See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313228115

Forerunner: Development of “Hydraulic Units” (HU) concept in rock typing

Progeny: “Parity in Rock-Typing for Geology,Petrophysics, and Engineering by
Tackling Interconnectivity wit...

Article · November 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 246

2 authors:

Michael Altunbay Gamal Ragab Gaafar

PETRONAS Petroliam Nasional Berhad
32 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Grain-size determination from NMR log data View project

Perched_water View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gamal Ragab Gaafar on 02 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Forerunner:
Development of “Hydraulic Units”
(HU) concept in rock typing
Progeny:
“Parity in Rock-Typing for Geology,Petrophysics, and Engineering by
Tackling Interconnectivity withFractal Leaky-Tubes Description -1-
Michael M. Altunbay
Petrophysics Department
PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Dr. Gamal Ragab Gaafar
Petrophysics Department
PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Abstract—Rock typing is used as a tool for predicting the
spatial distribution of Petrophysical and reservoir engineering
parameters on a field-wide from studies of control wells.
Therefore, it is an essential part of static and dynamic models of
an asset. There are varieties of approaches from multi-
disciplinary origins to rock typing. However, the resultant typing
by using different sources of data may not be jointly exhaustive.
The lines between rock types may be uncertain or overlapping
leading to disagreeable uncertainties in asset evaluations and
there from economics. Therefore, a methodology to compensate
for the differences in fundamental approaches, data sources and
resolvability is needed to act as a common denominator -rock
typing- between different disciplines. Using a common
denominator in rock typing methodologies can greatly improve
the accuracy of spatial distributions of rock properties and could
produce better economical assessment/valuation of assets.
Keywords—Rock, typing, hydraulic, units, RQI, FZI, SMLP,
cluster, Kozeny, Carmen, cross-flow, fractal, dimension
Introduction
I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
The rock typing by using Hydraulic Units “HU” concept1
originally was intended to improve sample selection for core
analysis by allowing a better coverage for the variation of rock
properties in petroleum reservoirs. However, the practitioners
have extended the methodology to numerical modelling of rock
properties and this unwarranted extension has resulted in
significant shortfall of predictive capability, specifically, with
regard to permeability predictions. Thus, although the HU
methodology enhanced data management and analysis, the
assumption of “bundles of isolated capillaries” as per Kozeny-
Open
Dr. Maqsood Ahmad
Department of Petroleum Engineering at
The Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Seri Iskandar, 32610, Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia
Prof. Dr. A Ghani Md Rafek
Department of Petroleum Geoscience
The Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Seri Iskandar, 32610, Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia
Carmen2, 3 (KC), has excluded the meaningful extension of the
method for modelling and prediction of reservoir properties of
heterogeneous rocks that evidently do not satisfy that
precondition.
By following the nomenclatures of numerous current
literatures, the terms Hydraulic Units (HU), Hydraulic Rock-
Typing, Hydraulic Flow Units (HFU), and Rock Types (RT)
are interchangeably used in this article.
The overall objective of this study is to overcome these
problems by using the capillary-bundle of tubes approximation
of the KC equation together with leaky-tube hydraulics4 and
further incorporating a pigeon-hole fractal model of pore
space5 to represent the heterogeneous character of petroleum
reservoirs. To represent a more realistic flow-through-porous
media, interconnectivity of pores and consequential cross-flow
are to be formulated. This new approach would lead to
“enhanced / extended rock typing” that shall form a common
basis for the different methodologies used in geoscience for
modeling work in petrophysical and reservoir engineering
disciplines. However, due to expanse scope of the main study
and the required amount of analyses with respect to the
coverage that can be provided in this paper, this publication
will only comprise the introductory and the “state of art” of
Hydraulic Units” methodology as of present time.
Hydraulic rock-typing (or hydraulic units) (HU) quantifies
and typifies the groups of similarities of physical flow and
storage properties of reservoir rocks along with a set of
simplified assumptions of capillary-bundles as the conduit to
flow. However, HU methodology lacks the realization of cross-
flow in pore-scale. Although, the simulation of cross-flow is
1
possible at microscopic level, the up-scaling from micro to e  r 2
meso and further up has proven to be challenging and be k (1)
relatively away from the anticipated accuracy. 8  2
Deterministic identification and quantification of flow units
into “hydraulic units”5 was introduced by Amaefule et all With the inclusion of an expression of hydraulic radius,
(1993) by using algebraically manipulated form of KC
treatment of petrophysical data“. Amaefule et (1993) all 2
e  r   r2
embarked on KC equation to describe permeability and k 2
    e mh (2)
porosity-relation by taking into account of tortuosity, shape 2   2  2  2
factor and specific surface area per unit grain volume. This was 2
for avoiding the conventional practice of searching for a e  r   r2
k     e mh (3)
statistically viable relation in “permeability versus porosity” 2
2   2  2  2
distributions.
and, expressing the hydraulic radius (rmh) as surface area
Algebraic manipulation and rearrangement of the Kozeny- per unit grain volume (Sgv), and effective porosity as follows:
Carman (KC) equation was the basis for identifying groups of
similarities in core-derived porosity-permeability relationships. 2  e  1  e 
This approach provided a means of managing the uncertainties S gv    
 r 1
 (4)
r  1   e  mh  e


