameter with air permeabilities for 35 lowpermeability sandstone samples and developed the following
equations for calculating absolute permeability:
1.56

S
................................................ (11a)
k = 30.5 b
pc A,Hg air

IPTC 10994

1.61

S
.............................................(11b)
k = 1.22 b
pc A,brineair

where:
=
=
=
[Sb/pc]A =
A =
k
pc
Sb

permeability, md
capillary pressure, psia
non-wetting saturation, fraction of bulk volume
non-wetting saturation/cap. pressure "apex," fraction/psia
"apex" point on log(pc) vs. log(Sb) curve at which a 45o
line becomes tangent

Winland Permeability Relation: (ref. 16-17)

A methodology attributed to Winland (no reference other than
company) was documented initially by Kolodzie16 and extended by Pittman17 where regression analysis was used to develop
an empirical relationship that is conceptually similar to Swanson.14 The "Winland" equation describes the relationship for
absolute permeability, effective porosity, and a capillary pressure parameter (R35) as follows:
log R35 = 0.732 + 0.588 log k 0.864 log .....................(12)

where:
k

R35

= permeability, md
= porosity, fraction of pore volume
= pore throat radius at an Hg saturation of 35 percent, m

R35 is the capillary pressure parameter used in the Winland

study specifically, R35 is the pore throat radius (in m) at a
mercury saturation of 35 percent, where this value is a
function of both pore entry size and the sorting of pore throat
sizes. According to Nelson,4 the R35 parameter quantifies the
largest and best-connected pore throats. We note from refs.
16-17 that other capillary pressure parameters (i.e., R30, R40
and R50 values) were considered, but the R35 capillary pressure
curve parameter provided the best statistical fit.
The Winland data set includes 56 sandstone and 26 carbonate
samples with permeability measurements corrected for gas
slippage or Klinkenberg18 effects. This data set also includes
another 240 samples of various lithologies but without
permeabilities corrected for gas slippage effects. We note that
the permeability computed by Eq. 12 is not the Klinkenbergcorrected permeability.
Development and Validation of New Model

The foundations of our correlation model are the classic

Purcell1 and Burdine2 equations which assume that the
porous medium can be modeled as a bundle of parallel (but
tortuous) capillary tubes of various radii. Further, the range of
tube radii are characterized by the pore size distribution as
computed from the area under the capillary pressure curve.
The classic Purcell-Burdine k-model (Eqs. 2 and 4, respectively) has been re-derived by Nakornthap and Evans19 and
this "redevelopment" includes considerations by Wyllie and
Spangler9 and Wyllie and Gardner.20

The final form of the Nakornthap and Evans result, solved for
formation permeability, is given as:
k = 10.66

1
n 2

( Hg air cos ) 2 (1 S wi ) 3 3

1 1
dS *w
2
0 pc

......................................................................................... (13)
where: (written for an Hg-air system (i.e., Sw=Sair)
k
= permeability, md
10.66 = units conversion constant, md-(psia)2/(dynes/cm)2
= pore throat "impedance" factor, dimensionless
n = number of entrances/exits in a pore, dimensionless
Hg-air = mercury-air interfacial tension, dynes/cm

= contact angle of incidence for wetting phase, radians

= porosity, fraction of pore volume

pc = capillary pressure, psia
Sw = wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
Swi = irreducible wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore
volume
S*w = (Sw-Swi)/(1-Swi), "effective" (or normalized) wetting
phase saturation function, dimensionless

The definition of the "effective" (or normalized) wetting phase

saturation function was first proposed by Burdine2 and later
utilized directly by Wyllie and Gardner.20 This definition is
given as:
S S wi
S*w = w
............................................................... (14)
1 S wi

In this approach, we incorporate the capillary pressure curve

characteristics using the Brooks-Corey3 power-law model
which is given by:

S S wi
................................................ (15)
pc = p d w

1 S wi

Where: (writing for an Hg-air system (i.e., Sw=Sair))

pc
pd
Sw
Swi

=
=
=
=

capillary pressure, psia

displacement pressure, psia
wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore volume
irreducible wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore
volume
= Brooks-Corey index of pore-size distribution, dimensionless

Where pd is the capillary displacement (or threshold) pressure,

and is the index of pore-size distribution. Combining Eqs.
13-15 yields the basic form of the permeability equation used
in our study:
k = 10.66

( Hg air cos ) 2 (1 S wi ) 3 3

(16)
p2 + 2
d

While we could not find the explicit form given by Eq. 16 in

the literature, it has undoubtedly been derived as Eq. 16 is the
generalized formulation used to derive the relative permeability relations of Brooks and Corey,3 the results of which
are also presented by Nakornthap and Evans.19
Nakornthap and Evans assign the and n parameters to
address non-ideal flow behavior. To describe the -para-

IPTC 10994

meter, Nakornthap and Evans state:

"The parameter is inserted to recognize the fact that flow
through a pore of radius r overemphasizes the impedance
because it ignores the larger areas available for exit-flow at
either side of the constrictions formed where pores abut.
Thus it may be expected that > 1 and that the actual
magnitude of is a function of the average shape of pores in
the medium that the model represents. is assumed constant
for all pore sizes."

