8.3.

3 thermal properties of sedementary rocks

8.3.3.1 mean values and ranges
Table 8. geves an overview of range and mean values for thermal conductivity of sedementary
rocks.
It is useful to dstinguish for further discussions between
Dense, i.e, pore and crack free sedimentary rocks and
Porous sedimentary rocks

Resulting from the difference of thermal properties between minerals and pore filing materials.
Table 8.7 thermal properties of sedimentary rocks,
References : b- blackwell and steele 1989; C-Cermak and Rybach, 1982; D- Dortman 1976; J- Jessop,
1990 ( data after Roy et al, 1981);K- Kobranova, 1989; S- Schuch, 1980;
Rock type Wm
-1
K
-1
n range mean
C
F
in kJ kg
-1
K
-1

n range mean
a in m
2
s
-1

range mean
Ref
Anhydrite





Gypsum

Salt
77 1.006.05 4.00
3 4.895.73 5.43
4.905.75
4.905.80
2.505.80

0.601.67

70 1.40
15 1.67per
0.810.94 0.98



0.580.61

0.901.10
C
J
D
B
E

K



8.3.3.2 non porous sedimentary rocks

Dense sedimentary rocks show the same main influesces and properties which control the thermal
properties of magmatic rocks
Mineral content and thermal properties of minerals
Interna structure of the rock
Typical members of this group are non porous anhydrite, carbonater and the different typesof salt.
Table 8.8 contain some examples of the thermal conductivity of salt.
Table 8.8 some examples of thermal conductivity of salt; references C-Clarke (1966); Cr-
Creutuzburg(1965); M-Mainke (1967); P-Plewa (1966); H0Hernin and Clarke (1965); L-Loney and Wilson
(196); all cited by Cermak and Rybach, 1982; D-Dortman (1976); K-Kobranova (1989).
Salt type, location n




Thermal conductivity of salt usually decreases woth increasing temperature and increases with
increasing pressure. Figure 8.7 shows this temperature dependent decrease for thermal conductivity
and thermal diffusivity.
It must be noted that, impuities or admixtures e.g. of anhydrite or clay change the properties of the pure
salt. Figure 8.8 illustrates this in a plot of thermal conductivity vs. density for rock sat containing
anhydrite and clay both parameters are influenced by impurities in the same direction.




Figure 8.7 thermal conductivity and thermal diffucivity of crystalline rock salt as a fuction of temperature
(after yang , 1979 cited by Roy, 1981)




Figure 8.8 thermal conductivity vs density for anhydritic and clayey rock salt (halite)from
Thuringia/Germany; after measured data from meinke et al (1967).

8.3.3.3 parous sedimentary rocks
In porous sedementary rocks, porosity and moisture content effect the thermal conductivity of rocks to
a degree. Which can be dominan (Kappelmeyer and Haenel, 1974). The thermal behaviour is strongly
enfluenced by the distinct various pore filling materials.
The principle dependencies can be understood by examining the schmatic picture in figure 8.9. the
thermal conductivities of rock cinstituents are ahown on the top and in the lower part, the resulting
dependence on potosity (left) and water content (right).




Figure 8.9 thermal conductivity of porous sedimentary rock-principal dependencies
a) Mean ranges of the contituents (A-air, gas:O-Oil; W-water, M-matrix, mineral),
b) Thermal conductivity vs porosity for sand and sandstone at different pore filling materials (after
Woodside and messmer, 1961)
c) Thermal conductivity vs water content for different solid components of solid-fluid mixture; 1-
quartzite (=0,366), 2- quartize (=0.423), 3- limestone. (=0.389).


Generally, the thermal conductivity increases with
Decreasing porosity (figure 8.9 b).
Increasing thermal conductivity of pore content (compare different curves in figure 8.9 b, 8.9 c
and table 8.9)
Increasing water content (figure 8.9 c).
Increasing thermal conductivity of the solid mineral substance ( compare quartzite and
limertone in figure 8.9 c).
Improvement of grain bonds or cementation. This influence is especially remarkable in case of
low thermal comductivity pore contents with hogh contrast of thermal conductivit between
matrix and pore material (compare Griffith et al . (1992) discussed the effect of grain size upon
thermal per unit volume and thus, decreases thermal conductivity (for example a reduction of
27 % of the monocrystalline thermal conductivity value at a grain size of 0.1 mm, and a 50 %
reduction at 0.05 mm)

Table 8.9 thermal conductivity of sandstones with various pore fluids (after data from Woodside
and Messmer, 1961)







These dependencies will be discussrd in succession.

