GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L02318, doi:10.
1029/2005GL025134, 2006
Permeability-porosity relationship: A reexamination of the
Kozeny-Carman equation based on a fractal pore-space
geometry assumption
Antonio Costa1,2
Sezione di Napoli, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Naples, Italy
Received 4 November 2005; revised 15 December 2005; accepted 20 December 2005; published 31 January 2006.
[1] The relationship between permeability and porosity is
reviewed and investigated. The classical Kozeny-Carman
approach and a fractal pore-space geometry assumption are
used to derive a new permeability-porosity equation. The
equation contains only two fitting parameters: a Kozeny
coefficient and a fractal exponent. The strongest features
of the model are related to its simplicity and its capability
to describe measured permeability values of different
non-granular porous media better than other models.
Citation: Costa, A. (2006), Permeability-porosity relationship:
A reexamination of the Kozeny-Carman equation based on a
fractal pore-space geometry assumption, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33,
L02318, doi:10.1029/2005GL025134.
1. Introduction
[2] Estimation of permeability is of pivotal importance
for the description of different physical processes, such as
hydrocarbon recovery, fluid circulation in geothermal sys-
tems and degassing from vesiculating magmas. Mainly due
to the intricate geometry of the connected pore space and to
the complexity of porous media, it has been very difficult to
formulate satisfactory theoretical models for permeability.
One of the most largely used methods remains the Kozeny-
Carman approach.
[3] In this study we briefly review the Kozeny-Carman
model. Then, using the hypothesis of a fractal pore-space
geometry and the empirically based Archie law, we refor-
mulate that model without introducing the concept of
hydraulic radius and obtain a new simple permeability-
porosity equation. As an application, we used the obtained
equation to predict permeability of fiber mat systems and of
vesicular rocks.
2. Permeability-Porosity Relationship
[4] Permeability of porous media is usually expressed as
function of some physical properties of the interconnected
pore system such as porosity and tortuosity. Although it is
natural to assume that permeability values depend on
porosity, it is not simple to determine which is the appro-
priate relationship since this would require a detailed
1
Centre for Environmental and Geophysical Flows, Department of
Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, UK.
2
Also at Osservatorio Vesuviano, Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica e
Vulcanologia, Naples, Italy.
Copyright 2006 by the American Geophysical Union.
0094-8276/06/2005GL025134$05.00
L02318
knowledge of size distribution and spatial arrangement of
the pore channels in the porous medium. For instance, two
porous systems can have the same porosities but different
permeabilities. One of the most widely accepted and sim-
plest model for the permeability-porosity relationship is the
Kozeny-Carman (KC) model [Kozeny, 1927; Carman,
1937] which provides a link between media properties
and flow resistance in pore channels. This model represents
an attempt to describe permeability k in terms of porosity f
starting from first principles. However because of the
complexity and the large number of related parameters no
simple single functions can exist. Because of its vital
importance in many fields, from industrial manufacturing
processes to the success of hydrocarbon recovery processes,
many semi-empirical corrections have been proposed [e.g.,
Panda and Lake, 1994] to improve the estimation of
permeability.
[5] In the following, we firstly re-derive the basic KC
equation then, in the Section 3, we extend it by incorporat-
ing the concept of fractal effective cross-sectional area. The
starting point of the KC equation is the comparison between
the average fluid velocity U as given by Darcy’s law and
that obtained from the Poiseuille formula for capillary tube.
Darcy’s law was obtained empirically and defines the
permeability k as a proportionality coefficient in the rela-
tionship between U and pressure gradient dp/dx:
k dp
U ¼ ð1Þ
h dx
where h is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid. The
relationship (1) is valid at relatively low velocity when
inertial terms are negligible and thus laminar flow prevails.
On the other hand, we consider the general Poiseuille
equation in a straight channel with a generic cross-sectional
shape [Mortensen et al., 2005]:
A 1 dp
Uchannel ¼  ð2Þ
a h dx
where A is the generic cross-sectional area of the
micro-channel and a is a dimensionless geometric factor.
For instance, for cylindrical cross-sections a = 8p and
A = p R2 (R is the tube radius), for elliptical cross-
sections a = 4p (a/b + b/a) and A = pab (a and b are
the ellipse axes). In general a can be expressed in terms
of C = P 2/A where P is the perimeter of the boundary
confining the fluid [Mortensen et al., 2005]. Classical
derivations of the KC model [e.g., Paterson, 1983; Panda
and Lake, 1994] consider as a starting point the case of a
1 of 5
L02318 COSTA: PERMEABILITY-POROSITY RELATIONSHIP L02318

