LAB REPORT #1
Nicholas Schubel
Team Members: Markes Peneira, Sarah Boal, and Oguzcan Diictas
PNG 406
Rock and Fluid Lab
Experiments: Absolute and Effective Porosity, Sieve Analysis, Absolute Permeability, and Gas
Permeability & Klinkenberg Effect
Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Earth and Mineral Science
2/23/2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the following report information regarding the first four labs of PNG 406 will be
analyzed and discussed in details. Lab 1 was the Absolute and Effective Porosity lab. Lab 2 was
the Sieve Analysis Lab. Lab 3 was the Absolute Permeability Lab and finally Lab 4 was the Gas
Permeability and Klinkenberg Effect. All four of these lab place emphasis on the same concepts
of porosity, grain size, and permeability.
In Lab 1, Absolute and Effective Porosity, our goal was to fully understand porosity and
to determine the absolute and effective porosity of porous media. This lab was broken up into
three parts, The Marble Experiment, Helium Porosimeter Experiment, and Barnes Method
Experiment. In The Marble Experiment we filled a beaker with marbles to illustrate pore space
and we eventually calculated the porosity. In the Helium Porosimeter Experiment and the
Barnes Method Experiment we used these different methods to determine the porosity of a rock
sample.
In Lab 2, Sieve Analysis, our goal was to conduct a standard grain size analysis test and
determine the relative proportions of different grain sizes. We used a set of sieves which
measured specific sizes and we would drop sand through all the sieves to determine the grain
size.
In Lab 3, Absolute Permeability, our goal was to determine absolute permeability of an
unconsolidated pack using fundamental laboratory equipment and procedures, then compare
results with the two other groups to see how grain size affects porosity and permeability. In this
experiment we moved water through the sample, finding the flow rate. Then we changed the
height of water moving into the sample to find new flow rates. In conclusion, we found that the
higher the pressure, the faster the flow rate regardless of what the grain size is. The porosity of
these evacuated samples was directly related to the grain size. We found that larger grain sizes
led to higher porosity.
In Lab 4, Gas Permeability and Klinkenberg Effect, our goal was to determine the
apparent permeability of a reservoir rock using a gas permeameter and to demonstrate and
measure the dependence of permeability to gas at varying pressures, then to predict the absolute
permeability to liquid using Klinkenberg’s correction. Klinkenberg’s correction is used to
-1-
account for the slippage which occurs for liquids and not gases. We used both a Ruska
Permeameter and a Radial Permeameter in this lab. When using the Ruska Permeameter we
could adjust voltage which would change the pressure and in turn we would time how the gas
moved through the sample. The time would decrease as the pressure increased.
In conclusion, all four of these experiments focused heavily on rock properties. They
showed students what kind of factors affects porosity and permeability. Knowing these factors
are very important to Petroleum Engineer as well as having knowledge on porosity and
permeability in general. In the upcoming sections all four experiments will be analyzed in detail
as well as porosity and permeability.
-2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………….1
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………3
Experiment 1
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….....4
Results and Analysis………………………………………………………………………5
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………...6
Experiment 2
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….7
Results and Analysis…………………………………………………………………….8-9
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………...9
Experiment 3
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………10
Results and Analysis……………………………………………………………………..11
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….12
Experiment 4
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………13
Results and Analysis…………………………………………………………………14-15
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….15
Sample Calculations………………………………………………………………………….16-17
Nomenclature……………………………………………………………………………………18
References……………………………………………………………………………………......19
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………...20-22
-3-
EXPERIMENT 1:
ABSOLUTE AND EFFECTIVE POROSITY
Introduction
The objective of the absolute and effective porosity experiment was to demonstrate the
concept of porosity and to also determine the absolute and effective porosity of porous media. In
addition, we were supposed to calculate the errors we found with all of our data and calculations.
This experiment was broken down into three parts. The first was the marble experiment,
followed by helium porosimeter experiment, and lastly the Barnes Method experiment.
In the marble experiment we filled an empty beaker with 30 marbles. We then measured
the diameter of each marble which therefore allowed us to calculate the volume of each marble.