Similarly, Nakornthap and Evans describe the n-parameter, as

follows:
"The numerical constant n reflects the manner in which the
available interconnecting pore area is divided. In the most
favorable case for flow, all the exit area is concentrated in
one pore; then n = 1. It may be expected, therefore, that n >
1. It is assumed here that n is constant for all pore sizes."

Ali21 has also suggested the following concept models for

representing and n:

=
n=

..............................................................................(17)

1
..................................................................(18)
(1 S wi )

Substituting Eqs. 17 and 18 into Eq. 16, we can eliminate the

and n terms directly, which yields:
k = 10.66 ( Hg air

cos ) 2 (1 S

4 2 1 .(19)
wi )

pd2 + 2

Note that we have added an empirical parameter, , in Eq. 19

to represent any remaining non-idealities that have not been
accounted for by any other terms. If we were to attempt to
utilize Eq. 19, we would likely assume = 1, or attempt a
calibration of the -parameter for a particular data set. In fact,
we did use Eq. 19 in some of our early correlation efforts as a
"test function," where we plotted permeability computed using
Eq. 19 versus measured permeability on a log-log plot to
assess significant outlying data.
Perhaps the most significant contribution of this work will be
presentation of Eq. 16 as this relation clearly states that
permeability should be a power law function of displacement
pressure, index of pore-size distribution, irreducible wetting
phase saturation, and porosity. Recasting Eq. 16 as a power
law correlation model gives us:

k = a1

1

a2 + 2
( pd )

a3

(1 S wi ) a4 a5 ........................(20)

where a1, a2, a3, a4, and a5 are correlation constants coefficient a1 incorporates all of the "constant" terms (i.e., 10.66,
/n, and (Hg-aircos())2).
The form of Eq. 20 (or a simplified modification) permits us to
create other relations specifically, we can make model substitutions for other parameters (in our case, pd and ) and
create a "universal" (albeit simplified) model for permeability
based solely on porosity () and irreducible wetting phase
saturation (Swi). This effort is presented in Appendix B.

We also utilize the power-law model form as a mechanism to

correlate the displacement pressure (pd). In this case, we
correlate the displacement pressure (pd) in terms of permeability, porosity and irreducible wetting phase saturation using:

pd = b1 b2 k b3 (1 Swi )b4 ............................................... (21)

where b1, b2, b3, and b4 are correlation parameters for the
capillary displacement (or threshold) pressure.
Lastly, we correlate the "index of pore-size distribution" ()
with permeability, porosity, irreducible wetting phase saturation and capillary displacement pressure, again using a powerlaw model. This formulation is given as:

= c1 c2 k c3 (1 Swi )c4 pdc5 ........................................... (22)

where c1, c2, c3, c4, and c5 are correlation parameters for the
pore geometric factor.
To calibrate the proposed power models (Eq. 20-22), we have
used mercury-injection capillary-pressure data from the
literature1,10,20 and industry sources. Furthermore, we have
tested our new model using samples from both sandstone and
carbonate lithologies. Although we did not evaluate a range of
different carbonate rock types, we expect our new model to be
most applicable to carbonates with an inter-granular type of
porosity and not "vuggy" carbonates.
We reviewed approximately 120 data sets but used only 89
data sets in this work. The data not used in this study were set
aside for a variety of reasons (i.e., suspicious character in the
capillary pressure data (e.g., "double porosity" behavior),
erroneous capillary data (poor calibration, poor character), and
we also used only Hg-air capillary pressure data so air-oil,
and oil-water data were set aside for later studies).
The data sets used in our correlations have the following
ranges of properties:
0.0041
0.003
0.007
2.32

md
(fraction)
(fraction)
psia

<
<
<
<

k <
<
Swi <
pd <

8340
0.34
0.33
2176

md
(fraction)
(fraction)
psia

Results and Discussion

Estimation of pd, Swi and from Regression:

Our initial calibration process was performed to estimate the
capillary displacement pressure (pd), irreducible wetting-phase
saturation (Swi), and the index of pore-size distribution () on a
sample-by-sample basis using Eq. 15 (i.e., the Brooks-Corey
pc(Sw) model).
We could have attempted a "global" calibration of the pd, Swi
and parameters simultaneously with the model parameters in
Eqs. 20-22. Such a process would (in concept) be more robust
i.e., coupling the calibration of the Brooks-Corey model
with each of the regression models (Eqs. 20-22). However,
the quality of data, coupled with the bias (human intervention)
required to properly fit the Brooks-Corey pc(Sw) model to an
individual sample data set, required that we perform this
calibration separately. The results of the pd, Swi and calibration, along with the input permeability (k) and porosity ()
data for this work are summarized in Appendix A.

