Author/Authors :
Yuri A. Popov، نويسنده , , Dan F. C. Pribnow، نويسنده , , John H. Sass، نويسنده , , Colin F. Williams، نويسنده , , Hans Burkhardt، نويسنده ,
Abstract :
We compared three laboratory methods for thermal conductivity measurements] divided!
bar\ line!source and optical scanning[ These methods are widely used in geothermal and
petrophysical studies\ particularly as applied to research on cores from deep scienti_c boreholes[
The relatively new optical scanning method has recently been perfected and applied to geo!
physical problems[ A comparison among these methods for determining the thermal con!
ductivity tensor for anisotropic rocks is based on a representative collection of 79 crystalline
rock samples from the KTB continental deep borehole "Germany#[ Despite substantial thermal
inhomogeneity of rock thermal conductivity "up to 39 49) variation# and high anisotropy
"with ratios of principal values attaining 1 and more#\ the results of measurements agree very
well among the di}erent methods[ The discrepancy for measurements along the foliation is
negligible " 0)#[ The component of thermal conductivity normal to the foliation reveals
somewhat larger di}erences "2 3)#[ Optical scanning allowed us to characterize the thermal
inhomogeneity of rocks and to identify a three!dimensional anisotropy in thermal conductivity
of some gneiss samples[ The merits of optical scanning include minor random errors "0[5)#the ability to record the variation of thermal conductivity along the sample\ the ability to
sample deeply using a slow scanning rate\ freedom from constraints for sample size and shapeand quality of mechanical treatment of the sample surface\ a contactless mode of measurementhigh speed of operation\ and the ability to measure on a cylindrical sample surface[ More
traditional methods remain superior for characterizing bulk conductivity at elevated tempera!
ture[ 0888 CNR[ Published by Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved[