Corrigendum to ‘Assessment of the theoretical models of effective thermal conductivity based on digital rock physics for clean sandstones’ [Geothermics 114 (2023) 102803] (Geothermics (2023) 114, (S0375650523001578), (10.1016/j.geothermics.2023.102803))

The authors of this paper wish to express regret for the identification of errors in our calculations pertaining to the Huang and Gomaa models. The identified errors have been rectified, and the modifications are presented in this corrigendum. • Huang model: Primarily, we extend our sincere apologies for the inadvertent omission of proper attribution to Dr. Huang in certain references within our initial publication. We have adopted our version of the equation of Huang model from Abdulagatova et al. (2009) (Doi: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.04.011], please refer to the third model in Table 2 in Page 1057). In this version, the second part of the equation is missing. After correction, this model remains the best ETC predictor for vacuum (MAPE = 0.08 and RMSE = 0.37), air-saturated (MAPE = 0.07 and RMSE = 0.33) and becomes best predictor for water-saturated (MAPE = 0.01 and RMSE = 0.07) states. Plus, it does not violate the series bound anymore in a water-saturated state. ○ The corrected version of Huang's model (Eq. (9) in the original paper) is as follows: [Formula presented] In the corrected Eq. (9), [Formula presented] is the portion of pore space that has series configuration. The remaining notations follow those outlined in the original paper. ○ The corrected Fig. 5 shows the results of Huang model (only the updated row is illustrated):• Gomaa model: This model respects the wiener bounds after the correction. As expected, the corrected model is not applicable in the vacuum state, because it uses the Biot number to account for the heat transfer at the fluid-solid interface, which is undefined in the vacuum state. Therefore, Gomaa model is removed from vacuum state results (Fig. 2).We primarily used the average [Formula presented] to obtain a line plot like other models. However, to avoid ambiguities, we changed its illustration to a scatter plot and used each sample's [Formula presented] in calculations. • The amended Figs. 3 and 4, as well as Tables 5 and 6, are presented below, delineating the updated outcomes of both the Huang and Gomaa models.• Additionally, we have addressed typos in the equations present in the paper. Please note that the correct version of Eqs. (1), (16), and (17) are as follows: [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented] Despite these corrections, the key findings of our study remain unchanged. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.