IPTC 10994

In Fig. 1 we present a typical pc(Sw) data-model regression to

illustrate our calibration process. We clearly note that, while
the data-model fit is good, human intervention is required to
ensure that the model is properly applied to the data.

Table 2 Regression summary for k (Eq. 20).

Optimized coefficients for k (Eq. 20):

Coefficient
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5

Optimized Value
1017003.2395 (md)
1.7846
1.6575
0.5475
1.6498

Statistical summary for k (Eq. 20):

Statistical Variable
Sum of Squared Residuals
Variance
Standard Deviation
Average Absolute Error

Value
2.8534 ln(md)2
275036.1525 md2
524.4389 md
30.4243 percent

Substituting the coefficients from Table 2 into Eq. 20, we

have:
k = 1017003.2395

1
1.6575(1 S )0.5475 1.6498
wi

( pd )1.7846 + 2

......................................................................................... (23)

Fig. 1 Example correlation of Brooks-Corey pc(Sw) model to

a typical core data set for this study.

We believe that this "separate" calibration of the pc(Sw) datamodel is appropriate, and we note that the majority of the
effort in our correlation work focused on this particular task.
Estimation of k, pd, and Using Regression:
The regression setup for Eqs. 20-22 is fairly straightforward,
as we used the Solver Module in Microsoft Excel22 to perform
our regression work. We formulated each regression problem
in terms of the sum-of-squared residuals (SSQ), sum-ofabsolute relative error (ARE) and depending on the case
these regressions were performed using the residual or
absolute relative error based on the logarithm of a particular
variable. A summary of our results for the k, pd, and regressions is given in Table 1.
Table 1 Overall regression statistics for k, pd, power
law models.

Case

Fig.

SSQ*
(ln(unit)2)

2.8534 ln(md)2

30.4243

pd

1.5476 ln(psia)2

24.9406

0.8367

ARE
(percent)

17.7197

* SSQ statistics based on ln(k), ln(pd), and , respectively.

We present the results of our permeability (k) optimization in

Fig. 2. We note excellent agreement between the measured
permeabilities and those calculated from Eq. 20. The optimized coefficients from the regression analysis of Eq. 20 are
summarized in Table 2.

Fig. 2 Permeability correlation based on mercury capillary

pressure data (Eq. 20 used for regression).

We note that Eq. 23 was used to calculate the entire permeability range from low permeability (tight gas sands) to unconsolidated sands. From our perspective, the generalized
permeability relation (Eq. 20) has theoretical rigor (see
Appendix A) and may be a "universal" permeability model
valid for different lithologies, pore systems, and pore structures.
We recommend that the generalized form (Eq. 20) continue to
be tested systematically. We will (again) note that care must
be taken in assessing pc(Sw) suitable for such correlations. We
have elected to consider Hg-air systems only for simplicity
extensions to other systems must continue systematically, with
diligent data screening and a "simplest" model first mentality.
We also correlate the capillary displacement pressure with per-

IPTC 10994

meability, porosity and irreducible wetting phase saturation

the results of which are shown in Fig. 3 using a power law
correlation model (the regression summary for this case is
given in Table 3). Although we have developed more
complex models for the correlating the displacement pressure,
we believe that Eq. 24 is an excellent "general" model. We
also note that Thomas, Katz, and Tek23 proposed a similar
formulation, where this model is also plotted on Fig. 3 for
comparison.
Table 3 Regression summary for pc (Eq. 21).

Optimized coefficients for pc (Eq. 21):

Coefficient
b1
b2
b3
b4

Optimized Value
640.0538 (psia)
0.8210
-0.5285
0.8486

Statistical summary for pc (Eq. 21):

Statistical Variable
Sum of Squared Residuals
Variance
Standard Deviation
Average Absolute Error

Value
1.5473 ln(psia)2
110928.0679 psia2
333.0587 psia
24.8721 percent

Substituting the coefficients in Table 3 into Eq. 21, we have:

pd = 640.0538 0.8210 k -0.5285 (1 S wi ) 0.8486 ...........(24)

insensitive to the -parameter).

In addition, we believe this insensitivity may make it more
difficult to estimate the -parameter initially from pc(Sw) data
than correlating the -parameter against other variables.
Regardless, our characterization and correlation of the parameter was less successful than our correlation of permeability (k) and capillary displacement pressure (pd).
We present the correlation of the -parameter using a power
law model in Fig. 4, and we present the regression summary
for this case in Table 4.
Table 4 Regression summary for (Eq. 21).

