obtained from consolidation tests. Permeability data that were reported without porosity

or void ratio information were also excluded from this study, which examines

permeability as a function of porosity. Methods of permeability measurements used in

this study are briefly discussed in the following section. Where only hydraulic

conductivity was provided, permeability was calculated using (Fetter, 1994)

 k = K /pg (1)

where k is intrinsic permeability [L2], K is hydraulic conductivity [L T-1], p is fluid

density [M L-3], g is the gravitational constant [L T2] and [t is the kinematic viscosity [M

L-1 T1]. Values of fluid density and viscosity were determined based on temperature

values reported for the experiment and the salinity of the permeant used. In cases where

temperature and/or permeant used were not reported, I assumed a temperature of 250 C

and a salinity (for permeant) of 35 kg/m3.

Barbados

 Vrolijk et al. (unpubl. data, cited in Zwart et al., 1997) used a sample from ODP

Leg 156 Site 948 to measure permeability using a constant-head permeameter at an

effective stress of 241 kPa. A sample with 2.5 cm in diameter and about 5 cm high was

contained in a triaxial cell. The sample was backpressured at 350 kPa to dissolve any

trapped air in the system. The permeant was saline whereas the confining fluid was oil.

Bruckmann et al. (1997) measured permeability using three whole round core samples of

size 6.2 cm in diameter and about 2 cm high from Leg 156, Site 949. Permeability was

measured at individual load steps using low gradient flow tests as described in Olsen et

al. (1985). Fresh water was used as both the permeant and the confining fluid. Maltman

and others (presented in Zwart et al., 1997) measured permeability of a cylindrical