circular cross-section in (2), i.e. A/a = R2/8. They extend we assume that a fractal formulation can be adapted to
and adapt formula (2) to the equivalent channel model of describe even non-granular porous media such as volcanic
the porous body considering effects of (i) the effective vesicular rocks.
tortuous path, (ii) the effective volume and (iii) introdu- [7] In our derivation we consider that pore cross-sectional
cing the concept of effective radius R: area A is described by a fractal with dimension DS. In accord
with theory [Dullien, 1979; Bayles et al., 1989; Nigmatullin et
R2 f 1 dp
U ¼ c ð3Þ al., 1992] the sum of total area of pores with areas less than
8 t h dx ‘‘a’’ for a fractally fragmented system is:
where c was introduced as an empirical geometrical

DS DS ð1DS =2Þ
parameter, f is the porosity, t the tortuosity defined as the A½<a ¼ b 1 a ð8Þ
2 2
square of the ratio between the effective channel length
Le due to the tortuous path and the length L of the porous where b is a positive constant. Assuming that pore area may
body (t  (Le/L)2). Comparison of (3) with Darcy’s law be roughly approximated by the square of its linear
(1) gives the following permeability expression: dimension l, equation (8) becomes:
R2 f

k¼c ð4Þ DS DS ð2DS Þ
8 t A½<a ¼ b 1 l ð9Þ
2 2
f
The concept of hydraulic radius Rh = av ð1fÞ,
defined as
the ratio of the pore volume to the solid-fluid interfacial Now we define lm and lM as the minimum and maximum
area, must be introduced to replace R, because even in a scale length respectively, which bound the validity of a
natural homogeneous porous medium it is impossible to fractal description, and Alm and AlM as the corresponding
define a representative radius (av is the specific internal areas. Relationship (9) gives us:
surface area, i.e. the ratio of the exposed surface to the  2DS
solid volume). Accounting for this definition, equation (4) AlM ¼ Alm lM =lm ð10Þ
can be written as:
On the other hand, for the pore cross-sectional area AlM we
f3 consider equation (2), corrected for effective volume and
k ¼ Ckc ð5Þ
ð1  fÞ2 tortuosity, to be valid:

2DS
where Ckc = c/(8a2v t). The ratio F = t/f is known as AlM f 1 dp Al lM f 1 dp
U ¼ ¼ m ð11Þ
formation factor and it is related to the porosity by the a t h dx a lm t h dx
empirically based Archie relationship:
In the fractal frame, porosity can be expressed in terms of lm,
F ¼ b=fm ð6Þ lM and of the dimensions of the fractal embedded in the 3D
space DV: f = 1  (lm/lM)3DV [e.g., Perrier et al., 1996].
where b is an empirical factor which varies in the range Therefore we obtain (lm/lM) = (1  f)1/(3DV), and
0.6 < b < 2 and m is the empirical cementation or
tortuosity factor belonging to the range 1 < m < 4. The  2DS 2D
 S
empirically derived Archie law can be theoretically lM =lm ¼ ð1  fÞ 3DV ð12Þ
obtained assuming that tortuosity behaves as a fractal
[e.g., Nigmatullin et al., 1992]. Considering the relation- Defining q = (2  DS)/(3  DV), we can write:
ship (6) in (5) we have [Bayles et al., 1989]:
AlM f 1 dp Al 1 f 1 dp
f2þm U ¼ ¼ m ð13Þ
k¼C ð7Þ a t h dx a ð1  fÞq t h dx
2
ð1  fÞ

In the next section we propose a generalised model of the
KC equation based on the hypothesis, supported by
observations [Bayles et al., 1989] that pore cross-sectional
areas are fractals. The model does not need to use the
unclear concept of hydraulic radius and appears capable
to reproduce observed permeability-porosity data.
3. Reexamination of the KC Based on Fractal
Pore-Space Geometry
[6] Evidence suggests that, in a given length scale range,
natural porous media, can be described as a fractal of
dimension D [e.g., Katz and Thompson, 1985; Turcotte,
1986; Bayles et al., 1989]. There is even stronger support
that surfaces of rock grain and of whole rock samples are
fractal [Orford and Whalley, 1983; Avnir et al., 1984]. Here
Comparing relationship (13) with equation (1), we obtain
the equation for the permeability-porosity relationship:
Alm f 1
k¼ ð14Þ
a t ð1  fÞq
Now we consider exclusively the fractal class with DS ffi
DV  1 (additive law [e.g. Sreenivasan, 1991]). This
implies q = (2  DS)/(3  DV) ffi 1 and means that we
consider random fractals with no axes of symmetry
[Mandelbrot, 1983; Sreenivasan, 1991]. Finally, inserting
in (14) the fractal relationship for tortuosity in the form of
the Archie equation (6), we have:
fm
k ¼ Cc ð15Þ
ð1  fÞ

2 of 5
L02318 COSTA: PERMEABILITY-POROSITY RELATIONSHIP
Figure 1. Fiber mat permeability as a function of porosity
for (left) sisal and jute fiber and (right) random fiberglass.
Solid circles represent values measured by Rodriguez et al.
[2004], dotted line values predicted by equation (5), solid
line by equation (15) and dashed line by equation (17). Best
parameters are Ckc = 1.09  107 m2 (s2kc = 7.4  1014
m4), Cc = 5.32  107 m2, m = 3.48 (sc2 = 3.1  1014 m4),
C* = 2.09  107 m2, n = 1.45 (s*2 = 2.1  1014 m4), for
natural fiber, and Ckc = 2.20  108 m2 (s2kc = 1.6  1013
m4), Cc = 1.02  107 m2, m = 1.46 (s2c = 1.09  1014
m4), C* = 1.45  107 m2, n = 0.84 (s*2 = 1.15  1014
m4), for glass fiber. As weighting factors, wj / 1/Yj(exp)
were chosen in both cases.
where Cc = Alm/(b a) is a factor like the Kozeny
coefficient and m the Archie exponent.
4. Application to Porous Materials
[8] In this section we compare the performance of dif-
ferent parameterisations to fit measured permeability-poros-
ity values of two different kinds of non-granular porous
media: volcanic materials and fiber mats. These exhibit a
scattered and non-scattered permeability-porosity relation-
ship respectively. Model parameters, such as Cc and m in
equation (15), were found by minimising the Standard
Deviation of Regression:
1 X N  2
s2 ¼ wj Yj ðexpÞ  Yj ðcalcÞ ð16Þ
N  P j¼1
where wj are weighting factors, P is the number of
parameters, N is the number of data points and Yj(exp)
and Yj(calc) represent the measured and calculated values
respectively. Weighting factors wj are dependent on the
distribution of random errors in the dependent variable.
Permeability variance can change because of the natural
variability of porosity, pore size and sorting [e.g., Panda
and Lake, 1994]. When experimental scatter is observed to
be the same in all parts of the curve, wj = 1 should be used.
When experimental scatter is observed to vary along the
curve, weighting by wj / 1/Yj(exp) (statistical weight) or
wj / 1/Yj2(exp) (proportional weight) should be used.
Generally, the best weighting factor is that which yields a
random residual plot, i.e., [Yj(exp)  Yj(calc)]/s2, with no
functional dependencies. Since the classical KC model is
often unable to describe the measured permeabilities of
several porous media [see, e.g., Lukasiewicz and Reed,
1988; Saar and Manga, 1999; Rodriguez et al., 2004],
different semi-empirical parameterisations were presented
in literature in order to improve prediction. For instance
the two-parameters equation (7) [e.g., Bayles et al., 1989]
or the fully empirical KC-like equation proposed by
3 of 5
L02318
Rodriguez et al. [2004]. This was able to describe the well
defined experimental k  f relationships for glass and
natural fiber mats:
fnþ1
k ¼ C* ð17Þ
ð1  fÞn
where n and C* are empirical parameters [Rodriguez et al.,
2004]. (We note that (17) can be recovered in the frame of
our derivation assuming m = q + 1). Relationship (17) was
compared with (5), and (15) directly on the little scattered
fiber mat data by Rodriguez et al. [2004] (we excluded
equation (7) because for all the examined cases it showed
a very poor performance and even gave unrealistic values
for m). Figure 1 shows fitting results for both natural (sisal
and jute) fiber mats and glass fiber mats. Equation (15)
successfully reproduced experimental data, and, for the
glass fiber case, even gave lower s2 and higher correlation
than the fully empirical equation (17).
[9] Unlike fiber mat data reported above, many natural
systems commonly show large variability in permeability.
For instance, permeability-porosity relationships of vesicu-
lar volcanic materials present a defined bulk trend but
also show a large scatter [Klug and Cashman, 1996;
Saar and Manga, 1999; Melnik and Sparks, 2002; Rust
and Cashman, 2004; Mueller et al., 2005]. In granular
materials fluids flow around spheroidal grains so that pores
have the shape of the space around impermeable spheres. In
contrast, in vesicular materials fluids flow through approx-
imately spherical to ellipsoidal vesicles where the apertures
between vesicles largely determine k [Saar and Manga,
1999]. As a consequence, for a given porosity it is possible
to get a range of permeabilities depending for instance on
the aperture widths as well as on degassing-related dis-
tortions of bubbles from ellipsoidal shapes [Saar and
Manga, 1999]. Now we consider permeability-porosity data
sets of volcanic material permeabilities reported by Rust
and Cashman [2004], Melnik and Sparks [2002], Klug and
Cashman [1996], and Saar and Manga [1999].
[10] Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5, show that even for vesicular
volcanic materials which are not satisfactory described by
classical models as explained by Saar and Manga [1999],
Figure 2. Permeability of natural eruptive material as a
function of porosity from data by Rust and Cashman
[2004]. Solid circles represent measured values, solid line
values predicted by equation (15), dashed line by equation
(17) and dotted line by equation (5). Best parameters are
Ckc = 1.75  1013 m2 (s2kc = 5.50  1014 m4), Cc =
6.15  1013 m2, m = 2.89 (s2c = 5.42  1022 m4), C* =
3.14  1013 m2, n = 1.37 (s*2 = 5.42  1022 m4). As
weighting factors, wj / 1/Yj(exp) were chosen.
L02318 COSTA: PERMEABILITY-POROSITY RELATIONSHIP
Figure 3. Permeability of natural eruptive material as a
function of porosity from data by Melnik and Sparks [2002].