Optimized coefficients for (Eq. 22):

Coefficient
c1
c2
c3
c4
c5

Optimized Value
0.00980
-0.6341
0.3792
-0.6835
0.6698

Statistical summary for (Eq. 22):

Statistical Variable
Sum of Squared Residuals
Variance
Standard Deviation
Average Absolute Error

Value
0.8367
0.0395
0.1988
17.7197 percent

Substituting the coefficients in Table 4 into Eq. 22, we have:

= 0.00980 -0.6341 k 0.3792 (1 S wi ) -0.6835 pd0.6698 . (25)

Fig. 3 Displacement pressure (pd) correlation based on

mercury capillary pressure data (Eq. 21 used for regression).

In our effort to correlate the index of pore-size distribution ()

with permeability, porosity, irreducible wetting phase saturation and displacement pressure, we found less conformity in
the resultant correlations. We believe that this behavior is due
to the character of the index of pore-size distribution recall
that this parameter is an exponent in the Brooks-Corey pc(Sw)
relation (Eq. 15). We have observed that Eq. 15 is relatively
unaffected by the -parameter (i.e., the model is relatively

Fig. 4 Pore geometric factor () correlation based on mercury capillary pressure data (Eq. 22 used for regression).

Our correlation of the -parameter yielded the weakest results

(in terms of a graphical comparison (Fig. 4), not in terms of a
statistical regression). The results shown in Fig. 4. clearly
show weak (if not poor) conformance of the model to the data
(i.e., the blue circle symbols, relative to the red dashed line

IPTC 10994

(perfect correlation)). To better understand (but probably not

quantify) this deviation, we have also constructed a "nonparametric" correlation of the -parameter using the methods
given in ref. 24.
A non-parametric correlation is the optimal statistical relationship for a given data set on a point-by-point basis any
parametric (i.e., functional) correlation which yields better
statistical metrics than the corresponding non-parametric correlation has "over-fitted" the data (i.e., fitted the errors in the
data). Our non-parametric correlation of the -parameter for
this case is shown by the green square symbols on Fig. 4. The
relative similarity of the data in Fig. 4 suggest that our nonparametric correlation and our correlation using a power law
model are comparable which validates our use of the
(relatively simple) power law model for this case.
As closure for this discussion regarding the correlation of the
-parameter, we believe that the very basis of the -parameter
(it is an exponent), coupled with the quality of data used to
define the -parameter are the causes of the relatively weak
correlation of the -parameter shown in Fig. 4. Based on the
non-parametric correlation for this case, we do not recommend
additional efforts to improve the parametric correlation. But,
we do suggest recasting the problem so that permeability is
directly related to the various measurable rock properties,
including porosity (), irreducible wetting phase saturation
(Swi), and displacement pressure (pd). We also recommend use
of some parameter other than the index of pore-size distribution () to represent the "curvature" of the capillary pressure
curve. Finally, we would also comment that Eq. 25 (i.e., the
power law correlation for the -parameter) is probably more
than sufficient for practical applications.
Summary and Conclusions

Summary:
Using the relations of Purcell,1 Burdine,2 Brooks and Corey,3
Wyllie and Spangler,9,20 and Nakornthap and Evans19 we have
developed a base model to correlate permeability from mercury capillary pressure data. Our base model for permeability
is given by Eq. 16:
k = 10.66

( Hg air cos ) 2 (1 S wi ) 3 3

1
.(16)

pd2 + 2

Generalizing Eq. 16 into a correlation form yields Eq. 20:

k = a1

1

a2 + 2
( pd )

a3

(1 S wi ) a4 a5 ........................(20)

It is relevant to note that Eq. 16 suggests (under the assumptions of a "bundle of capillary tubes," Darcy's law, and other
constraints which are related to how the capillaries are connected) that we can consider permeability to be a power law
function of , Swi, pd, and . We recognize this simplicity, but
we also suggest that Eq. 16 (or Eq. 20) should be a good
starting point for the correlation of permeability.
Summarizing, we achieved the following power law correlations in this work:
k = f(, Swi, pd, and ): Fig. 2

k = 1017003.2395

1
1.6575(1 S )0.5475 1.6498
wi

( pd )1.7846 + 2

......................................................................................... (23)
pd = f(, k, and Swi): Fig. 3

pd = 640.0538 0.8210 k -0.5285 (1 S wi ) 0.8486 ........... (24)

= f(, k, Swi, and pd): Fig. 4

= 0.00980 -0.6341 k 0.3792 (1 S wi ) -0.6835 pd0.6698 . (25)