In addition, we also took the weight of the empty beaker and the beaker once it was full with
marbles. Using this data we were able to calculate the absolute porosity of the beaker using the
equation of Total Pore Volume/Bulk Volume. It is the absolute porosity because all the pore
space is interconnected. In part 2, we were given a rock sample which we put into a helium
porosimeter. The helium porosimeter removes all the air from the sample and then fills it with
helium gas which contains molecules smaller than liquid. Before inserting it into the
porosimeter we measured the bulk volume. The porosimeter gives two pressures and a volume
which can be used to calculate the effective porosity. In the final part of the experiment, The
Barnes Method, we saturated our sample with liquid and we were able to calculate the effective
porosity of the sample based on the initial and final weight of the sample.
One very important factor to keep in mind is the absolute porosity cannot be measured
unless all the pore spaces are interconnected. So besides the marble experiment where all the
pore space is interconnected, we are measuring the effective porosity in the last two sections. In
addition, the helium porosimeter was the most accurate method of measuring porosity because it
is smaller and can fit into smaller pores than liquids can.
-4-
Results and Analysis
In the marble experiment, we found the porosity through two different methods. The first
method was volumetrically and the second method was through weight. We found the porosity
to be 50.4% volumetrically and 51% through using weight. All calculations as to how our group
achieved these numbers will be listed in the sample calculations page. Between the two
methods, the porosity found by weight proved to be more accurate. This is because the weight
does not have human error as we have when we measured all of the diameters of the marbles. In
addition, there is no error with measuring the volume of water. One thing to keep in mind is that
the porosity being measured is the absolute porosity instead of effective porosity. This is
because all the pore space between the marbles is interconnected. Therefore the water which
fills the beaker is able to reach all space between the marbles which means that we are measuring
absolute porosity. While in this particular activity we are able to measure absolute porosity, in
the field it is impractical because all pore space is rarely ever all interconnected.
In the second part of the experiment we obtained data from the helium porosimeter. The
data we obtained gave us a porosity of 17.7%. Since there is no human error in this particular
part we can conclude the data is very accurate. In addition, the smaller helium molecules are
able to penetrate the smallest interconnected pores of the sample. The helium porosimeter is
only capable of measuring the effective porosity since the helium molecules cannot penetrate the
rock.
In the final part of the experiment we measured the porosity through the use of the Barnes
Method. The porosity measured was of the same sample as in the helium porosimeter part. It
was measured by flowing liquid through the sample which we know is going to be less accurate
than the helium porosimeter since the molecules are not as small. The porosity we calculated
from the original weight and saturated weight was 7.3%. This makes sense since the porosity is
lower which shows us much of the liquid was unable to flow in extremely small pores. In
addition, all calculations are found in the sample calculations section.
-5-
Conclusion
While analyzing all of our results it is apparent that the helium porosimeter is the most
accurate method, out of the three, which all find the porosity. There is no human error and the
smaller molecules of the helium make the data the most accurate. Although the marble
experiment did measure the absolute porosity, it is only an experiment and cannot be used in the
field. So we can conclude that to measure effective porosity, which is found in the field, the
helium porosimeter is a very accurate method of finding porosity. We also note in the
conclusion that The Barnes Method is not quite as accurate because the liquid molecules are not
as small as the helium molecules.
It is also important to note in the conclusion that this lab teaches about porosity which is
a fundamental property of rocks and extremely important to petroleum and natural gas
engineering. While used mostly by reservoir engineers, porosity can tell how much space
different formations contain which may or may not contain organic content. Rock properties are
very important to determine where to drill and what kind of completion to use. Overall this lab
did a good job of introducing our group to this property.
-6-
EXPERIMENT 2:
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Introduction
The objective of this lab was to conduct a grain size analysis test and determine the
relative proportions of different grain sizes. This lab also served to introduce us to grain size,
which is important and influences porosity and permeability greatly. In addition to grain size,
the sorting of grains also greatly influence the properties of porosity and permeability. Well
sorted grains influence the rock by giving it greater permeability and porosity. Poorly sorted
does the exact opposite so it lowers the permeability and porosity. This makes sense when
thinking about it because if a sample is well sorted then all the grains will be almost the same
size, whereas if it is poorly sorted the sample will have smaller grains in between the bigger
grains.
In the grain analysis test a crushed up rock is put through a series of different sieves. In
this particular experiment we use sand and a set of sieves numbered 50, 60, 80, 100, and 120.
These sieve numbers correspond to particular sizes of .0117, .0098, .0070, .0059, .0049 and
<.0049 inches.
-7-
Results and Analysis
The main purpose of this experiment was to sort out different sizes of sand grain and
demonstrate to students how grain size analysis is performed. Through the use of sieves we were
able to determine the average sieve diameter which was found from the average of the two sieves
it was found in between. Using this data we were able to construct a plot of fraction of sand vs.
grain size. I constructed two plots; one was using a regular scatterplot, while the other was using
a semi-logarithmic scale. The main error in accuracy is not having enough sieves. The more
sieves used make the data more and more accurate. This is because when only using 5 sieves the
sand can only fall into 5 different ranges. Another source of error is that when switching
between runs the sieves may not be completely clean and excess sand may be present. In
addition, sand may be lost while in the sieve sifter. Located below are both graphs and any
additional calculations can be found in the sample calculations section
Grain Size Distribution Graph
1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
Trial #1
Fraction of Sand (%) 0.500
0.400
Trial 2
0.300
Trial #3
0.200
0.100
0.000
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
Average Gain Diameter (in)
-8-
Grain Size Distribution Graph (Semi Log)
1.000
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
Trial #1
Fraction of Sand (%) 0.100
Trial 2
Trial #3
0.010
Average Gain Diameter (in)
Conclusion
In conclusion, grain size is very important to petroleum engineers mainly because of its
effect of porosity and permeability. Essentially well sorted grains have much higher porosity
and permeability than poorly sorted grains. Again, this is because poorly sorted allows smaller
grains to fall into the pores and therefore, lower porosity and permeability. From looking at the
graphs we see the sample we used was poorly sorted because of distribution of sizes. Overall,
this experiment provided a good basis for our group to understand just how small these grains are
and to see how grain size analysis is actually determined.
-9-
EXPERIMENT 3:
ABSOLUTE PERMEABILITY
Introduction
The objective of this experiment is to determine the absolute permeability of an
unconsolidated pack using fundamental laboratory equipment and procedures, and to compare
results for different grain sizes effects on porosity and permeability. This lab also serves to
introduce the concept of permeability. Permeability is a rock property which quantifies the
ability of fluids to flow through the rock. Permeability, or k, is measured in units of darcies or
millidarcies. One darcy is the allowing of one cubic centimeter of fluid having one centipoise of
viscosity flowing in one second under a pressure differential of one atmosphere where the porous
medium has a cross-sectional area of one square centimeter and a length of one centimeter.
This lab also focuses on the effect of grain size of porosity and permeability which we
learned in the last lab that well sorted grains raise porosity and permeability while poorly sorted
grains lower porosity and permeability. In the particular lab each group was given a sample in
which water was flown through. The water was allowed to completely saturate the sample and
once completely saturated it was drained and the flow rate was measured. We also found each
flow rate at different pressures which we controlled by the height. With this data we were able
to find porosity and permeability.
- 10 -
Results and Analysis
Each group in this lab had a different core sample. Our group (B) in particular had 5070mm size core sample. Using the data from all groups each group was able to calculate their
porosity for each example. The porosities for sample A, B, and C were 40.9%, 40.7%, and
42.1% respectively. In addition, we were also to construct a plot of Pressure Differential vs.
Flow Rate which is below.
Differential Pressure vs. Flow Rate
16
y = 54.673x - 0.9224
14
y = 24.193x + 0.8967
12
Group B 50-70
10
Group A (Fine)
Differential Presure
8
(kPa)
Group C
y = 2.8932x + 0.6338
6
Linear (Group B 50-70)
4
Linear (Group A (Fine))
2
Linear (Group C)
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Flow Rate (cc/sec)
Using the equations found through the excel graphs enabled us to find permeability for
each sample by using them with Darcy’s Law. The permeability values for samples A, B, and C
respectively are .2295D, .518 D, and 4.25D. Any additional calculations for this section can be
found under the sample calculations and appendices section.
This experiment contained many different sources of error. The main errors were human
errors. For example, when measuring the height of the flowing water may not be very accurate.
In addition, people had to shut off the water at specific time in accordance with a stopwatch
which can also be very inaccurate. Also, the false pore volume must be taken into account for
error as well. We assumed that the cotton was compressed by 50% which is an estimation, and
therefore, is not very accurate.
- 11 -
Conclusion
We clearly notice a relationship between grain size and porosity and permeability. As
discovered from this lab, the larger the grain size (because the grains are not very poorly sorted)
the higher permeability and porosity. In conclusion, we can see how sorting and grain size effect
porosity and permeability. We also learned how to use Darcy’s Law in order to calculate
permeability.
- 12 -
EXPERIMENT 4: GAS PERMEABILITY & KLINKENBERG EFFECT
Introduction
This experiment in particular has three given objectives. The first is to determine the
apparent permeability of a reservoir rock using a gas parameter. The second is to demonstrate
and measure the dependence of permeability to gas at varying pressure and predict the absolute
permeability to liquid using Klinkenberg’s correction factor. Lastly, this lab serves to exercise
the use of the radial form of the Darcy equation. One difference in this lab in particular is that
we are now using a compressible fluid. Since we are using a compressible fluid Darcy’s Law
must be modified to include Boyle’s Law for ideal gases. This equation becomes qdown = kgA(Pup2 Pdown2)/ 2µLPdown. Once we use this equation to find permeability we must also use Klinkenberg’s
correction factor to correct for the slippage which occur with gas molecules. By doing this we
can achieve our goal of finding absolute permeability.
In the actual lab we used both a Ruska permeameter and a radial permeameter. When
using the Ruska permeameter, nitrogen gas was pumped through a sample at a pressure of .25
atm. Using the data recorded from the experiment we calculate permeability. In the second part
of the experiment a pressure differential is created by two different voltages. We would then
time how fast gas moved through the sample.
- 13 -
Results and Analysis
Using the data obtained through the Ruska permeameter we can calculate permeability
through the use of Darcy’s Law. The permeability I calculated was .169mD. This calculation
should be accurate because the three trials we did for this part of the experiment were all
extremely similar. Possible sources of error for this experiment are the human error in
measuring the sample. However, in order to reduce this error our group took three
measurements and then took the average.
In the next section using the radial permeameter we calculated the permeability from the
r 
Q ln  e 
 rw  . However, we must keep in mind that this is not
radial form of Darcy’s Law, k 
2hPe  Pwf 
the absolute permeability, but only the apparent permeability. Through the use of the
Klinkenberg Effect which is seen in the graph below we can determine the absolute permeability.
Klinkenberg Effect
60.00
50.00
y = -3.0493x + 50.791
R² = 0.6878
40.00
Permeability (Darcy) 30.00
Series1
Linear (Series1)
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/Pmean (atm)
- 14 -
Using this graph we can see that the absolute permeability is 50.791 Darcy. Also b (Klinkenberg
slip factor) can be calculated to be -.048. All addition calculations can be found under the
sample calculations section.
This experiment had multiple sources of error. The main source would be the human
error with the stopwatch in the experiment. It is near impossible for human to be precise with
their reaction time. Also, the quality of the machines may have accounted for some error. The
machines are older and may not be perfect.
Conclusions
Looking at the absolute permeability we can see that the experiment was inaccurate
because the absolute permeability is higher than the apparent permeability to gases. The
apparent permeability to gases should always be an overestimate. If the gas would have been
different the slope of the graph would be altered, however the absolute permeability would stay
the same. The Klinkenberg effect clearly shows that the effective gas permeability is not the
same as the absolute liquid permeability.