Solid circles represent measured values, solid line values
predicted by equation (15), dashed line by equation (17) and
dotted line by equation (5). Best parameters are Ckc = 1.0 
1012m2 (s2kc = 2.7  1023 m4), Cc = 2.80  1012 m2,
m = 2.76 (s2c = 2.49  1023 m4), C* = 1.54  1012 m2,
n = 1.39 (s*2 = 2.49  1023 m4). As weighting factors,
wj / 1/Yj(exp) were chosen.
equation (15) appears to be typically most suitable in all the
examined data, giving the lowest s2. In particular, percola-
tion theory predicts that below a certain critical porosity, fcr,
the permeability must be zero, although several experimen-
tal results show high k-values at f < fcr, in contrast with the
theory prediction. Saar and Manga [1999] and Mueller et al.
[2005] suggested that high k at f < fcr can be due to fluid
flow through pathways and microcracks generated, before
degassing-related bubble collapse, when f was greater than
fcr. If so, we can understand why a capillary-tube model like
(15), is more appropriate to approximate permeability of
vesicular materials. However for these complex systems, it
represents an attempt to describe permeability in terms of a
k  f relationship only. In principle, if Cc and m (or C* and
n) are different, equation (15), or (17), can reproduce
different k for the same f but further investigations and
more detailed data are needed.
5. Conclusion
[11] Starting from the classical Kozeny-Carman approach,
a new permeability-porosity relationship was theoretically
derived. The proposed equation is based on a fractal pore-
Figure 4. Permeability of silicic pumices as a function of
porosity from Klug and Cashman [1996]. Solid circles
represent measured values, solid line values predicted by
equation (15), dashed line by equation (17) and dotted line
by equation (5). Best parameters are Ckc = 1.66  1013 m2
(s2kc = 1.25  1021 m4), Cc = 1.46  1013 m2, m =
1.47 (s2c = 1.20  1021 m4), C* = 2.42  1013 m2, n =
0.76 (s*2 = 1.20  1021 m4). As weighting factors,
wj / 1/Yj(exp) were chosen.
4 of 5
L02318
Figure 5. Permeability of vesicular basalts as a function of
porosity from Saar and Manga [1999]. Solid circles
represent measured values, solid line values predicted by
equation (15), dashed line by equation (17) and dotted line
by equation (5). Best parameters are Ckc = 1.77  1012 m2
(s2kc = 3.9  1022 m4), Cc = 3.87  1012 m2, m = 1.99
(s2c = 3.47  1022 m4), C* = 3.68  1012 m2, n = 1.07
(s*2 = 3.47  1022 m4). As weighting factors, wj = 1 were
chosen.
space geometry assumption and on the Archie law. The
equation contains only two parameters and presents a
capability to describe measured permeability values of
different porous media better than other models. In particu-
lar, the equation was successfully used to predict permeabil-
ity of different non-granular systems such as fiber mats and
vesicular rocks.
[12] Acknowledgments. This work was supported by NERC research
grant reference NE/C509958/1. I thank T. M. Gernon for his corrections
and K. Cashman and M. O. Saar who furnished the original data used in
Figures 2 – 4 and 5. The paper highly benefited from the comments of M. O.
Saar and an anonymous reviewer.
References
Avnir, D., D. Farin, and P. Pfeifer (1984), Molecular fractal surfaces, Nat-
ure, 308, 261 – 263.
Bayles, G., G. Klinzing, and S. Chiang (1989), Fractal mathematics applied
to flow in porous systems, Part. Part. Syst. Charact., 6, 168 – 175.
Carman, P. (1937), Fluid flow through a granular bed, Trans. Inst. Chem.
Eng., 15, 150 – 167.
Dullien, F. (1979), Porous Media, Fluid Transport and Pore Structure,
Elsevier, New York.
Katz, A., and A. Thompson (1985), Fractal sandstone pores: Implications
for conductivity and pore formation, Phys. Rev. Lett., 54, 1325 – 1328.
Klug, C., and K. Cashman (1996), Permeability development in vesiculating
magmas: Implications for fragmentation, Bull. Volcanol., 58, 87 – 100.
Kozeny, J. (1927), Uber kapillare Leitung der Wasser in Boden, Sitzungs-
ber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, 136, 271 – 306.
Lukasiewicz, S., and J. Reed (1988), Specific permeability of porous com-
pacts as described by a capillary model, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 71, 1008 –
10014.
Mandelbrot, B. (1983), The Fractal Geometry of Nature, 3rd ed., W. H.
Freeman, New York.
Melnik, O., and R. Sparks (2002), Dynamics of magma ascent and
lava extrusion at Soufriére Hills Volcano, Montserrat, in The Eruption
of Soufriére Hills Volcano, Montserrat, From 1995 to 1999, edited
by T. Druitt and B. Kokelaar, pp. 153 – 171, Geol. Soc. of London,
London.
Mortensen, N., F. Okkels, and H. Bruus (2005), Reexamination of Hagen-
Poiseuille flow: Shape dependence of the hydraulic resistance in micro-
channels, Phys. Rev. E, 71, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.71.057301.
Mueller, S., O. Melnik, O. Spieler, B. Scheu, and D. Dingwell (2005),
Permeability and degassing of dome lavas undergoing rapid decompres-
sion: An experimental determination, Bull. Volcanol., 67, 526 – 538,
doi:10.1007/s00445-004-0392-4.
Nigmatullin, R., L. Dissado, and N. Soutougin (1992), A fractal pore model
for Archie’s law in sedimentary rocks, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys., 25, 32 – 37.
Orford, J., and W. Whalley (1983), The use of the fractal dimension to
quantify the morphology of irregular-shaped particles, Sedimentology, 30,
655 – 668.
L02318 COSTA: PERMEABILITY-POROSITY RELATIONSHIP L02318

