1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 14, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 14 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In this study, we present laboratory experiments investigating the effect of pore size and surface relaxivity on the nuclear magnetic resonance response of variably saturated sands that relax both within and outside the fast diffusion regime. We measured the NMR response of sands with a range of grain sizes (129 to 753 μm), which resulted in samples with different pore sizes, and a range of iron concentrations (0.07% to 0.38%), which resulted in sands with different values. The laboratory results showed that the relation between relaxation time and water saturation depended on the regime in which relaxation occurred. For samples relaxing in the fast diffusion regime (i.e., small pores and low surface relaxivity), the relation between relaxation time and water saturation was linear; for the remaining samples, the relation between relaxation time and saturation demonstrated a power‐law relationship with an exponent greater than one. In addition, we performed numerical simulations based on common pore‐filling mechanisms (i.e., capillary tubes or thin films). The numerical simulations did not predict the experimental results for the relative surface relaxation versus saturation trends. We conclude that, in addition to the diffusion regime in which relaxation occurs, the shape of the relaxation time versus saturation curve depends on the pore‐filling mechanism, the value of , and the pore size. The dependence of NMR relaxation on the pore‐filling mechanism of saturating porous media may complicate efforts to develop a relation between relaxation time and saturation for use in characterizing unsaturated porous media.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2016 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2016001
2015-09-01
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2016001
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BerhoozmandA., KeatingK. and AukenE.2015. A review of the principles and applications of the NMR technique for near‐surface characterization.Surveys in Geophysics9, 1–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BirdN.R.A. and PrestonA.R.2004. Measurement of the size distribution of water‐filled pores at different matric potentials by stray field nuclear magnetic resonance.European Journal of Soil Science56, 135–143.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BloembergenN. and MorganL.O.1961. Proton relaxation times in paramagnetic solutions: effects of electron spin relaxation.The Journal of Chemical Physics34(3), 842–850.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BrooksR.J. and CoreyA.T.1964. Hydraulic properties of porous media.Hydrology Papers3, 1–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BrownR. J. and FattL.1956. Measurement of fractional wettability of oil field rocks by the nuclear magnetic relaxation method. Trans.AIME207, 262–264.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BrownsteinK.R. and TarrC.E.1979. Importance of classical diffusion in NMR studies of water in biological cells.Physical Review A. 19(6), 2446–2453.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. BryarT.R. and KnightR.J.2002. Sensitivity of nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation measurements to changing soil redox conditions.Geophysical Research Letters29(24), 50‐1–50‐4.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. CallaghanP.2011. Translational Dynamics and Magnetic Resonance: Principles of Pulsed Gradient Spin Echo NMR. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
     [Google Scholar]
  9. CarrH.Y. and PurcellE.M.1954. Effects of diffusion on free precession in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments.Physical Review94(3), 630–638.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. ChangD. and IoannidisM.A.2002. Magnetization evolution in network models of porous rock under conditions of drainage and imbibition.Journal of Colloid and Interface Science253, 159–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. ChenS., LiawH.K. and WatsonA.T.1994. Measurements and analysis of fluid saturation‐dependent NMR relaxation and linebroadening in porous media.Magnetic Resonance Imaging12(2), 201–202.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. CostabelS.2011. Nuclear magnetic resonance on laboratory and field scale for estimating hydraulic parameters in the vadose zone. PhD thesis. Berlin University of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. CostabelS. and YaramanciU.2011a. Relative hydraulic conductivity in the vadose zone from magnetic resonance sounding: Brooks‐Corey parameterization of the capillary fringe.Geophysics76(3), G61–G71.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. CostabelS. and YaramanciU.2011b. Relative hydraulic conductivity and effective saturation from Earth's field nuclear magnetic resonance: a method for assessing the vadose zone.Near Surface Geophysics9(2), 155–167.