Analysis of Variable-Rate
Well-Test Pressure Data
Using Duhamel's Principle
L.G. Thompson,* U. of Tulsa
A.C. Reynolds, SPE, U. of Tulsa
Summary. This work considers the use of Duhamel's principle to analyze pressure drawdown and buildup
data when both bottomhole pressures (BHP's) and sandface flow rates are available. This analysis procedure
uses Duhamel's principle to convert pressure data obtained when the sandface rate is variable to the equivalent
pressure data that would be obtained for a constant sandface rate of production. The equivalent constant-rate
pressure data then can be analyzed with standard procedures (semilog analysis or type-curve matching).
Introduction
Duhamel's principle was introduced to the petroleum en-
gineering literature in the classic paper of van Everdin-
gen and Hurst. 1 They used Duhamel's principle to obtain
the dimensionless wellbore pressure-drop solution for a
continuously varying flow rate. Their solution is presented
in terms of a convolution integral. The well-known Odeh-
Jones method 2 and the more recent methods of Soliman 3
and Stewart et al. 4 can be derived directly from the van
Everdingen and Hurst solution by appropriate numerical
integration procedures. The methods of Refs. 2, 3, and
4 are restricted because their theoretical basis rests on the
assumption that the dimensionless pressure drop term that
appears in the convolution integral is given by the semi-
log equation 2 3 or the exponential integral 4 -i.e., the
methods assume that if production were at a constant sand-
face rate, the dimensionless wellbore pressure drop would
be given by the sum of the line source solution and the
skin factor. Thus, at least theoretically, their methods do
not apply to fractured-well problems or to heterogene-
ous problems such as naturally fractured reservoirs. The
methods we consider are general and are not restricted
to plane radial flow problems.
The methods of Refs. 2, 3, and 4 rely on redefining
the time scale. The methods used in this work rely on Du-
hamel's principle to convert variable-sandface-rate pres-
sure data to the equivalent pressure data that would have
been obtained ifproduction had been at a constant sand-
face rate. Our methods are more general than those
presented by others but the basic idea is not novel and
has been considered previously in Refs. 5 through 8. In
fact, our Method 1 (discussed in Appendix A) includes
as a special case the method of Kucuk and Ayestaran, 8
and our _Method 2 (also discussed in Appendix A) includes
as a special case the method of Bostic et al. 6 To the best
of our knowledge, Method 3 (discussed in Appendix B)
has not been considered previously in any form. Method
3 has advantages over the other two methods when the
late-time pressure data are influenced by boundary effects.
*Now with Rogaland Research lnst.
Copyright 1986 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
For example, Method 3 is preferable to other methods
when reservoir limit testing is conducted under variable-
flow-rate conditions.
McEdwards 9 has also presented an analysis procedure
based on theoretical concepts similar to those used in Refs.
1 through 8 and in this work. However, his procedure
is radically different because he used the convolution
integral 1 to calculate the theoretical pressure drops that
should occur according to the observed flow rate histo-
ry. This calculation requires an initial estimate of reser-
voir properties. The estimates of reservoir properties are
then refined by an iterative procedure that minimizes the
sum of the squares of the relative differences between the
observed and calculated pressure changes. As in Refs. 2
through 4, McEdwards states that the pressure-drop term
that appears in the convolution integral is given by the
line-source solution.
The derivations of Methods 1 and 2 and some numeri-
cal analysis considerations pertinent to their application
have been presented previously. 10 Brief details on
Method 3 are given in Appendix B. Further theoretical
details on all three methods can be found in Ref. 11.
This paper (1) illustrates the applicability of our tech-
niques to a wide variety of problems, (2) presents a de-
tailed and careful comparison between our analysis
techniques and the rate-normalized procedure, 12 - 14 (3)
presents a new procedure (Method 3) and illustrates its
applicability to reservoir limit testing, and (4) discusses-
how to apply our method to actual data (Appendices A
and B) and considers the analysis of a field test.
In this work, we generally use well-known analytical
solutions for the theoretical problem considered when
these analytical solutions are available. The analytical so-
lutions are available in L~lace space and are inverted with
the Stehfest algorithm. 1 For unfractured wells produc-
ing layered reservoirs, we generate the necessary solu-
tions using a finite-difference model that has been
discussed elsewhere. 16 17 For fractured wells producing
commingled layered reservoirs, we generate the pertinent
solutions using a finite-difference model that is discussed
in Refs. 18 and 19.
453
Definitions
Many different problems are considered in this paper, and
the specific definitions of dimensionless pressure and
dimensionless time vary from problem to problem. All
definitions given here are in oilfield units, and all defini-
tions assume single-phase flow of a slightly compressi-
ble liquid of constant viscosity. The analogous definitions
for gas wells are well known. 20-22 In this paper, PwD al-
ways denotes the dimensionless wellbore pressure-drop
solution of the variable-rate problem under consideration
and p weD denotes the dimensionless wellbore pressure-
drop solution that would be obtained for the same prob-
lem under constant-producing-rate conditions. All rates
used in the equations are sandface rates. In terms of
dimensionless variables, the objective of the methods
presented is to compute p weD given p wD and the dimen-
sionless sandface rates.
Pressure Drawdown Problems. For radial-flow prob-
lems in single-layer reservoirs, the dimensionless well-
bore pressure drop and dimensionless sandface rate are
defined respectively by
For the naturally fractured reservoir problem consid-
ered later, kh in Eq. 1 should be replaced by k1hft, where
kfhft denotes the flow capacity of the fracture system.
Moreover, in Eqs. 3 through 5, , cr, and k should be
replaced respectively by 1 , ctf, and k1 , where the sub-
script f denotes the fracture system. For example, k1
denotes the permeability (actual, not bulk) of the fracture
syst~m; see Ref. 23.
For the two-layer, commingled reservoir (unfractured-
well) problem considered, k and cpc t should be replaced
by k~nd cpc t, respectively, in Eqs. 1, 3, and 4. Here k
and cpc t denote thickness-averaged values defined respec-
tively by ,
- k1h1+k2h2
k=----- .......................... (8)
h
and