Panda, M., and W. Lake (1994), Estimation of single-phase permeability
from parameters of particle-size distribution, AAPG Bull., 78, 1028 –
1039.
Paterson, M. (1983), The equivalent channel model for permeability and
resistivity in fluid-saturated rock—A re-appraisal, Mech. Mater., 2, 345 –
352.
Perrier, E., M. Rieu, G. Sposito, and G. de Marsily (1996), Models of the
water retention curve for soils with a fractal pore size distribution, Water
Resour. Res., 32, 3025 – 3031.
Rodriguez, E., F. Giacomelli, and A. Vazquez (2004), Permeability-porosity
relationship in RTM for different fiberglass and natural reinforcements,
J. Compos. Mater., 38, 259 – 268.
Rust, A., and K. Cashman (2004), Permeability of vesicular silicic magma:
Inertial and hysteresys effects, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 228, 93 – 107.
Saar, M., and M. Manga (1999), Permeability-porosity relationship in ve-
sicular basalts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 111 – 114.
Sreenivasan, K. (1991), Fractals and multifractals in fluid turbulence, Annu.
Rev. Fluid Mech., 23, 539 – 600.
Turcotte, D. (1986), Fractals and fragmentation, J. Geophys. Res., 91,
1921 – 1926.

A. Costa, Centre for Environmental and Geophysical Flows, Department
of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen’s
Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK. (a.costa@bris.ac.uk)

5 of 5