- 15 -
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Experiment 1
Part 1
Absolute porosity= 1-Grain Volume = Total Pore Volume
Bulk Volume
Bulk Volume
Effective porosity= Interconnected Pore Volume
Bulk Volume
Pore volume=W3-W2= 441.98-351.29= 90.25(g) / 1 (g/cm3)= 90.25 (cc)
Grain volume= (average marble volume)(Nm)= 1.93 (46) = 88.78 (cc)
Bulk Volume= V2+V3 = 90.25+88.78 = 179.03 (cc)
Φ = Pore Volume (V2) / Bulk Volume = 90.25 / 179.03 = 0.504 or 50.4%
By Weight
Water Weight=90.699 (g)
Volume of water in pore space=90.699 (cc)
Φ=Volume of water in pore space/Water weight=.51 or 51%
Part 2
Vbulk = Core Length(pi)(Core Radius2) = 4.435(3.14)(1.262) = 22.12 (cc)
Total V=(-6.306835)(P1/P2)+53.746269
BV-GV=PV => 22.12 (cc) – 18.20 (cc)=3.92 (cc)
Φ = PV / BV = 3.92/22.12 = 0.177 or 17%
Part 3
Weight of fluid absorbed=weight of saturated core- weight of unsaturated core
= 52.91-49.05=3.86 (g)
Effective Porosity = Volume of Fluid Absorbed/ Weight of Saturated Core
= 3.86 (cc) / 52.91 (cc) = 0.0729 or 7.3%
- 16 -
Experiment 2
No necessary calculations, however tables found in Experiment 2 Appendices
Experiment 3
False pore volume = (Pi)(tube 1 radius^2)(tube 1 Length)+ (Pi)(tube 2 radius^2)(tube 2 Length)
(Pi)(.19^2)(31.43)+(Pi)(.095^2)(15.56)= 4.003 (cc)
Calculated pore volume = Saturated core and tubing weight – (Packed core holder weight + False
pore volume) = 2188.38- (2040.28+4.003) = 144.0963 (cc)
Calculated bulk volume = (Core cross-sectional area)*(Core length) = 5.31*66.63 = 353.85 (cc)
Porosity = (Calculated pore volume)/(Calculated bulk volume) = 144.0963/353.85 = 40.7%
Pressure = gh = (1) (9.81) (61.l495 (cm)) = 5.17 (kPA)|
K = (q)*(μ)*(L)/(A)*(dp)
(54.673)*K=(1cP)*(66.6375cm)/(5.31cm^2) = .2295 D
Experiment 4
Permeability of core A: k= (μ)(q_down)(L)/(A)(P) = (.018)(8)(3.33)/(11.36)(.25) = .169 (mD)
Pdown (pressure downstream) = Pup – Δp = .48-.35= .13 (atm)
Pmean (mean pressure) = (Pup + Pdown)/2 = (.48 + .13)/2 = .30 (atm)
qmean (mean flowrate) = (qmean)*( Pdown / Pmean) = (1576.08 cc/sec)*(.13/.30) = 675.56 (cc/sec)
K_g (permeability of gas) = [(μ)*( qmean)*( Pdown)*ln(ro / ri)]/[(π)*(L)*(Pup ^2 – Pdown ^2)]=
(.96)(1576.08)(.13)(.71)/(π)(4.96)(.48^2-.13^2)= 42.67D
- 17 -
NOMENCLATURE
W2 = Weight of all marbles and beaker
W3 = Weight of the beaker, water, and marbles
Nm = Number of marbles
V2 = Pore Volume
V3 = Grain Volume
Φ = Porosity
Vbulk = Bulk Volume
VRock = Rock Volume
L = Length
 = Density
g = Gravity
h = Height
P = Pressure Difference
qdown = Flow rate down
Pdown = Pressure down
Pmean = Average pressure
Pup = Pressure up
qmean = Average flow rate
ro = Outer radius
ri = Inner radius
k = Permeability
kg = Permeability of the gas
q = Flow rate
µ = Viscosity of the fluid
A = Cross-sectional area
- 18 -
REFERENCES
Dandekar, Abhijit Y. Petroleum Reservoir Rock and Fluid Properties.
