Thomsen, L., 2023, A logical error in Gassmann poroelasticity：地球物理勘探》，71, 649-663.

IF 1.8 3区地球科学 Q3 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS

Geophysical Prospecting Pub Date : 2024-08-23 DOI:10.1111/1365-2478.13567

{"title":"Thomsen, L., 2023, A logical error in Gassmann poroelasticity：地球物理勘探》，71, 649-663.","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/1365-2478.13567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two figure captions in this paper were in error, confusing compressibility and incompressibility (the figures themselves were correct). The proper figure captions areFIGURE 2. Comparison of Berea sandstone data from Hart and Wang (2010) for Kud − Kfm (as functions of differential pressure, pd = p − pF) with predictions from Gassmann theory (Equation 1, using data for K𝑆 (from Equation 14; see also the unnumbered equation from B&K following Equation 17), or from VRH theory), and from B&K theory (Equation 19, using data for K𝑆 and for κM (from Equation 21)). The Fluid (water) incompressibility KF is taken as 2.3 GPa.FIGURE 4. Comparison of Indiana limestone data from Hart and Wang (2010) for Kud − Kfm (as functions of differential pressure, pd = p − pF) with predictions from Gassmann theory (Equation 1, using data for KS (from Equation 14; see also the unnumbered equation from B&K following Equation 17), or from VRH theory), and from B&K theory (Equation 19, using data for K𝑆 and κM (from Equation 21)). The Fluid (water) incompressibility KF is taken as 2.3 GPa.","PeriodicalId":12793,"journal":{"name":"Geophysical Prospecting","volume":"72 7","pages":"2857"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1365-2478.13567","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thomsen, L., 2023, A logical error in Gassmann poroelasticity: Geophysical Prospecting, 71, 649–663. by Leon Thomsen, University of Houston\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1365-2478.13567\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Two figure captions in this paper were in error, confusing compressibility and incompressibility (the figures themselves were correct). The proper figure captions areFIGURE 2. Comparison of Berea sandstone data from Hart and Wang (2010) for Kud − Kfm (as functions of differential pressure, pd = p − pF) with predictions from Gassmann theory (Equation 1, using data for K𝑆 (from Equation 14; see also the unnumbered equation from B&K following Equation 17), or from VRH theory), and from B&K theory (Equation 19, using data for K𝑆 and for κM (from Equation 21)). The Fluid (water) incompressibility KF is taken as 2.3 GPa.FIGURE 4. Comparison of Indiana limestone data from Hart and Wang (2010) for Kud − Kfm (as functions of differential pressure, pd = p − pF) with predictions from Gassmann theory (Equation 1, using data for KS (from Equation 14; see also the unnumbered equation from B&K following Equation 17), or from VRH theory), and from B&K theory (Equation 19, using data for K𝑆 and κM (from Equation 21)). The Fluid (water) incompressibility KF is taken as 2.3 GPa.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12793,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geophysical Prospecting\",\"volume\":\"72 7\",\"pages\":\"2857\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1365-2478.13567\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geophysical Prospecting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.13567\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geophysical Prospecting","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2478.13567","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文有两幅图的标题有误，混淆了可压缩性和不可压缩性（图本身是正确的）。正确的图表标题为：图 2.Hart 和 Wang（2010 年）关于 Kud - Kfm（作为压差的函数，pd = p - pF）的 Berea 砂岩数据与 Gassmann 理论（等式 1，使用 K𝑆 的数据（来自等式 14；另见 B&K 在等式 17 之后的未编号等式）或 VRH 理论的预测）以及 B&K 理论（等式 19，使用 K𝑆 和 κM 的数据（来自等式 21））的预测的比较。流体（水）不可压缩性 KF 取为 2.3 GPa。Hart 和 Wang（2010 年）关于 Kud - Kfm（作为压差的函数，pd = p - pF）的印第安纳石灰石数据与 Gassmann 理论（等式 1，使用 KS 的数据（来自等式 14；另见 B&K 等式 17 之后的未编号等式）或 VRH 理论）以及 B&K 理论（等式 19，使用 K𝑆 和 κM 的数据（来自等式 21））的预测结果的比较。流体（水）不可压缩性 KF 取为 2.3 GPa。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Thomsen, L., 2023, A logical error in Gassmann poroelasticity: Geophysical Prospecting, 71, 649–663. by Leon Thomsen, University of Houston

Two figure captions in this paper were in error, confusing compressibility and incompressibility (the figures themselves were correct). The proper figure captions are

FIGURE 2. Comparison of Berea sandstone data from Hart and Wang (2010) for K_ud − K_fm (as functions of differential pressure, p_d = p − p_F) with predictions from Gassmann theory (Equation 1, using data for K_𝑆 (from Equation 14; see also the unnumbered equation from B&K following Equation 17), or from VRH theory), and from B&K theory (Equation 19, using data for K_𝑆 and for κ_M (from Equation 21)). The Fluid (water) incompressibility K_F is taken as 2.3 GPa.

FIGURE 4. Comparison of Indiana limestone data from Hart and Wang (2010) for K_ud − K_fm (as functions of differential pressure, p_d = p − p_F) with predictions from Gassmann theory (Equation 1, using data for K_S (from Equation 14; see also the unnumbered equation from B&K following Equation 17), or from VRH theory), and from B&K theory (Equation 19, using data for K_𝑆 and κ_M (from Equation 21)). The Fluid (water) incompressibility K_F is taken as 2.3 GPa.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Geophysical Prospecting 地学-地球化学与地球物理

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

11.50%

发文量

118

审稿时长

4.5 months

期刊介绍： Geophysical Prospecting publishes the best in primary research on the science of geophysics as it applies to the exploration, evaluation and extraction of earth resources. Drawing heavily on contributions from researchers in the oil and mineral exploration industries, the journal has a very practical slant. Although the journal provides a valuable forum for communication among workers in these fields, it is also ideally suited to researchers in academic geophysics.