Calculation Method of Bound Water Saturation in Unconventional Reservoirs Using Fractal Theory
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Study Area and Experimental Methods
2.1. Sample Preparation and Experimental Analyses
2.2. Calculation Methods
2.2.1. Experimental Process
2.2.2. T2 cut off Value
2.2.3. T2 Spectrum Morphological Parameter
- The main peak position (TM) represents the T2 value corresponding to the highest spectral quantity. The TFPP of the two samples is 8 and 7 ms, respectively (Figure 2c).
- The pore volume percentage of smaller pores (SPVP) and larger pores (LPVP) represents the spectral area percentage within a certain T2. The relationship between the T2 value and pore diameter is studied in the relevant literature; however, the conversion coefficient among the two parameters is not uniform [20]. Based on the results of [11], pore-fracture systems are classified into smaller pores (0–102 nm, T2 < 2.5 ms) and large pores (102–104 nm, 2.5 ms < T2) by using the T2 spectrum and the response characteristics (relaxation time) of different pore diameters. The equation for SPVP is given as
2.2.4. Single Fractal Parameter
2.2.5. Multi-Fractal Parameter
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Pore Type Classification Using T2 Spectrum
3.2. Single Fractal Dimension Identification Method
3.3. Multi-Fractal Dimension Identification Method
3.4. T2 Spectrum Morphological Discrimination Methods
3.5. Correlation Degree of T2 cut off-Related Parameters
3.6. Applicability Analysis of Different Calculation Methods
4. Conclusions
- The T2 spectra of all coal and sandstone samples are divided into three types, that is, a single peak of larger pores (Type A), a single peak of meso-pores (Types B and C), and single peak of smaller pores (Type D). Type A is characterized by a main peak greater than 100 ms and a T2 cut off smaller than the main peak position. Type B is characterized by a main peak of 10~100 ms and a T2 cut off smaller than the main peak position. The main peak position, peak number, and spectral area ratio are three important parameters in identifying the type of T2 spectrum.
- Related parameters include single fractal dimension D2, multi-fractal dimension D−10 − D10, D−10/D10, morphological parameter TM, and smaller-pore volume percentage. The single fractal parameter D2 (larger pore distribution heterogeneity) of all coal and sandstone samples has a good linear relationship with the T2 cut off value.
- When calculating the T2 cut off of samples with macro-pores developed, spectrum morphological methods should be used preferentially. Fractal dimension discrimination methods should be used when the T2 cut off of samples with micro-pores developed is calculated. Multi-parameters D−10 − D10 and D−10/D10 can be used to predict the T2 cut-off value of small-pore samples (the T2 cut off value of those samples is smaller than 20 ms).
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Krzyżak, A.T.; Habina, I. Low field 1 H NMR characterization of mesoporous silica MCM-41 and SBA-15 filled with different amount of water. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2016, 231, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Shen, W.; Ren, W.; Chen, Z. Pressure Reduction Effectiveness Evaluation of Entry Under Longwall Mining Disturbance: A Case Study. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Li, H.; Lin, B.; Chen, Z.; Hong, Y.; Zheng, C. Evolution of coal petrophysical properties under microwave irradiation stimulation for different water saturation conditions. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 8852–8864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Gao, J.; Li, Z. Water saturation-driven evolution of helium permeability in Carboniferous shale from Qaidam Basin, China: An experimental study. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2018, 96, 371–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhang, J.; Wei, C.; Ju, W.; Yan, G.; Lu, G.; Hou, X.; Kai, Z. Stress sensitivity characterization and heterogeneous variation of the pore-fracture system in middle-high rank coals reservoir based on NMR experiments. Fuel 2019, 238, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Habina, I.; Radzik, N.; Topór, T.; Krzyżak, A.T. Insight into oil and gas-shales compounds signatures in low field 1H NMR and its application in porosity evaluation. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2017, 252, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Adenutsi, C.D.; Li, Z.; Xu, Z.; Sun, L. Influence of net confining stress on NMR T2 distribution and two-phase relative permeability. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 178, 766–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhang, X.; Wu, C.; Wang, Z. Experimental study of the effective stress coefficient for coal permeability with different water saturations. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 182, 106282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhu, L.; Zhang, C.; Shi, W. Study on the method of prediction of irreducible water saturation by combining mercury intrusion and NMR logging data. Sci. Technol. Eng. 2016, 16, 22–30. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, M.; Jia, C.; Mum, Y.; Li, J.; Hu, T. A method of predicting T2 cut off from NMR logging data of tight glutenite reservoirs based on normal distribution simulation. Oil Geophys. Prospect. 2021, 56, 612–621. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, Y.; Liu, D.; Che, Y.; Tang, D.; Tang, S.; Huang, W. Petrophysical characterization of coals by low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Fuel 2010, 89, 1371–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhang, J.; Hu, Y. Comparative evaluation of pore structure heterogeneity in low-permeability tight sandstones using different fractal models based on NMR technology: A case study of Benxi Formation in the Central Ordos Basin. Energy Fuels 2020, 34, 13924–13942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Testamanti, M.N.; Rezaee, R. Determination of NMR T2 cut-off for clay bound water in shales: A case study of Carynginia Formation, Perth Basin, Western Australia. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017, 149, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zheng, S.; Yao, Y.; Liu, D.; Cai, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, X. Nuclear magnetic resonance T2 cutoffs of coals: A novel method by multifractal analysis theory. Fuel 2019, 241, 715–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Hu, Y.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, J.; Shangguan, J.; Li, M.; Quan, F.; Li, G. A method to determine nuclear magnetic resonance T2 cutoff value of tight sandstone reservoir based on multifractal analysis. Energy Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 1135–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhao, Y.; Lin, B.; Liu, T.; Zheng, Y.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, G.; Li, Q. Multifractal analysis of coal pore structure based on NMR experiment: A new method for predicting T2 cutoff value. Fuel 2021, 283, 119338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Heidary, M. A novel computational method for determination of water saturation in oil reservoirs using discrete wavelet transform and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)T2 log. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2021, 205, 108828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Jin, G.; Xie, R.; Xiao, L.; Wu, B.; Xu, C.; Wang, X.; Wang, T. Quantitative characterization of bound and movable fluid microdistribution in porous rocks using nuclear magnetic resonance. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2021, 196, 107677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Liu, M.; Xie, R.; Guo, J.; Jin, G. Characterization of pore structures of tight sandstone reservoirs by multifractal analysis of the NMR T2 distribution. Energy Fuels 2018, 32, 12218–12230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Lyu, C.; Ning, Z.; Wang, Q.; Chen, M. Application of NMR T2 to pore size distribution and movable fluid distribution in tight sandstones. Energy Fuels 2018, 2, 1395–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Miao, H.Y.; Veerle, V.; Zhang, J.J.; Chen, S.B.; Chang, X.C.; Du, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wei, C.T.; Luo, J.H.; Quan, F.K.; et al. Control mechanism of pressure drop rate on coalbed methane productivity by using production data and physical simulation technology. Fuel 2026, 406, 137060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Sun, Y.; Zhai, C.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, J.; Cong, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Tang, W. Multifractal analysis and neural network prediction of pore structures in coal reservoirs based on NMR T2 spectra. Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 11306–11318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Timur, A. Nuclear magnetic resonance study of carbonate rocks. Log Anal. 1991, 13, 518–535. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Wei, C.; Chu, X.; Vandeginste, V.; Ju, W. Multifractal analysis in characterizing adsorption pore heterogeneity of middle- and high-rank coal reservoirs. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 19385–19401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Zhang, J.; Wei, C.; Ju, W.; Qin, Z.; Ji, Y.; Quan, F.; Hu, Y. Microscopic distribution and dynamic variation of water under stress in middle and high rank coal samples. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2020, 79, 103369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yao, P.; Zhang, J.; Lv, D.; Vandeginste, V.; Chang, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, D.; Han, S.; Liu, Y. Effect of water occurrence in coal reservoirs on the production capacity of coalbed methane by using NMR simulation technology and production capacity simulation. Geoenergy Sci. Eng. 2024, 243, 213353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]














| Type | Sample No. | T2 cut off (ms) | Peak Position (ms) | Adsorption Pore Volume Percentage | Seepage Pore Volume Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | No. 3 | 57.2 | 100 | 0.04 | 0.68 |
| No. 4 | 49.09 | 85 | 0.08 | 0.76 | |
| No. 6 | 53.23 | 50 | 0.15 | 0.94 | |
| No. 7 | 64.85 | 131 | 0.09 | 0.59 | |
| No. 13 | 34.34 | 28 | 0.06 | 1 | |
| B | No. 8 | 4.82 | 21 | 0.2 | 0.93 |
| No. 10 | 7.79 | 4.78 | 0.37 | 0.96 | |
| No. 11 | 8.39 | 6 | 0.28 | 0.93 | |
| No. 12 | 4.64 | 3 | 0.49 | 0.96 | |
| No. 16 | 6.67 | 6 | 0.34 | 0.98 | |
| No. 9 | 16.01 | 20 | 0.11 | 0.97 | |
| C | No. 60 | 4.08 | 5 | 0.51 | 0.99 |
| No. 61 | 3.38 | 4.26 | 0.6 | 0.99 | |
| No. 62 | 3.38 | 2.7 | 0.52 | 0.99 | |
| No. 63 | 2.45 | 1.4 | 0.63 | 0.99 | |
| No. 53 | 3.1 | 2.41 | 0.49 | 0.96 | |
| D | No. 49 | 0.48 | 0.19 | 0.86 | 0.99 |
| No. 52 | 0.49 | 0.31 | 0.92 | 0.99 | |
| No. 54 | 1.7 | 0.61 | 0.62 | 0.99 | |
| No. 57 | 1.6 | 0.39 | 0.78 | 0.99 | |
| No. 59 | 0.31 | 0.19 | 0.83 | 0.99 | |
| No. 66 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.74 | 0.97 |
| Sample No. | Φwater (%) | Φnitrogen (%) | Permeability (mD) | T2 cut off (ms) | Swi (%) | <2.5 (ms) | 2.5~100 (ms) | First Peak Position (ms) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 41.36 | 38.24 | 0.741 | 7 | 69.00 | 0.29 | 0.66 | 4.64 |
| 2 | 5.67 | 6.14 | 0.292 | 11 | 65.92 | 0.28 | 0.69 | 3.87 |
| 3 | 5.80 | 7.76 | 0.0064 | 2.7 | 77.90 | 0.78 | 0.16 | 1.55 |
| 4 | 4.95 | 5.18 | 0.055 | 33 | 66.18 | 0.21 | 0.74 | 42 |
| 5 | 4.55 | 5.36 | 0.091 | 60 | 59.29 | 0.10 | 0.69 | 60 |
| 6 | 5.79 | 6.53 | 0.054 | 30 | 63.98 | 0.19 | 0.79 | 41.6 |
| 7 | 10.69 | 10.76 | 0.222 | 35 | 67.79 | 0.15 | 0.75 | 18 |
| 8 | 5.85 | 6.82 | 0.0032 | 120 | 68.30 | 0.20 | 0.48 | 179 |
| 9 | 4.59 | 6.43 | 0.0060 | 62 | 69.28 | 0.23 | 0.64 | 86 |
| 10 | 5.28 | 7.03 | 0.725 | 38 | 45.56 | 0.04 | 0.73 | 71 |
| 11 | 3.67 | 4.21 | 0.098 | 11 | 62.42 | 0.29 | 0.67 | 6.69 |
| 12 | 3.44 | 4.22 | 0.383 | 40 | 53.93 | 0.08 | 0.72 | 49 |
| 13 | 2.91 | 3.56 | 0.359 | 46 | 28.67 | 0.09 | 0.30 | 258 |
| 14 | 3.28 | 3.88 | 0.064 | 21 | 63.69 | 0.32 | 0.52 | 2.68 |
| 15 | 3.68 | 4.49 | 0.044 | 6 | 52.31 | 0.40 | 0.60 | 1.86 |
| 16 | 3.27 | 4.10 | 0.047 | 16 | 53.54 | 0.28 | 0.57 | 2.23 |
| 17 | 1.54 | 1.85 | 0.017 | 2.7 | 92.85 | 0.92 | 0.08 | 1.55 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Qin, Z.; Yang, F.; Li, Z.; Jia, J.; Shen, F.; Grebby, S.; Marsh, S.; Shen, W. Calculation Method of Bound Water Saturation in Unconventional Reservoirs Using Fractal Theory. Fractal Fract. 2026, 10, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract10010013
Qin Z, Yang F, Li Z, Jia J, Shen F, Grebby S, Marsh S, Shen W. Calculation Method of Bound Water Saturation in Unconventional Reservoirs Using Fractal Theory. Fractal and Fractional. 2026; 10(1):13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract10010013
Chicago/Turabian StyleQin, Zhengyuan, Feng Yang, Zhiguo Li, Jinlong Jia, Fuqiang Shen, Stephen Grebby, Stuart Marsh, and Wenlong Shen. 2026. "Calculation Method of Bound Water Saturation in Unconventional Reservoirs Using Fractal Theory" Fractal and Fractional 10, no. 1: 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract10010013
APA StyleQin, Z., Yang, F., Li, Z., Jia, J., Shen, F., Grebby, S., Marsh, S., & Shen, W. (2026). Calculation Method of Bound Water Saturation in Unconventional Reservoirs Using Fractal Theory. Fractal and Fractional, 10(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract10010013