in distributions of rock-properties given that core analysis
might be statistically unrepresentative of a porous medium. Amaefule et al (1993) substituted Sgv related rmh
However, one of the assumptions in KC equation was to have
the fluid flow through “groups of capillary bundles of tubes”,
in which, each tube is hydraulically isolated from the others. e
rmh   (5)
This very assumption prevented the possibility of hydraulic e  1  S gv
coupling between the conduits of flow. Another limiting
assumption of the original KC equation was that the capillary into KC equation and obtained:
tubes of a bundle are circular, and therefore, are always open to
flow even under state of heavy compaction. In reality, e3
k (6)
visualizations of core-flow experiments with micro-CT  1 
scanning clearly evidenced the more commonly occurring 1  e  2
 2 2

possibility of the opposite.  2    S gv 
Study by Amaefule (1993) and layer various authors6, 7, 8, 9, where  was the tortuosity.
10
revealed that theoretically correct and fundamentally derived
groups of relations between porosity and permeability (HUs) It was noted that the permeability was in m and e was in
can enhance the selection of representative samples, and fraction. Coefficient of 2 is replaced by “Shape factor” (Fs) that
therefore, it can further refine the derivation of model originated from the definition of mean-hydraulic-radius. The
equations to propagate the Petrophysical properties in sections basis for this approximation was spherical pores with
of the formation where presence of HUs can be detected from circular/cylindrical pore throats. The “Shape factor” Fs
their signatures in wireline logs and geological facies. provided the generalization of equation by circumventing a
Depositional and diagenetic influences on these HUs are pre-determined shape, and therefore; rendering the KC
reflected in the proposed methodology by Amaefule et al. equation to a more applicable form as long as the ever-varying
“Hydraulic quality of a rock is controlled by pore geometry Fs was known:
that is a function of mineralogy (i.e. type abundance,
morphology and its placement in the pore space”. e3 1
k  (7)
HU methodology addressed that pore-throat attributes of 1  e 2 Fs  2  S gv
2

rocks were central to zoning of a reservoir into groups (units)
of similarity. Definition and inclusion of the concept of
hydraulic radius as the ratio of “volume open to flow” to
“wetted surface area” and invoking the Kozeny-Carmen’s (KC)
main assumption of assuming porous media as “bundles of
capillary tubes” were the milestones of assertion of “travel time
of a fluid-element in a capillary tube was equal to that in a
REV (representative elementary volume)” when porosity was
effective.
II. THEORETICAL BASIS
Starting from the expression that relates porosity and
permeability:
It was discussed and pointed out that the product of shape
factor and square of tortuosity have been assumed to be about 5
by Carmen, but later on, it was indicated that this term can vary
between 5 and 100 in naturally occurring rocks. As in this
study, the variability of this product (Fs*) or the similarity of it
is intended to be used as one of the differentiators and grouping
factor for HUs.
In addition, the development of extended HUs (EHU)
throughout this study requires the tortuosity term to be
calculated by using geometrical model(s) of pore-space
together with the effective porosity contained. This
development is a part of enhancing the KC equation via leaky-
hydraulics approach together with controls guided by the

Open
2
fractal dimension of pore-space and will be addressed in the  
later phases of the research.