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. DlugoschR., GuntherT., Müller‐PetkeM. and YaramanciU.2013. Improved prediction of hydraulic conductivity for coarse‐grained unconsolidated material from nuclear magnetic resonance.Geophysics78(4), EN55–EN64.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. D'OrazioF., BhattacharjaS., HalperinS.P. and GerhardtR.1990. Molecular diffusion and nuclear‐magnetic‐resonance relaxation in unsaturated porous silica glass.Physical Review B42(16), 9810–9818.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. DunnK., BergmanD.J. and LatorracaG.A.2002. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance‐Petrophysical and Logging Applications. Elsevier Science, Oxford, U.K.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. FoleyI., FarooquiS.A. and KleinbergR.L.1996. Effect of paramagnetic ions on NMR relaxation of fluids at solid surfaces.Journal of Magnetic Resonance, Series A123(1), 95–104.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. GodefroyS., KorbJ.P., FleuryM. and BryantR.2001. Surface nuclear magnetic relaxation and dynamics of water and oil in macroporous media.Physical Review E64(2), 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. HansenP.C. and O'LearyD.P.1993. The use of the L‐curve in the regularization of discrete ill‐posed problems.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing14(6), 1487–1503.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. HinediZ.R., KabalaZ.J., SkaggsT.H., BorchardD.B., LeeR.W.K. and ChangA.C.2010. Probing soil and aquifer material porosity with nuclear magnetic resonance.Water Resources Research29(12), 3861–3866.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. HwangS.I. and PowersS.E.2002. Using particle‐size distribution models to estimate soil hydraulic properties.Soil Science Society of America Journal67(4), 1103–1112.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. IoannidisM.A., ChatzisI., LemaireC. and PerunarkilliR.2006. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity from nuclear magnetic resonance measurements.Water Resources Research42(7), W07201.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. JaegerF., BoweS., Van AsH. and SchaumannG.E.2009. Evaluation of 1H NMR relaxometry for the assessment of pore‐size distribution in soil samples.European Journal of Soil Science60(6), 1052–1064.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. KeatingK. and FalzoneS.2013. Relating NMR relaxation time distributions to particle size distributions for unconsolidated sand packs.Geophysics78(6), D461–D472.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. KeatingK. and KnightR.2007. A laboratory study to determine the effects of iron oxides on proton NMR measurements.Geophysics72(1), E27.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. KeatingK. and KnightR.2008. A laboratory study of the effect of magnetite ion NMR relaxation rates.Journal of Applied Geophysics66(3), 188–196.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. KeatingK. and KnightR.2010. A laboratory study of the effect of Fe (II)‐bearing minerals on nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) relaxation measurements.Geophysics75(3), F71–F82.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. KenyonW.E.1991. Nuclear magnetic resonance as a petrophysical measurement.Nuclear Geophysics6(2), 153–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. KenyonW.E., StraleyC. and WillemsenJ.F.1988. A three‐part study of NMR longitudinal relaxation properties of water‐saturated sandstones.SPE Formation Evaluation3(3), 622–636.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. KleinbergR.L., W.E.Kenyon and P.P.Mitra. 1994. Mechanisms of NMR relaxation of fluids in rocks.Journal of Magnetic Resonance, Series A108(2), 206–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. KnightR., GrunewaldE., IronsT., DlubacK., SongY., BachmanH.N. et al. 2012. Field experiment provides ground truth for surface nuclear magnetic resonance measurement.Geophysical Research Letters39(3), L03304‐1‐7.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. KoorevaarP., MenelikG. and DirksenC.1999. Elements of Soil Physics5th ed.Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. LegchenkoA., BaltassatJ.M., BeauceA. and BernardJ.2002. Nuclear magnetic resonance as a geophysical tool for hydrogeologists.Journal of Applied Geophysics50(1–2), 21–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. MatteaC., KimmichR., ArdeleanI., WonorahardjoS. and FarrherG.2004. Molecular exchange dynamics in partially filled microscale and nanoscale pores of silica glasses studied by field‐cycling nuclear magnetic resonance relaxometry.Journal of Chemical Physics121, 10648–10656.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. MeiboomS. and GillD.1958. Modified spin‐echo method for measuring nuclear relaxation times.Review of Scientific Instruments29, 688–691.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. MohnkeO.2014. Jointly deriving NMR surface relaxivity and pore size distributions by NMR relaxation experiments on partially desaturated rocks.Water Resources Research50(6), 5309–5321.