The results of our modeling efforts suggest that the correlating
properties of the porous media (k, , Swi, pd, and ) are not
specifically dependent upon lithology but rather, these
properties uniquely quantify the fluid flow behavior of the
porous medium. In that sense, we see this work as a
generalized correlation for flow in porous materials
including soils, filters, sintered metals, bead packs, and porous
rocks. As we noted earlier, we believe that this work is
applicable to carbonates with an inter-granular type of porosity
not to cases of "vuggy" carbonates.
Conclusions:
The following conclusions have been derived from this work:
1. The permeability (k) can be successfully correlated to the
porosity (), capillary displacement pressure (pd),
irreducible wetting-phase saturation (Swi), and the index of
pore-size distribution () using a theoretically defined
power law correlation model.
2. The capillary displacement pressure (pd) can also be
correlated using a power law model to the permeability
(k), porosity (), and irreducible wetting-phase saturation
(Swi). This observation confirms the fundamental work
proposed in ref. 23.
3. The correlation of the index of pore-size distribution () is
somewhat problematic the -parameter may be only
weakly defined. The pc(pd,Swi,,Sw) model given by
Brooks-Corey (ref. 3) is robust and suitable for this work,
but we find that the model can be relatively insensitive
to the -parameter (i.e., a different combination of the
pd,Swi, and -parameters can yield equi-probable correlations of pc. This is an issue that is most likely related to
the quality and character of the capillary pressure data.
Recommendations:
The following recommendations are proposed:
1. Consideration of more complex correlation models for:
k = f(, Swi, pd, and )
pd = f(, k, and Swi)
= f(, k, Swi, and pd)
Our experience with non-parametric regression (ref. 24)
as applied to this work suggests that the proposed power
law models are sufficient, and we would warn against
"over-fitting" data in this work with excessively complex
data models.
2. Extension of the results of this work to liquid-liquid and
gas-liquid systems.

IPTC 10994

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our thanks to Anadarko Petroleum

Corp. and Apache Corp. for providing portions of the core
data and for permission to publish results from this study.
Nomenclature

Variables are defined where a particular equation is given.

Superscripts, Subscripts, or other Characters:
air
Hg

= air
= mercury

SSQ = sum-of-squared residuals

ARE = sum-of-absolute relative error

References
1. Purcell, W.R.: "Capillary Pressures-Their Measurement Using
Mercury and the Calculation of Permeability Therefrom," Trans.
AIME, 186 (1949), 39-48.
2. Burdine, N.T.: "Relative Permeability Calculations from Pore
Size Distribution Data", Trans. AIME, (1953), 198, 71-78.
3. Brooks, R.H., and Corey, A.T.: "Properties of Porous Media
Affecting Fluid Flow." J. Irrig. and Drain. Div. ASCE (1966)
92: 61-88.
4. Nelson, P.H.: "Permeability-Porosity Relationships in Sedimentary Rock," The Log Analyst (May-June 1994), 38-62.
5. Leverett, M.C.: "Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids," Trans,
AIME 142 (1941), 341-358.
6. Rose, W. and Bruce, W.A.: "Evaluation of Capillary Character
in Petroleum Reservoir Rock," Trans. AIME, vol. 186 (1949),
pp 127-142.
7. Calhoun, J.C., Lewis, M. and Newman, R.C.: "Experiments on
the Capillary Properties of Porous Solids," Trans., AIME (1949)
186, 189-196.
8. Burdine, N.T., Gournay, L.S., and Reichertz, P.P.: "Pore Size
Distribution of Petroleum Reservoir Rocks", Trans. AIME,
(1950), 189, 195-204.
9. Wyllie M.R. and Spangler M. B.: "The Application of Electrical
Resistivity Measurements to the Problem of Fluid Flow in
Porous Media," Research Project 4-G-1 Geology Division
Report No. 15 (March 1951) Gulf Research and Development
Company.
10. Archie, G.E.: "Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics," Trans. AIME (1942) 146,
54-62
11. Archie, G.E.: "Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks,"
Bull., AAPG (1950) 34, 943-961.
12. Thomeer, J.H.M.: "Introduction of a Pore Geometrical Factor
Defined by the Capillary Pressure Curve," Trans., AIME (1960)
213, 354-358.
13. Thomeer, J.H.M.: "Air Permeability as a Function of Three
Pore-Network Parameters," JPT (April 1983), 809-814.
14. Swanson, B.F.: "A Simple Correlation between Permeabilities
and Mercury Capillary Pressures," JPT, (Dec. 1981), 24882504.
15. Wells, J.D. and Amaefule, J.O.: "Capillary Pressure and Permeability Relationships in Tight Gas Sands," paper SPE 13879
presented at the 1985 Low Permeability Gas Reservoir held in
Denver, CO, May 19-22.
16. Kolodzie, S., Jr.: "Analysis of Pore Throat Size and Use of the
Waxman-Smits Equation to Determine OOIP in Spindle Field,
Colorado," paper SPE 9382 presented at the 1980 Annual Fall
Technical Conference of Society of Petroleum Engineers, Sept.
21-24, 1980.
17. Pittman, E.D.: "Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to
Various Parameters Derived from Mercury Injection-Capillary