kh(pi -pwj) where throughout, the subscript 1 refers to Layer 1 and

PwD = ... .................... (1) the subscript 2 refers to Layer 2.
141.2q rJL The definitions given by Eqs. 10 through 15 pertain to
and only the two-layer fractured-well problem considered in
this paper. For this problem, the concept of reservoir con-
qD =q(t)/qn .............................. (2)
ductivity is important. 18 19 24 The layer reservoir conduc-
tivities are defined by
where qr is any reference rate, in reservoir barrels per
day. [In this paper, q(t) always represents the sandface
rate in reservoir barrels per day.] The dimensionless time R 'D
C)
= hj
~
I k j cp j ctj
- " ................... (10)
based on wellbore radius and the dimensionless time based h kcf>cr
on drainage area are defined respectively by
for j = 1,2, where j is the layer index and k and cpc t are
given by Eqs. 8 and 9, respectively. The dimensionless
2.637x1o- 4 kt time based on effective fracture half-length is defined by
....................... (3)
cpc rJLr J;
2.637 X 10- 4 kt
and .................... (11)
tvxf
2.637x1o- 4 kt c/>CrJLL~f
tvA=------ ..................... (4)
cpc rffA Lx is the effective fracture half-length, given by the fol-
1
lowing equation: -
The dimensionless wellbore storage constant is defined by
Lx =Rcv1Lxfl +Rcv2Lxf2, ........... ; ..... (12)
1
5.615C
Cv=---- ......................... (5) where Lx , }= 1,2, is the fracture half-length in Layer
27rc/>c rhr }~ j. Similarfy, we define the dimensionless times and dimen-
sionless fracture conductivities based on individual layer
For a vertically fractured well producing a single-layer properties by
reservoir, the dimensionless time based on fracture half-
length and the dimensionless storage constant are defined
respectively by

2.637 X 10- 4 kt and

tvxf ...................... (6)
c/>CrJLL~f
kjjb.
and cJDJ = - -1- ............................ (14)
k}Lxjj
5.615C
Cvx f - 21rcpC L 2 h.
. ..................... . (7) for}= 1,2, wh~re kjjbJ denotes the conductivity of Frac-
t Xf ture Layer j. Here Fracture Layer j denotes the part of

