## 3 Result and Discussion
### Correlation of Rock Core Physical Properties
Numerous researchers have also conducted studies using [PERSON]'s method, finding that the constants in the Winland equation vary for rock cores with different physical properties [8; 9; 40]. We performed a comparison between our findings and the Winland equation. The results are shown in Table 4.  
\begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **Well** \\ **Number** \\ \end{tabular} & **Samples** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Helium** \\ **Porosity (\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Permeability** \\ **(mD)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **r\({}_{\text{c}}\)** \\ **(\(\mu\)m)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **r\({}_{\text{35}}\)** \\ **(\(\mu\)m)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **F\({}_{\text{rc}}\)** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{S1} & 1 & 14.98 & 1.06 & 1.2048 & 0.2035 & 4.9107 \\  & 2 & 13.74 & 3.06 & 1.5758 & 0.4464 & 7.1410 \\  & 3 & 14.61 & 8.20 & 1.2340 & 0.5160 & 11.2015 \\  & 4 & 14.81 & 5.86 & / & / & / \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{S2} & 5 & 13.90 & 1.83 & 2.0965 & 0.6010 & 4.1977 \\  & 6 & 13.66 & 1.20 & 1.5316 & 0.4525 & 3.8504 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{S3} & 7 & 15.75 & 2.37 & 1.7845 & 0.4321 & 5.4742 \\  & 8 & 15.88 & 1.29 & 1.3765 & 0.3388 & 3.0388 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{H1} & 1 & 5.49 & 0.0471 & 0.3938 & 0.2034 & 9.8615 \\  & 2 & 6.16 & 0.0371 & 0.3662 & 0.1830 & 8.9962 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{H2} & 3 & 6.51 & 0.0065 & 0.1417 & 0.0226 & 6.0439 \\  & 4 & 6.04 & 0.0141 & 0.2388 & 0.2581 & 6.4697 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{H3} & 5 & 11.02 & 0.0753 & 0.3586 & 0.1970 & 8.8264 \\  & 6 & 6.97 & 0.0344 & 0.2707 & 0.0758 & 8.9040 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{H4} & 7 & 6.51 & 0.0399 & 0.3161 & 0.1665 & 9.2728 \\  & 8 & 5.91 & 0.0177 & 0.2028 & 0.1535 & 8.6696 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}   
* Due to the improper removal of the pockmarks effect, the r\({}_{\text{c}}\) and F\({}_{\text{rc}}\) of S1-4 was not detected. Based on Equation (8), fitting was conducted for r\({}_{35}\), K\({}_{a}\), and \(\Phi\) using both sandstone and shale samples in the style of the Winland equation. The results of this fitting are illustrated in Figure 15.  
\[\text{logr}_{35}=\text{A}_{1}+\text{B}_{1}\text{logK}_{a}-\text{C}_{1}\text{log}\Phi \tag{8}\]  
where A\({}_{1}\), B\({}_{1}\), and C\({}_{1}\) are the constants in the style of the Winland equation. Figure 15: The relationship between r\({}_{35}\), K\({}_{a}\), and \(\Phi\): (**a**) sandstone and (**b**) shale. From Figure 15, it is observable that the Winland formula fits well for shale samples; however, the matching degree for tight sandstone samples is less satisfactory. [PERSON] found that the Winland \(r_{35}\) method is not reliable when evaluating the quality of some carbonate reservoirs [66]. Winland \(r_{35}\) is a trial-and-error method. If \(r_{35}\) is not working, other r could be tried in the fitting, such as \(r_{40}\), \(r_{45}\), and \(r_{50}\). This is a common choice for researchers who use the Winland method [9; 67]. In addition, different core samples with identical permeability and porosity may share the same \(r_{35}\) values according to the Winland \(r_{35}\) equation. However, there can be significant differences in pore size distribution and connectivity within actual reservoirs. Therefore, relying solely on \(r_{35}\) to assess the relationship between permeability and porosity in cores might not be suitable for all rock samples. Figure 16 reveals the saturation of large pores controlled by the smaller pore throat \(r_{c}\), known as \(F_{rc}\), which reflects the volume of large pores in the core influenced by pore throat \(r_{c}\). Based on Equation (9), fitting was conducted for \(F_{rc}\), \(K_{a}\), and \(\Phi\) in the style of the Winland equation. \[\text{log}F_{rc}=A_{2}+B_{2}\text{log}K_{a}-C_{2}\text{log}\Phi \tag{9}\]  
where \(A_{2}\), \(B_{2}\), and \(C_{2}\) are constants. \(F_{rc}\) is the volume controlled by pore throat \(r_{c}\), in %.