Pressure Curves for Sandstone," AAPG Bull., vol. 76, No. 2

(February 1992) 191-198.
18. Klinkenberg, L.J.: "The Permeability of Porous Media to Liquids and Gases," paper presented at the API 11th Mid-Year
Meeting, Tulsa, OK (May 1941); in API Drilling and Production Practice (1941) 200-213.
19. Nakornthap, K. and Evans, R.D.: "Temperature-Dependent
Relative Permeability and Its Effect on Oil Displacement by
Thermal Methods," SPERE (May 1986) 230-242.
20. Wyllie, M.R.J. and Gardner, G.H.F.: "The Generalized Kozeny
Carman Equation: Part II," World Oil, (1958), 146(5): 210228.
21. Ali, L., personal communication with T. Blasingame (1995).
22. Microsoft Office Excel 2003, Microsoft Corporation (19852003).
23. Thomas, L.K., Katz, D.L., and Tek, M.R.: "Threshold Pressure
Phenomena in Porous Media," SPEJ (June 1968) 174-183.
24. Breiman, L. and Friedman, J.H.: "Estimating Optimal Transformations for Multiple Regression and Correlation," Journal of
the American Statistical Association (September, 1985) 580598.
25. Timur, A.: "An Investigation of Permeability, Porosity, and
Residual Water Saturation Relationships for Sandstone Reservoirs," The Log Analyst , Vol. 9, No. 4, 8-17.

10

IPTC 10994

Appendix A: Summary of Data Used in This Study

Table A-1 Summary of data used in this study

Input Data

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

k
(fraction)
(md)
0.125
0.187
0.162
0.184
0.129
0.020
0.068
0.004
0.104
0.012
0.108
0.025
0.084
0.014
0.062
0.006
0.089
0.024
0.085
0.013
0.117
0.057
0.111
0.036
0.079
0.028
0.123
0.018
0.073
0.019
0.166
0.046
0.050
0.005
0.084
0.127
0.166
0.166
0.083
0.041
0.075
0.016
0.071
0.006
0.066
0.017
0.069
0.007
0.086
0.068
0.066
0.031
0.086
0.029
0.071
0.018
0.095
0.080
0.076
0.087
0.258
814.000
0.207
434.000
0.204
82.300
0.214
303.000
0.209
210.000
0.265 8340.000
0.235
438.000
0.320
868.000
0.335 4570.000
0.272
296.000
0.266
250.000
0.287
640.000
0.046
0.019
0.092
0.061
0.067
0.054
0.106
0.339
0.051
0.076
0.071
0.070
0.075
0.128
0.077
0.089

pd, Swi and Calibration Results

Swi
pd
(dim-less)
(fraction)
(psia)
0.010
123.28
0.534
0.008
435.11
0.850
0.020
580.15
0.600
0.007
1667.93
0.679
0.010
725.19
0.689
0.010
725.19
0.689
0.010
725.19
0.935
0.010
696.18
0.982
0.010
696.18
0.738
0.010
1174.81
0.896
0.020
391.60
0.680
0.017
435.11
0.575
0.020
522.14
0.754
0.008
1015.26
0.661
0.020
638.17
0.815
0.008
797.71
0.960
0.060
942.75
0.914
0.020
319.08
1.359
0.020
275.57
1.189
0.020
435.11
0.906
0.010
580.15
0.704
0.010
1667.93
1.625
0.010
652.67
1.116
0.010
1232.82
1.238
0.010
406.11
1.165
0.010
478.62
1.175
0.010
725.19
1.341
0.010
797.71
1.570
0.010
435.11
1.194
0.020
319.08
1.120
0.070
7.25
1.280
0.200
5.80
0.800
0.030
7.25
0.424
0.080
9.43
0.980
0.091
10.15
0.800
0.030
2.90
1.511
0.080
8.70
1.130
0.150
8.70
1.718
0.090
5.08
1.637
0.120
14.50
1.050
0.120
8.70
0.610
0.140
7.25
1.659
0.010
435.11
0.958
0.010
377.10
0.736
0.010
391.60
1.170
0.015
145.04
0.798
0.010
174.05
0.750
0.010
290.08
0.860
0.010
188.55
0.636
0.010
246.56
0.830

Table A-1 Summary of data used in this study (cont'd)

