Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils

, Volume 54, Issue 5, pp 641–649 | Cite as

High Pressure Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry Analysis of the Influence of Fractal Dimensions on the Permeability of Tight Sandstone Oil Reservoirs

  • Yang Changhua
  • Guo Ying
  • Shi Xiangyang
  • Li Shouying

In this paper, fractal characteristics of sandstone in the Chang 7 section of the Triassic Yanchang Formation of the Dingbian oilfield, Ordos Basin, China were analyzed by high pressure mercury intrusion porosimetry and the fractal model. The influence offractal parameters on rock permeability is discussed. Results show that fractal dimensions (Df) of sandstone samples range within 2.759-2.987, with an average of 2.890, and the mean capillary tortuosity fractal dimension (DT) ranges within 1.194-1.553, with an average of 1.391; Df is larger than Dr There is a strong negative correlation between rock permeability and Df or Dr Both Df and DT decrease with decreasing porosity of sandstone samples, indicating that connectivity between rock sample pores becomes poor and capillary tortuosity increases. The seepage path in low-permeability (tight) sandstone is much longer than in moderate-permeability sandstone, which is an important reason for the low permeability of the tight sandstone oil reservoir Meanwhile, the fractal model is an effective predictor of the permeability of tight sandstone oil reservoirs.


high pressure mercury intrusion porosimetry tight sandstone oil reservoir pore fractal characteristics capillary tortuosity permeability 


This study was financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2017PD001) and Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Depositional Mineralization and Sedimentary Minerals at the Shandong University of Science and Technology (DMSM2017018).


  1. 1.
    S. Khajooie, R. Roghanian, A. Shahrabadi, et al., Petrol. Sci. Technol, 30, No. 23, 1330-1332 (2012).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Zhang, Y. M. Zhu, S. B. C. L. Hu, Petrol. Sci. Technol., 32, No. 24,2930-2937 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Y. Zhu, X. C. Jin, J. C. Guo, et al., Int. J. Oil Gas Coal T, 13, No. 4,359-387 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Pfeifer and D. Avnir, J. Phys. Chem., 79,3369-3558 (1983).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Xu and B. M. Yu, Chinese Phys. Lett., 31, No. 1,74-81 (2008).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. H. M. Thomeer, J. Petrol. Technol., 12,73-77 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. J. Gong, S. B. Liu, R. K. Zhu, et al., Petrol. Explor. Dev, 42, No. 5,681-688 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Z. Y. Zhang and A. Weller, Geophysics, 79, No. 6, D377—D387 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Z. M. Fang and X. C. Li, Int. J. Oil Gas Coal Technol., 6, No. 5,567-577 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Yang, Z. F. Ning, and H. Q. Liu, Fuel, 115,378-384 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. C. Carman, T Am. Inst. Chem. Eng., 15,150-156 (1937).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. T. Bai, Z. P. Li, J. X. Nan, et al., Natural Gas Geoscience, 27, No. 1,142-148 (2016).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yang Changhua
    • 1
  • Guo Ying
    • 2
    • 3
  • Shi Xiangyang
    • 4
  • Li Shouying
    • 4
  1. 1.Petroleum Engineering InstituteXi’ an Shiyou UniversityXi’ anChina
  2. 2.lnstitute of Geology and PaleontologyLinyi UniversityLinyiChina
  3. 3.Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Depositional Mineralization & Sedimentary MineralsShandong University of Science and TechnologyLinyiChina
  4. 4.The First Oil Production Plant of Huabei Branch Company of CNPCHebeiChina

Personalised recommendations