454 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986

 s 10
r80 4000
Fig. 1-Rate response for constant-pressure production.
the vertical fracture that is adjacent to Reservoir Layer
j. For this problem, there is no crossflow between frac-
ture layers or between reservoir layers. In a practical
sense, this means that the two layers of the reservoir are
separated by an impermeable zone and have been stimu-
lated individually. Finally, we define the equivalent
dimensionless fracture conductivity by
............. (15)
The motivations for the definitions given by Eqs. 10
through 15 are discussed in detail in Ref. 24.
For all drawdown problems considered, the rate-
normalized dimensionless pressure drop is denoted by
PwDiqD and is given by
PwD kh(p; -pwf)
..................... (16)
qD 141.2q(t)p.
(See Eqs. 1 and~.) For layered reservoir problems, k must
be replaced by k in Eq. 16. Note that Eq. 16 represents
the dimensionless form of the actual pressure drop
(p; -pwf) divided by the sandface flow rate, q(t).
Buildup Problems. For buildup problems, tP denotes the
producing time before shut-in and t:..t denotes the shut-in
time. The various dimensionless producing times are then
given by Eqs. 3, 4, 6 (or 11), and 13 with t replaced by
t P and are denoted by t pD, t pDA, t pDx , and t pDx . Simi-
larly, the various dimensionless shut~in times ale given
by Eqs. 3, 4, 6 (or 11), and 13 with t replaced by t:..t and
are denoted by t:..t D, t:..t DA, t:..t Dxf. , and t:..t Dx . The per-
meability and porosity/compressibility prodtct used in
these definitions must be adjusted according to the prob-
lem under consideration as in the drawdown case.
For bui~dup, we define the dimensionless shut-in pres-
sures, p Ds and fi Ds , by
kh(p; -Pws)
PDs = (17) response that would have been obtained for a constant
141.2q rJ.t
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
104 105 106
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, t 0
Fig. 2-Constant-rate solution from Methods 1, 2, arid 3.
and
_ kh(Pws -pwfs)
PDs = , ... (18)
141.2q rJ.t
respectively, where Pws denotes shut-in pressure and PwJs
denotes the flowing wellbore pressure at the instant of
shut-in. For layered reservoir problems, kh is replaced
by kh in Eqs. 17 and 18. The dimensionless change in
sandface rate during shut-in is denoted by t:..q D and is de-
fined by
q(t:..t=O) -q(t:..t)
t:..qD= .................... (19)
qr
The rate-normalized dimensionless buildup pressure is
given by fiDslt:..qD. From Eqs. 18 and 19, it follows that
.......... (20)
141.2[q(t:..t=O) --"q(t:..t)]p.
(For layered reservoir problems, replace k by k in
Eq. 20.)
The dimensionless pressures defined in this section
(Eqs. 1, 17, and 18) represent the dimensionless solution
to the variable sandface-rate problem under consideration,
and p weD represents the dimensionless constant-sandface-
rate solution for the corresponding problem. Given
PwD(fiDs for buildup) and qD(t:..qD for buildup), PweD
is obtained by the procedures discussed in Appendices A
and B. Regardless of whether p weD is generated from
buildup data or drawdown data, PweD always represents
an equivalent constant-rate drawdown solution.
Results
Here, we show that given the dimensionless drawdown
pressure response PwD(fi Ds for buildup) resulting from
the known variable sand face rate q D, we can use the
methods of Appendices A and B to compute p weD, where
p weD represents the equivalent dimensionless pressure
sandface rate of production. Throughout this section,
455
 Q Q
u ~
cf 'i33 METHOD o PRESSURE DROP
a: Q. 0 1, 8" 1

~ a::
0
~ 0 2, 8 = 1
6 3
o SANDFACE RATE

IJJ
a::
0 29
IJJ
RATE NORMALIZED
PRESSURE DROP
~ a::
U) ::>
UJO::U)

f0~ 25
U) a::
U) Q..
5
IJJ 0 DRAWOOWN Co = 10
..J IJJ
2
~ !:::! 21 BUILDUP c0 10
en ~ s. 10
z ::::E
IJJ a::
::::E 0
0 z
2 4 6 10
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, t 0 x 10-7

Fig. 3-Rate-normalized solution and solution from Fig. 4-Pressure and rate responses for a DST, log-log
Methods 1, 2, and 3. plot.