Taylor & Francis Froup, LLC. 2006. Feb. 14, 2013
PNG 406 Lab manuals
- 19 -
APPENDICES
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Grain Size
(in)
0.0117
0.01075
0.0084
0.00645
0.0054
0.00245
Weight collected
#1
48
25
55
27
24
13
Total Weight
#1
192
% of Sand
#1
0.250
0.130
0.286
0.141
0.125
0.068
Total Weight
#2
200.51
% of Sand
#2
0.254
0.206
0.362
0.058
0.083
0.037
Weight Collected
#2
50.84
41.4
72.65
11.66
16.61
7.35
Weight Collected
#3
53.13
58.05
47.85
12.13
24.81
2.45
Total Weight
#3
198.42
% of Sand
#3
0.268
0.293
0.241
0.061
0.125
0.012
Experiment 3
Group B
Pressure Differenital Flow Rate
5.17
6.033
8.752
9.603
11.819
0.1583333
0.2333333
0.3333333
0.3583333
0.4416667
Group A (Fine)
Pressure Differential Flow Rate
6.18 0.1278333
8.846 0.1833333
9.344 0.1888333
12.488 0.2388333
13.577
0.268
Group C
Pressure Differential Flow Rate
1.815 0.4166667
2.624
0.675
3.605 1.0208333
4.169 1.2416667
4.807 1.4333333
- 20 -
Group B 50-70
Group A
Group C
Core Diameter: (cm)
2.6
Core Cross-sectional area: (cm^2)
5.31
Core Length (cm)
66.6375
Packed core holder weight: (g)
2040.28
Saturated core and tubing weight: (g) 2188.38
Tube 1 Radius (cm)
0.19
Tube 2 Radius (cm)
0.095
Tube 1 Length (cm)
31.43
Tube 2 Length (cm)
15.56
False Pore Volume (cc)
4.003663
Calculated Pore Volume (cc)
144.0963
Calculated Bulk Volume (cc)
353.8451
Porosity
0.40723
Core Diameter: (cm)
Core Cross-sectional area: (cm^2)
Core Length (cm)
Packed core holder weight: (g)
Saturated core and tubing weight: (g)
Tube 1 Radius (cm)
Tube 2 Radius (cm)
Tube 1 Length (cm)
Tube 2 Length (cm)
False Pore Volume (cc)
Calculated Pore Volume (cc)
Calculated Bulk Volume (cc)
Porosity
2.6
5.31
66.6375
2010.88
2159.74
0.19
0.095
31.43
15.56
4.003663
144.8563
353.8451
0.409378
Core Diameter: (cm)
Core Cross-sectional area: (cm^2)
Core Length (cm)
Packed core holder weight: (g)
Saturated core and tubing weight: (g)
Tube 1 Radius (cm)
Tube 2 Radius (cm)
Tube 1 Length (cm)
Tube 2 Length (cm)
False Pore Volume (cc)
Calculated Pore Volume (cc)
Calculated Bulk Volume (cc)
Porosity
2.6
5.31
65.27
2014.64
2164.45
0.19
0.095
31.43
15.56
4.003663
145.8063
346.5837
0.420696
Experiment 4
Trial
Vg
(ft^3,L)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
μ(cP)
Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
t(sec)
53.9
41.8
35.6
29.3
26.2
24
22.6
21.8
37.5
31.1
qdown
(cc/sec)
1576.08
2032.31
2386.25
2899.34
3242.39
3539.61
3758.87
3896.81
2265.35
2731.53
Pup (mv)
1.8
2.4
3
3.5
4
4.4
4.8
5
2.7
3.3
Pup
(psi)
7.002
9.336
11.67
13.615
15.56
17.116
18.672
19.45
10.503
12.837
deltaP
(mv)
1.9
2.5
3.05
3.55
4
4.35
4.65
4.8
2.8
3.4
deltaP
(psi)
5.092
6.7
8.174
9.514
10.72
11.658
12.462
12.864
7.504
9.112
Pup (atm) deltaP (atm) Pdown (atm) Pmean (atm) 1/Pmean (atm) qmean (cc/sec) kg (Darcy)
0.48
0.35
0.13
0.30
3.30
675.56
42.67
0.63
0.46
0.18
0.41
2.46
894.95
42.96
0.79
0.56
0.24
0.52
1.94
1100.14
43.29
0.93
0.65
0.28
0.60
1.66
1342.31
45.38
1.06
0.73
0.33
0.69
1.44
1538.54
46.16
1.16
0.79
0.37
0.77
1.30
1711.63
47.22
1.27
0.85
0.42
0.85
1.18
1876.26
48.42
1.32
0.87
0.45
0.89
1.13
1971.46
49.29
0.71
0.51
0.20
0.46
2.18
1006.34
43.13
0.87
0.62
0.25
0.56
1.78
1228.71
43.37
- 21 -
Ruska Permeameter
Core Diameter (cm)
Core Length (cm)
Temperature C
Trial
1
2
3
Avg. Tube Height (cm)
qdown at avg tube height
(cc/sec)
uair at 22C
K of core A (mD)
3.803
3.33
22
Tube
Size
Large
Large
Large
2.26
8
Tube Height
(cm)
2.5
2.2
2.1
Pressure
(atm)
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.018
169
- 22 -