Input Data

No.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89

k
(fraction)
(md)
0.056
0.054
0.088
0.069
0.116
0.178
0.127
0.191
0.089
0.085
0.056
0.070
0.091
0.037
0.083
0.042
0.069
0.033
0.103
0.057
0.043
0.046
0.044
0.089
0.039
0.057
0.115
0.016
0.167
0.027
0.371
14.600
0.265
11.500
0.247
3.800
0.220
116.000
0.133
48.000
0.132
467.000
0.125
174.000
0.110
351.000
0.148
117.000
0.109
16.600
0.136
72.200
0.126
16.500
0.153
209.000
0.260
170.000
0.250
950.000
0.137
0.027
0.123
0.014
0.039
0.013
0.057
0.015
0.126
0.272
0.159
0.469
0.126
0.326
0.133
0.352
0.126
0.112

pd, Swi and Calibration Results

Swi
pd
(fraction) (fraction) (dim-less)
0.010
290.08
1.003
0.010
333.59
0.760
0.010
246.56
0.848
0.010
246.56
0.850
0.010
319.08
0.903
0.010
224.81
0.897
0.010
435.11
0.748
0.010
435.11
0.920
0.010
507.63
0.943
0.010
362.59
0.750
0.010
261.07
0.945
0.010
188.55
0.890
0.010
217.56
1.212
0.010
1276.33
0.848
0.010
2175.57
1.050
0.090
52.21
0.759
0.050
72.52
1.400
0.190
75.76
1.011
0.330
14.50
1.500
0.030
8.70
0.707
0.030
2.90
0.753
0.050
7.25
1.400
0.030
2.32
0.587
0.060
14.50
1.061
0.020
18.85
0.982
0.020
8.70
0.844
0.020
23.21
1.015
0.020
13.05
1.200
0.320
11.17
1.159
0.290
4.64
0.816
0.060
725.19
0.913
0.020
1377.86
0.959
0.010
652.67
0.459
0.050
710.68
0.585
0.010
319.08
0.653
0.020
159.54
0.528
0.010
145.04
0.521
0.010
145.04
0.536
0.020
188.55
0.556

IPTC 10994

11

Appendix B: Comparison with Timurs Permeability

Model

Introduction to Timur's model for permeability:

25

Timur proposed a generalized equation for permeability as

follows:
kTimur = A

B
C
S wi

............................................................(B-1)

where: (A, B, C are generalized constants)

kTimur = Timur correlation for permeability, md

= porosity, fraction of pore volume

Swi = irreducible wetting phase saturation, fraction of pore
volume

Eq. B-1 can be evaluated in terms of the statistically determined parameters A, B, and C. Timur applied a reduced major
axis method of regression analysis to data obtained by
laboratory measurements conducted on 155 sandstone samples
from three different oil fields from North America. Based
both on the highest correlation coefficient and on the lowest
standard deviation, Timur chose the following result for permeability.
kTimur = 0.136

4.4
2
S wi

.....................................................(B-2)

Derivation of Timur's formulation using models of permeability, capillary displacement pressure, and the index of poresize distribution:
Our approach to the derivation of Timur's base relation (Eq. B1) is to note that in a general form, Timur's base relation can
be written as:

kTimur = S wi
....................................................... (B-3a)

where , , are generalized constants. Our goal in this particular proof is to provide a specific combination of relations
that, upon combination, yield the form given by Eq. B-3a (or
at least a result that is an identical form).
The model based model for permeability for this work is given
in the form of a generalized correlation as:
k = a1

1

a2 + 2
( pd )

a3

(1 S wi ) a4 a5 ........................(20)

Clearly, Eq. 20 is almost in the "Timur" form in terms of the

porosity () and irreducible wetting phase saturation (Swi)
however, we note that because we use (1-Swi), then our final
model written in the "Timur" form should be:
kTimur = (1 S wi ) ...........................................(B-3b)

For simplicity, we will use a form of Eq. 20 that is written in

terms of , rather than /(+2). This modification will not
seriously affect the character of the correlation given by Eq.
20, and will provide the algebraic form that should mimic our
rendering of the Timur correlation (i.e., Eq. B-3b).

The "modified" formulation of Eq. 20 (i.e., the permeability

correlation) is given as:

k = a1 ( pd ) a2 a3 (1 S wi ) a4 a5 ................................. (B-4)
As discussed in the body of this work, the generalized correlation proposed for the capillary displacement pressure (pd) is
given by:

pd = b1 b2 k b3 (1 S wi )b4 .............................................. (21)

Lastly, the index of pore-size distribution () is represented by
the following generalized correlation as:
c

= c1 c2 k c3 (1 S wi ) c4 pd5 .......................................... (22)

We first need to substitute Eq. 21 into Eq. 22 and reduce Eq.
22 into a form that only contains , k, and Swi. Making this
substitution yields:
c

= c1 c2 k c3 (1 S wi ) c4 pd5
c5

= c1 c2 k c3 (1 S wi ) c4 b1 b2 k b3 (1 S wi ) b4

= c1 c2 k c3 (1 S wi ) c4 b1c5 b2c5 k b3c5 (1 S wi ) b4c5

= (c1b1c5 ) k (c3 +b3c5 ) (c2 +b2c5 ) (1 S wi ) (c4 +b4c5 )