Method 1 refers to the dimensionless version of Eq. A-4
when drawdown data are considered, and to the dimen-
sionless version of Eq. A-9 when buildup data are con-
sidered. Method 2 is given by the dimensionless
equivalents of Eqs. A-12 and A-15 for drawdown and
buildup, respectively. Method 3 is given by the dimen-
sionless version of Eq. B-1. The buildup version of
Method 3 can be found in Ref. 11. See Appendices A and
B for a discussion of when and how to apply the various
methods. For all problems considered, the applicability
of the rate-normalized analysis procedure is con-
sidered. 12 - 14
and at late times (tD ~ 5 X 10 6 in Fig. 1), the rate
response (q Dlp wD) is governed by exponential decline.
Throughout this work, 'Y denotes Euler's constant,
'Y=0.57722. Fig. 2 presents a semilog plot of PweD vs.
t D where p weD has been computed in three different ways
(Methods 1, 2, and 3). The solid curve represents the
equivalent constant-sandface-rate solution and we note that
p weD matches this solution at all times regardless of the
method used to generate p weD. For transient flow, we
should obtain
PweD = 1.151 log[(4tv)le'Y] +s . ............. (23)

Unfractured Wells. All problems considered in this sec-
tion assume a well located in the center of a cylindrical
reservoir.
It is now popular to consider well-testing problems
where production is at a constant BHP-e.g., see Refs.
25 through 27. The first problem considered assumes
constant-pressure production at a well located in a bound-
ed cylindrical reservoir-i.e., the same problem consid-
ered in Refs. 25 through 27. It is important to note that
the right side of the rate-normalized equation (Eq. 16) is
referred to as 11q D in Refs. 25 through 27.
Fig. 1 represents a semilog plot of qviPwD vs. tv for
the constant-pressure production problem where s= 10 and
reD =4,000. Here, s represents the skin factor and reD
denotes the dimensionless drainage radius and is defined
by
reD =reI r w. . ............................ (21)
As is well known, 25 -27 the transient portion of the data
approximately satisfies the semilog equation-i.e.,
Pwvlqv=l.151 log[(4tv)le'Y]+s, ........... (22)
456
Fig. 2 indicates that all methods work well. By using
regression analysis to fit a semilog straight line to the
PweD vs. tv data for 10 2 <tv< 10 6 , we determined the
following values. For Methods 1 and 2, slope= 1.148 and
s= 10.06; and for Method 3, slope= 1.149 and s= 10.09.
Thus all three procedures yield excellent approximations
to the correct values, slope= 1.151 and s= 10.0.
Fig. 3 depicts a Cartesian plot of PweD vs. tv and
p wD Iq D vs. t D . This is a dimensionless version of the
type of plot used to estimate reservoir PV in reservoir
limit testing. 28 29 During pseudosteady-state flow, the
constant.~sandface-production solution is, given by
Pwev=27rtDA +ln(rev)-0.75+s
2tv
= - 2- + ln(r eD) -0.75 +s. . ............ (24)
reD
[Here the drainage area is given by A= 1rr 2eD and thus
tvA =tvl(7rr 2e); see Eqs. 3 and 4.] As is well known, 29
pseudosteady -state flow (Eq. 24) begins at t DA = 0.1 ,
which corresponds to t D = 5 X 10 6 for the problem con-
sidered.
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
 C Q.JQ I I .o----~
~ /
~ 0.08f- { -0.2W
~ I
W O.OGto-----o----..Al
U
~ ---11
--o--PRESSURE
C --a--- SANDFACE
~ 0.04 '-
(/)(/)
~ 0.02 ( 0.8 ~13
z 1
ffi~ ----~~"--~-o-------af-----;1.0 Ci~~
0.0 --o----o--
:!
Ci
-002.___ ______.'----7----'----;;,..--------1~-----'1.2
0.0 5.0XJ04 I.OXJ05 1.5XI0 5 2.0XJ0 5
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, t 0