The correllation between porosity and thermal conductivity has been experimentally investigated by
several authors. The general tendency, as well as, the influence of pore filling material and cementation
os seen in the results of Woodside and Messmer (1961) in figure 8.9 c

The separation between the values for pore filling materials (air, oil and water) is clearly vsible for
unconsolidated sand, where for the cemented sandstone the valur are much closer. This is a result af
the dominant part of heat transfer by the cementrd matrix skeleton.

Plew (1976) has used a linear empirical relation between thermal m
-1
K
-1
in fractions)
. (8-24)
Or more generalised

.. (8-25)

Frequently, an empirical lineas relation between thermal conductivity and density d is used ( for
example cermak, 1976, Cermak and Rybach, 1982)

.. (8-26)
Where a
2,
b
2
are empirically.

As a example of this applicarion figure 8.10. show the results obtained by poulsen et al (1981) for
compact silurian limestones.






Figure 8.19 thermal conductivity vs, density for lemestones (O-dry,- water saturated data after poulson
et al (1981); aquations for the regression curves see text.

An analysis of the data following equation (8-26) result in the relationship for dry rock;
..(8-27)

And for water saturated rock;
.(8-28)

Where the density d is in kgm
-3
and the thermal conductivity in W m
-1
K
-1


Table 8.10 contain some parameters for the relation (8-26) acquired from experimental investigations of
different authors. Kappelmeyer and Haenel (1974) referred to the fact of a high scattering of such
relations because the individual samples differ in its quartz content. Cermak (1967)notes the tendency
of growing valur a
2
with increasing geological age of the sediment.

Table 8.10 empirical coefficients of the equation 8-26 tor sedimentary rocks using data from the
following references (C67-Cermak (1967), C82 Cermak and Rybach (1982) ,H76-Hurtig and Schlosser
(1976), P81- Poulsen (1981).












The equation 8-25 and 8-26 are equivalent; by using the density-porosity relation (equation 3-3) we get

( )

..8-29)
It follows the conversion

)..8-30

Based on a geometric mean model (see section 8.4.2.2) balling et al. (1981) derived by least squares fits
relationships between thermal conductivity and of the from (see equatuon 8-46) for conecoic and
mesozoid sediments (Denmark)

(8-31)

Table 8.11 shows mean values for the parameters a and b

Table 8.11 empirically determined parameters a and b (in W/mK) for equation 8-31 references; B balling
et al., 1981;L-Lovell, 1985 (see also Griffith et al, 1992).




The parameter b is controlled by the matrix properties (see section 8.4.2.2). therefore, it is reatively high
for sandstone and especially for quartz sandstone. An increasing clay content (e.g in case of shaly sands)
results in a decreasing thermal conductivity. A study of this problem- with theoretical consideration-wac
published by Brigaud et al (1989).
Figure 8.9 and 8.10 show the influesce of the thermal propertiesof pore filling material on the thermal
conductivity of porous rock; it is even more distinct for unconsolidated rocks than for consolidated (see
figure 8.9b). somerton (1958) has published an empirical relationship for the ratio of the thermal
conductivity of dry (

) and fluid saturated (

) porous rock related to the thermal conductiivity of

the pore fluid (

)
(

) (

8-32
Where is the porosity and c an empisical exponent in the range of 0.91.3.

The inceasing influence of pore material cinductivity with frowing porosity may also be illustrated by
figure 8.11 using data from kunii and smith (1960; see Roy , 1981) and woodside and messmer (1961),
the ratio of rock conductivity for pores filled with water and air

and , also, the ratio for

pores filed with water and oil

is plotted versus porosity .

A linear regression leads to the following relations for the rock conductivity ratio:





We note a strong influence of the conductivity contrast between the analysed pore filling materials (see
also figure 8.9)






Cermak and Rybach note that there is an increase of conductivity with increasing water content, which
reached a maximum at a porosity of about 2030%. They derived an empirical relation between this
wet conductivity and dry cinductivity

)(8-33)

Where C
w
is the waer content of the rock in volume fractions. This relation sontains the combined effet
of shanging porosity and changing degree of water saturation (C
w
=S
w
). dachnov and Djakonov (1952)
Djakonov and Jakpvlev (1969) have found a comparable relation with an exponent of 0.8 C
w
.

