The influence of water saturation and confining pressure to gas porosity and permeability of sandstone
- 75 Downloads
Understanding of gas porosity and permeability is important in gas storage, recovery and nuclear waste disposal. In this paper, we focus on the gas porosity and permeability variation of sandstone at different water saturation in loading–unloading cycle. Through an improved method, we prepared the samples with water saturation level from 0 to 81%. The test results suggest that gas effective permeability and porosity are sensitive to confining pressure. This is particularly true in low pressure from 1 to 10 MPa. There is a significant difference between loading and unloading process. This is caused by irreversible deformation of pores and microcracks. The existence of water inside samples leads to a change of permeability on the order of magnitudes from 10−13 to 10−15 m2. Water saturation also influences the sandstone porosity significantly. We observed that the gas relative porosity almost decreases linearly with the increase of water saturation. A simple power law is modified to describe the relationship between gas effective permeability and porosity.
KeywordsGas effective permeability Porosity Sandstone Water saturation Confining pressure Power law
This study is financially supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFC1501100), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 11771116, 11572110), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant no. 2016B05314).
- Evans B, Wong TF (1992) Fault mechanics and transport properties of rocks, vol 51. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Hoholick JD, Metarko T, Potter PE (1984) Regional variations of porosity and cement: St. Peter and Mount Simon sandstones in Illinois Basin. AAPG Bull 68:753–764Google Scholar
- Kaviany M (2012) Principles of heat transfer in porous media. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Klinkenberg LJ (1941) The permeability of porous media to liquids and gases. In: Drilling and production practice. American Petroleum InstituteGoogle Scholar
- Schmoker JW, Halley RB (1982) Carbonate porosity versus depth: a predictable relation for south Florida. AAPG Bull 66:2561–2570Google Scholar
- Ulusay R, Hudson JA (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. International Society for Rock Mechanics, Commission on Testing MethodsGoogle Scholar
- Zoback MD, Byerlee J (1975) Permeability and effective stress: geologic notes. AAPG Bull 59:154–158Google Scholar