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. MohnkeO. and YaramanciU.2008. Pore size distributions and hydraulic conductivity of rocks derived from magnetic resonance sounding relaxation data using multi‐exponential decay time inversion.Journal of Applied Geophysics66, 73–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Müller‐PetkeM., HillerT., HerrmannR. and YaramanciU.2011. Reliability and limitations of surface NMR assessed by comparison to borehole NMR.Near Surface Geophysics9(2), 123–134.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. NimmoJ.R.1997. Modeling structural influences on soil water retention.Soil Science Society of America61, 712–719.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. OlivieraI.B., DemondA.H. and SalehzadehA.1996. Packing of sands for the production of homogeneous porous media.Soil Science Society of America60, 49–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. PohlmeierA., Haber‐PohlmeierS. and StapfS.2009. A fast field cycling nuclear magnetic resonance relaxometry study of natural soils.Vadose Zone Journal8(3), 735–742.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. PorionP., FaugèreA.M., MichotL.J., PaineauE. and DelvilleA.2010. Orientational microdynamics and magnetic‐field‐induced ordering of clay platelets detected by 2H NMR spectroscopy.Langmuir26(10), 7035–7044.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. RassiE.M., CoddS.L. and SeymourJ.D.2011. Nuclear magnetic resonance characterization of the stationary dynamics of partially saturated media during steady‐state infiltration flow.New Journal of Physics13(1), 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. RyuS.2009. Effects of inhomogeneous partial absorption and the geometry of the boundary on population evolution of molecules diffusing in general porous media.Physical Review E80, 026109–1‐16.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. SchwertmannU. and CornellR.M.1991. Iron Oxides in the Laboratory. Wiley‐VCH.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. SeeversD.O.1966. A nuclear magnetic method for determining the permeability of sandstones. In: Transactions of the SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, pp. 1–14. Society of Professional Well Log Analysis. Houston, TX, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. StingaciuL.R., PohlmeierA., BlumlerP., WeihermüllerL., van DusschotenD., StapfS. et al. 2009. Characterization of unsaturated porous media by high‐field and low‐field NMR relaxometry.Water Resources Research45(8).
     [Google Scholar]
  49. SwansonR.D., SinghaK., Day‐LewisF.D., BinleyA., KeatingK. and HaggertyR.2012. Direct geoelectrical evidence of mass transfer at the laboratory scale.Water Resources Research48(10), W10543.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. TikhonovA.N.1963. Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the regularization method.Soviet Mathematics4, 1035–1038.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. TimurA.1969. Pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance studies of porosity, movable fluid, and permeability of sandstones.Journal of Petroleum Technology21(6), 775–786.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. WalshD., GrunewaldE.D., TurnerP., HinnellA. and FerreT.P.A.2014. Surface NMR instrumentation and methods for detecting and characterizing water in the vadose zone.Near Surface Geophysics12(2), 271–284.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. WalshD., TurnerP., FridI., ShlebyR., ButlerJ., JohnsonC.D. et al. 2010. Field demonstration of slim‐hole borehole nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging tool for groundwater investigations. In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. Vol. 1, pp. 1455.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. WhittallK.P., BronskillM.J. and HenkelmanR.M.1991. Investigation of analysis techniques for complicated NMR relaxation data.Journal of Magnetic Resonance95, 221–234.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. YaoY., D.Liu, J.Liu, and S.Xie. 2015. Assessing the water migration and permeability of large intact bituminous and anthracite coals using NMR relaxation spectrometry.Transport Porous Media107(2), 527–542.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. YaramanciU., LangeG. and HertrichM.2002. Aquifer characterisation using Surface NMR jointly with other geophysical techniques at the Nauen/Berlin test site.Journal of Applied Geophysics50(1–2), 47–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. YaramanciU. and Müller‐PetkeM.2009. Surface nuclear magnetic resonance—A unique tool for hydrogeophysics.The Leading Edge28(10), 1240–1247.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2016001
Loading
A laboratory study to determine the effect of pore size, surface relaxivity, and saturation on NMR T2 relaxation measurements
Near Surface Geophysics 14, 57 (2016); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2016001
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2016001
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2016001
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error