8.3.3.4 unconsolidated sediments

Some properties and dependencies are discussed in section 8.3.3.3, the following supplements this
discussion.
Marine unconsoidated sediments are a particular type of sediments, which are characterised by high
porosity and very loose bonding between the individual grains. Experimental results have been
publisged by somerton and boozer (1960), Ratcliffe (1960), Hutt and Berg (1968), v. Herzen and Maxwell
(1969), and in the cited data collections.

Figure 8.12 demonstrates the correlation between thermal conductivity and water content (weigh %)
plotted after data from Ratcliffe (1960), and the derived correlation between thermal conductivity and
porosity.
Bullard and Day (1961) suggested for seafloor sediments the empisical relationship between sediment
thermal conductivity and porosity
( ) ( )

..(8-34)

Another special type of unconsolidated rocks are soils. Their thermal conductivity is essentially
influenced by the soil moisture (figure 8.13) and also show a non-linear correlation. This strong
correlation was doscussed by Nibterkorn in 1962

Schuch (1982) may be cited for the general behaviour of soils:The thermal conductivity of dry soils is
small (0.20.8 W/mK), reaches a maximum by 20 to 30 wt% of water content 2 or 3 W/mK), decreases
for higher contents of water, e.g, wet bog, and draws near the value of thermal conductivity of water
(0.6 W/mK). This decrease is originated by an increasing porosity in that range and a connected
decrease of the heat transfer by the skeleton of the solid parts of the soil.


8.3.3.5 dependence of thermal conductivity on pressure and depth

Increasing pressere yields an increasing thermal conductivity in sedimentary rocks (figure 8.14) due
primarily to
Improved heat transport at grain-grain contacts and also at cracks microcracks or other defects
within the compact solid matrix.
Decrease of porosity.
Therefore, pressure conditioned variations of the thermal conductivity are more evident in compressible
rock ( unconsolidated sediments, consolidated sediments woth high porosity) rather than in rocks with
zero or small compressibility (dense carbonates, anhydrite). The direct dependence of thermal
conductivity varations on the deformation behaviour explains the phenomena of nonlinearity and partial
irreversibility (hysteresis) of the thermal conductivity vs. pressure curve.



A log-log presentation of thermal conductivity versus pressure results in a linear correction as a first
approximation. This corresponds to a power law of the form

.(8-35)

Where in this particular case the exponent m is between 0.02 and 0.04.
The depth dependence of thermal conductivity is the combined effect of the pressure and temperature
dependence, of the vertica pressere and temperature gradient and the effects og diagenesis,
compaction and cementation.
Figure 8.15 shows a result for shale samples. The laboratory measurement error is given by the authors
to be less than 5%. The data scatter confirms that the rock structure and the individual composition of
fhe sample (e.g clay and quartz content) is also influential. The general trand was approximated by
different linear and non-linear regressions; where the best approximated by particular case results in
the form.

................................(8-36)
With correlation coefficient of r = 0.82; the depth z is in m.





Figure 8.15 thermal conductivity vs. depth for shales (anjinour depression

The complex effects of depth and the different feolofgical processes results in the tendency of
increasing conductivity with the geological age for comparable rock types. Table 8.11 reflects this for
sedimentary rocks from Germany.
Table 8.11 mean values and standard deviation of thermal conductivity , specific heat c, and density d
of sedimentary rocks from Germany; after Kappelmeyer and Haenel (1974).


Figure 8.16 shows results of sample measurements of unconsolidated sediments trom a borehole in
Zurich Lake (Switzerland). And conductivity increases in the topmost 30 m from about 0.9 to about 1.6
W/mK. From 30 to 137 m the conductivity shows s smaller increase up to about 2.4 W/mK (Finkh, 1983).
The general trend of this experimental data is a nonlinear increase of conductivity with depth.

Figure 8.16 thermal conductivity versus depth determened on cores of unconsolidated sediments from a
borehole in Lake Zurich, Switzerland (after Finckh, 1983).

8.3.3.6 anisotropy of thermal conductivity (sedimentary rocks)
The anosotropy a thermal conductivity correlates with the structural-textural propertios of sedimentary
rocks. Carbonates and sandstone usually show only a small anisotropy (mostly in the range up to 1.3).
higher anisotropy in carbonater (up to about 1.3.1.4)can be originated by a distinct bedding or crack
orientation. Typical anisotropic rocks are shales (up to 2.5) and claystones (up to 4)