 0.0314  k  ,
 
 
Fs   S gv and 
1
 F   S


(11)
To establish a theoretically correct and fundamentally   s gv 
derived equation for differentiating HUs, Amaefule et al (1983)
The advantage of this methodology of HU-zonation was the
algebraically manipulated the KC equation by dividing both
incorporation of geological attributes into zoning via KC
sides with e and taking the square-root of both sides. The equation. Texture, mineralogy, pore shapes and tortuosity (HC
outcome is given below: and FZI) have become a part of the differentiation criteria
  through the y-intercept at x=1 plot of Amaefule et all study
k e 1 (1993). Clay types, morphology and placements of clays in the
   (8)
e 1   e   Fs    S gv  pore space, grain-size dictating the pore size, degree of pore-
connectivity formed by tortuosity have all become contributing
The objective was to eliminate the data requirement of the factors in differentiation of rock groups (see equation 9). From
product of “shape factor and tortuosity”. This objective was a higher level of perspective, different depositional
obtained via graphical solution of the equation when the environments and degree of Diagenesis control grain size
logarithms of both sides are obtained as follows: distributions, and there from; pore geometry and FZI further
detailing the resemblance-grouping.
 k   
log   log 1   log e 
  Fs   S gv  1  III. BENEFITS OF HYDRAULIC UNITS IDENTIFICATION
 e     e 
Benefits of identification of hydraulic units (HU) were seen
(9) in the representative modeling work of advanced rock
The revealed form of the KC equation (9) is a straight-line properties data for groups of similarity (HUs). The model
equations depicting relations between “RQI and/or FZI versus
k Swirr”, “RQI and/or FZI versus electrical properties”, “RQI
equation in the form of y=b+m*x when the term is and/or FZI versus relative permeability end-points”, “RQI
e versus stress sensitivity” and “FZI versus permeability” for
e given HUs are more robust and exhibit reproducible and
plotted against in logarithmic-space providing a y- predictable statistical trends with high levels of “goodness of
1  e
fit” than any other rock typing. These distinctions elevated this
   methodology to a more commonly used status.
intercept (b) at y=  e  =1. Because, logarithmic expansion
 1 
 e 
I. DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF
of the equation produces a coefficient of one (1) for the
HYDRAULIC UNITS
  
porosity group  e  (named, z -normalized porosity-). There had been variant approaches to the selection of
1 
 e  number of HU groupings of processed “RQI versus z
“treatment of permeability and porosity data. These
k e approaches11, 12, 13 have been objective oriented. If the HU
Therefore, the data distribution for the “ versus ”
e 1  e methodology was used for core sample selection, then the error
margins of porosity and permeability testing were used to
would be along unity, tangent (450) with similar y-intercept (b) calculate the root-mean-squared (RMS) variation of data, and
or FZI (flow zone indicator) or 1/Hc (1/hydraulic unit the partitioning of the FZI values into ranges was dictated by
characterization factor), i.e.: the RMS variation of the independent variables.
1 Determination of number of HUs (groups of similar
FZI  (10)
Fs    S gv rocks) can be performed with statistical means using
histograms of RQI versus z, test for normality of data
The main assumption in grouping data points into a distributions, cluster analysis, and RMS-driven error margins
common HU (hydraulic unit or flow unit) is based on the on the permeability and porosity data and Stratigraphic
notion of data points having similar product of shape factor, Modified Lorenz plot (SMLP).
tortuosity and surface area per unit grain volume (Sgv), or
simply similar FZI values behaving similarly under flow By applying RMS equation14, 15, with tolerance for
conditions. This relationship is formulated as seen in the permeability taken at 20% and porosity is at 0.5%, RMS
equation (9) and depicted in Fig. 1. sensitivity of FZI can be calculated by using equation 12:
0.5
Further nomenclature was defined by the researches as RQI    2  3    2  k  2 
FZI (12)
(with unit conversion of permeability from mD to cm2), HC  0.5   e    e
    
(i.e. Hydraulic Unit Characterization Factor), FZI (i.e. flow FZI  e   1  e   k  
zone indicator) respectively:
The envelope boundaries for each HU are computed by
honoring the tolerable maximum and minimum of the variables