....................................................................................... (B-5)
We now substitute Eq. 22 into Eq. B-4 to reduce Eq. B-4 into
a form that only contains , k, Swi, and . This substitution
gives us:

k = a1 ( pd ) a2 a3 (1 S wi ) a4 a5
a

2
= a1 b1 b2 k b3 (1 S wi )b4 a3 (1 S wi ) a4 a5

= a1 b1a2 a2b2 k a2b3 (1 S wi ) a2b4 a3 (1 S wi ) a4 a5

= (a1b1a2 ) k a2b3 (a5 + a2b2 ) (1 S wi ) (a4 + a2b4 ) a3

....................................................................................... (B-6)
As an intermediate result, we raise Eq. (B-5) () to the power
of a3, which yields:

a3 = (c1b1c5 ) k (c3 +b3c5 ) (c2 +b2c5 ) (1 S wi ) (c4 +b4c5 )

= (c1a3 b1c5a3 ) k (c3 +b3c5 ) a3

x

(c2 +b2c5 )a3 (1 S wi ) (c4 +b4c5 )a3

= (c1a3 b1c5a3 ) k ( a3c3 + a3b3c5 )

x

(a3c2 + a3b2c5 ) (1 S wi ) (a3c4 + a3b4c5 )

a3 = (c1a3 b1c5a3 ) k (a3c3 + a3b3c5 )

x

(a3c2 + a3b2c5 ) (1 S wi ) (a3c4 + a3b4c5 )

a3

12

IPTC 10994

We now substitute the previous result into Eq. (B-6) which

gives us the "composite equation", which is defined as:

k = (a1b1a2 ) k a2b3 (a5 + a2b2 ) (1 S wi ) (a4 + a2b4 ) a3

= (a1b1a2 ) k a2b3 (a5 + a2b2 ) (1 S wi ) (a4 + a2b4 )
x

(c1a3 b1a3c5 ) k (a3c3 + a3b3c5 )

(a3c2 + a3b2c5 ) (1 S wi ) (a3c4 + a3b4c5 )

3 5

(a + a b ) (a c + a b c )
x 5 2 2 3 2 3 2 5

(1 S ) (a4 + a2b4 ) (1 S ) (a3c4 + a3b4c5 )

wi
wi

= k (a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 )

...................................................................................... (B-11)

= 0.00980 -0.6341 k 0.3792 (1 S wi ) -0.6835 pd0.6698 . (25)

k = 15896.2440 4.9250 (1 S wi ) -11.0531 .................. (B-12)

[(a1b1a )(c1a b1a c )]

2

k = 158064.1754 ( pd ) -1.7828 1.1472 (1 S wi ) 0.5328 1.6423

pd = 640.0538 0.8210 k -0.5285 (1 S wi ) 0.8486 ........... (24)

= k a2b3 k (a3c3 + a3b3c5 )

In this work we have tuned Eqs. B-4, 21, 22, and B-7 to our
database, and the results of this tuning exercise yields:

Eqs. B-11, 24, 25 are combined as prescribed by Eqs. B-7

through B-10, and the results are plotted with the tuned Timur
relation (Eq. B-12) in Fig. B-1. We note good agreement, the
points are identical, indicating that our algebraic exercise is
correct.

[a1b1a +a c c1a ]
2

3 5

( a2b2 + a3b2c5 + a3c2 + a5 )

(a b + a c + a b c + a )
x (1 S wi ) 2 4 3 4 3 4 5 4

where this form reduces to:

k1-(a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 ) = a1b1a2 + a3c5 c1a3

(a b + a b c + a c + a )
x 2 2 3 2 5 3 2 5

(
a
b
+
a
c
+
a
b
c +a )
x (1 S wi ) 2 4 3 4 3 4 5 4

Or, solving for k, we have

1
1
(
a
b
+
a
c3 + a3b3c5 )
a
+
a
c
a
2
3
3
k = a1b1 2 3 5 c1 3
(a2b4 + a3c4 + a3b4c5 + a4 )

1-(a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 )

Fig. B-1 Comparison of tuned Timur relation (Eq. B-1) to the

combination solution (Eqs. B-7 to B-10) for the data
set used in this work.

( a2b4 + a3c4 + a3b4c5 + a4 )

x

This exercise proves that the Timur formulation can be derived from a fundamental formulation, albeit the relation must
be tuned to a particular dataset.

(1 S wi ) 1-(a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 )

Upon final reduction, we obtain:

k = (1 S wi ) .......................................................(B-7)
where:

= a1b1a2 + a3c5 c1a3

=

1
1-( a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 )

(a2b4 + a3c4 + a3b4 c5 + a4 )

1 - (a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 )
(a2b4 + a3c4 + a3b4 c5 + a4 )
1 - (a2b3 + a3c3 + a3b3c5 )

...................(B-8)

................................(B-9)

..............................(B-10)