Open
3
(porosity and permeability) and the number of HUs is
determined. This methodology can be used to treat sensitivity
of FZI equation for different levels of uncertainty on
permeability and porosity to further refine the number of HUs.
Fig. 1 Delineation of hydraulic units (HU)
Cluster analysis17 was also employed in the determination
of number of HUs. Different clustering techniques were used
with “RQI versus z “data. Although the algorithms and
optimization of the data may be different from one technique to
the other one, the principal equation in the cluster analysis
computes the Euclidean interspace between the data points by:
d x2  x1 2   y 2  y1 2 (13)
then optimizes the distances into either a known/requested
number of clusters or determines a number by applying a
minimization algorithm. It should be noted that Kohonen
(SOM) with LVQ (Learning Vector Quantizer), Clustering
Tree with target selection, K-Means with K-Means
Strengthening and Hierarchical Clustering with target selection
have been successful since the target values can condition the
cluster optimization in the expected “unit” slope (i.e. 450 angle)
based on log-log plot of RQI versus z -the presented
manipulation of KC equation-. There is no unique solution to
cluster analysis as the pre-condition of clusters can be changed
according to the objective of the search. However, different
clustering techniques use different approaches to initialization
and being either agglomerative or divisive. Therefore, the use
of clustering in the determination of number of HUs will have
to rely on both a priori estimation of number of clusters and the
conditions to constrain the solution. The conditions are “unit
slope” of the logarithmic distribution of data, FZI similarity of
Open
data distributions and the initial number of HUs that may be
dictated by the anticipated number of geological facies. When
number of geological facies is available, a divisive clustering
technique is recommended due to its computational
progression direction. An unbiased approach of Kohonen SOM
lessens the demand of priori knowledge of number of HUs, but
has to be treated with at least the condition of the unit slope of
the data distribution.
Winland Plot16 is also a commonly used graphical form of
tool to decide the number of HUs. The methodology relies on
semi-logarithmic cross-plot of permeability (mD) versus
porosity (percent) with isopore-throat lines and specifically r35
pore-throats. R35 pore-throats are computed at 35 percent
mercury saturation from a mercury injection test. Winland
provided his empirical equation for as follows:
logr 35  0.732  0.588  logk   0.864  log  (14)
A more statistically sound approach was taken by
evaluating the probability density function of FZI variations. In
HU application of probability density function of FZI, i.e. the
relative likelihood of FZI variations of specific HU is
computed by using:
n
FZI i  hi  hi 1   FZI i 1  hi 1  hi ...  FZI i  hn  hn1  (15)
 FZI
i 1
i  hi 
 FZI i  hn  hn1 
n
i  hi  hi 1   i 1  hi 1  hi ...    hn  hn1 
  h
i 1
i i 
 i  hn  hn1 
(16)
Number of HUs is increased when the deviation of FZI
from likelihood-range becomes statistically significant. These
deviations are identified with visible inflections in the
“Cumulative probability versus FZI” plot and are used to
border the HU ranges. Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz plot
(SMLP) is also commonly used for determining the number of
HUs in a given FZI distribution of an interval. This application
is the modified version13 of Lorenz plot. It illustrates
cumulative percentage of storage capacity and cumulative flow
capacity against stratigraphic sequence of the reservoir.
Observed inflection points indicate changes in either storage or
flow capacity or both at given depths. SMLP plots allows a
seed number to be created for evaluating the number of HUs
with economic importance and lessens the bias in the selection
of initialization number for cluster analysis to produce the
number of HUs. SMLPs are also used by plotting percent
changes in cumulative product of permeability and thickness
versus porosity and thickness. Inflection points in this plot
indicate a change in either flow or storage capacity. The steeper
slopes and trends of slope changes indicate sudden changes in
either flow or storage properties. The usage of FZI in SMLP
also reflects the change in heterogeneity because of the content
RQI
of FZI definition, FZI  .
z
4
 An example of SMLP with HU-based rock typing is given
in Fig.2 and Fig.3 showing the inflection points on “k*h versus
*h” and “FZI*h versus *h” (orange color) plots. Fig. 2 is
based on the same data set where the HU placement was based
on the FZI-averages with root-mean-squared margins covering
the entire y versus x domain. According to the method
introduced, the stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot (SMLP)13 is
mapped by computing on a “foot by foot” basis. Then, the units
of similarity (HUs) were collated and coded into geological
facies to provide the models for static modeling.
Despite the lack of representation of cross-flow, Hydraulic
Units (HU) concept is theoretically sound and a sufficiently
simple methodology to evaluate and to group reservoir rocks
into intervals of similarity. The degree of representativeness of
flow characteristics of HUs varies as functions of heterogeneity
of macro characteristics (permeability, porosity types) and may
be drastically affected by micro specifics of pore space as
tortuosity, grain embedment and cementation. Therefore, a
need for a more complete exploitation of KC equation by
incorporating cross-flow is needed and is the theme for the
progeny to this publication.
Different calculation methodologies on the selection of
number of HUs are discussed and finally SMLP methodology
is recommended as the most optimum technique to create the
seed number for the HU exercise.

NOMENCLATURE
e Effective porosity, fraction
z Normalized porosity, fraction
k Permeability, mD
r Pore radius, micron
Rmh Mean hydraulic radius, micron
 Tortuosity
Sgv surface area per unit grain volume, cm-1
Fs Shape factor
FZI Flow zone indicator
RQI Reservoir quality index, microns
HU Hydraulic units
HFU Hydraulic flow units
RT Rock type
Fig.2 SMLP plot indicating potential number of HUs.  Quotient

REFERENCES

[1] Amaefule, J., O., Altunbay, M, Tiab, D., Kersey, D.G., Keelan, D.K.,
"Enhanced Reservoir Description: Using Core and Log Data to Identify
Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict Permeability in Uncored
Intervals/Wells", SPE 26436, 68th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Houston,
Texas, 3-6 October 1993
[2] J. Kozeny, "Ueber kapillare Leitung des Wassers im Boden."
Sitzungsber Akad. Wiss., Wien, 136(2a): 271-306, 1927
[3] P.C. Carman, "Fluid flow through granular beds." Transactions,
Institution of Chemical Engineers, London, 15: 150-166, 1937
[4] Civan, F., " Fractal Formulation of the Porosity and permeability
Relationship Resulting in A Power-Law Flow Units Equation - A
Leaky-Tube Model", SPE 73785, SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control" held in Lafayette, Louisiana,
20-21 February 2002
[5] Pape, H. Riepe, L., Schopper, J.R., 1987a. “A Pigeon-hole model for
relating permeability to specific surface”, The Log Analyst, January-
February, 1982
Fig. 3 Inflection points are taken to quantify the possible [6] Djebbar Tiab and Erle, C. Donaldson, "Petrophysics, Theory and
number of HUs. Practice of Measuring Rock Properties and Fluid Transport Properties,"
Second edition, Gulf Professional Publishing, Elsevier, Inc. 2004
[7] Tiab, D. Advances in Petrophysics, Vol. 1-Flow Units. Lecture Notes
I. CONCLUSIONS Manual, University of Oklahoma, 2000
[8] Al-Ajmi A.Fahad, Holditch A. Stephen, “Permeability Estimation Using
Hydraulic Flow Units in a Central Arabia Reservoir”, SPE 63254, SPE

Open
5
View publication stats

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4

October 2000
[9] Adnan A. Abed, ” Hydraulic flow units and permeability prediction in a
carbonate reservoir, Southern Iraq from well log data using non-
parametric correlation”, International Journal of Enhanced Research in
Science Technology & Engineering, ISSN: 2319-7463 Vol. 3 Issue 1,
January-2014, pp: (480-486)
[10] Jaka Radiansyah , Teddy E. Putra, Rienno Ismail, Ricky Adi Wibowo,
Efri E. Riza, Medy Kurniawan, ” Reservoir Description using Hydraulic
Flow Unit and Petrophysical Rock Type of PMT Carbonate Early
Miocene of Baturaja Formation, South Sumatra Basin”, Adapted from
extended abstract prepared in conjunction with presentation AAPG
International Conference & Exhibition, Istanbul, Turkey, September 14-
17, 2014, AAPG©2014
[11] Seyed Kourosh Mahjour, Mohammad Kamal Ghasem Al-Askari,
Mohsen Masihi, “Identification of flow units using methods of
Testerman statistical zonation, flow zone index, and cluster analysis in
Tabnaak gas field”, J Petrol Explor Prod Technol, DOI 10.1007/s13202-
015-0224-4, This article is published with open access at
Springerlink.com
[12] Abbaszadeh M, Fujii H, Fujimoto F (1996), “Permeability prediction by
hydraulic flow units theory and applications, SPE Format Evaluate
11:263-271
[13] G.W. Gunter, J.M. Finneran, D.J. Hartmann, J.D. Miller, “Early
Determination of Reservoir Flow Units Using an Integrated
Petrophysical Method”, SPE 38679
[14] M. M. Altunbay,Y. Bonnye, R. E. Poit, “Comparison of Recursive RMS
vs. Monte Carlo Errors for Saturation Height Function and Its
Implications in Oil Field Activities”, IPTC-17783
[15] J. Amaefule, D. Keelan, “ Stochastic approach to computation of
uncertainties in petrophysical properties. SCA International Symposium
on Core Analysis. Dallas, Texas, vol. 1, no. 8907, 28 p
[16] Mike Spearing, Tim Allen and Gavin McAulay, “REVIEW OF THE
WINLAND R35 METHOD FOR NET PAY DEFINITION AND ITS
APPLICATION IN LOW PERMEABILITY SANDS”, SCA 2001-63
[17] My-Young Cheong, “Assessment of Statistical Classi¯cation Methods”,
A Dissertation, The Graduate School Yonsei University Department of
Graduate Program in Biostatistics and Computing, Feb 2007

Open
6