Fig. 5-Pressure and rate responses for a DST, Cartesian
plot.
When regression analysis is used to fit a straight line
of the form given by Eq. 24 through the p weD or p wD I q D
late-time data of Fig. 3, and reD is calculated from the
slope of the line (slope=2/r 2ev), the following results are
obtained. Using data from tvA =0.1 to tvA =0.5 yields
reD = 3985 for Method 1 or Method 2 p weD data,
reD =3993 for Method 3 PweD data, and
reD =3813 for rate-normalized data.
Using all data for t DA ~ 0.1 yields
reD =3975 from Method 1 or Method 2 PweD data,
reD = 3997 for Method 3 p weD data, and
reD =3354 for rate-normalized data.
From these results and additional results given in Ref.
11, we conclude that Method 3 provides the best analysis
procedure when pressure data are influenced by reservoir
boundaries. Moreover, rate normalization is not an ef-
fective procedure for the analysis of data strongly influ-
enced by reservoir boundaries.
We now consider a drillstem test (DST) problem. 30-32
We consider only one flow period followed by one shut-
in period. The flowing period represents the slug test prob-
lem considered in Refs. 31 and 32. To conform to stan-
dard notation, we have defined the dimensionless pressure
change by
Pi-PwJ
PwD = ' (25)
Pi-PO
where pi denotes the initial reservoir pressure and p 0
denotes the wellbore pressure at time zero-i.e., Po is
the pressure in the DST tool just before the beginning of
the flow period. Similarly, we define the dimensionless
sandface rate by
141.2q(t)p.
qv= ........................
kh(pi -po)
In this paper, the definitions given by Eqs. 25 and 26 are
used only for the DST problem.
Fig. 4 presents a log-log plot ofPwD (Eq. 25) and qD
(Eq. 26) vs. t D . The results of Fig. 4 represent a flow-
ing period (producing time, t pD = 10 5 ) followed by a
buildup period of duration !ltD = 9 x 10 5 . Hete t D rep-
resents the total time of the. test so t D = 10 5 at the end
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
-u- 0.0
METHOD
0 1I 8 1
0 2, 8 1
@5 ~
DROP
~c..
04 dO: RATE NORMALIZED
PRESSURE DROP
3:~
RATE 0.6~~
~g;
z(/)
DRAWDOWN Co 10
5
z~ 2
BUILDUP Co 10
s 10
Fig. 6-Methods 1 and 2 rate-normalized solutions; DST
data.
of the flowing period and t D = 10 6 at the end of the build-
up test. In Eq. 25, p wf represents the well bore
pressure-i.e., the flowing wellbore pressure for draw-
down and the shut-in wellbore pressure for buildup. Simi-
larly, q(t) in Eq. 26 represents the sandface flow rate in
reservoir barrels per day both during drawdown and build-
up. For the results shown in Fig. 4, s= 10 and the dimen-
sionless wellbore storage constant is CD = 10 5 for
drawdown and Cv = 10 2 for buildup. During the draw-
down period, PwD decreases (PwJ increases) as a result
of the increase in the fluid head, but this behavior is not
clearly identifiable on Fig. 4 because of the nature of log-
log plots. The decrease in p wD during drawdown can be
seen more clearly in Fig. 5, which represents a Cartesi-
an plot of p wD and q D vs. t D for 0 :5 t D :52 X 10 5 . The
sandface rate q D decreases throughout the total test.
Fig. 6 is a semilog plot of PweD vs. tv, where PweD
is generated from the pressure/rate data of Fig. 4 with
the dimensionless equivalents of Method 1 (Eq. A-4) and
Method 2 (Eq. A-12). Note that, in using these methods,
we have used both the drawdown and buildup data of Fig.
6 to obtain the equivalent constant-sandface-rate dimen-
sionless pressure drop for a total flowing time of
6
tv= 10 ; see Appendix A. The solid line in Fig. 6 rep-
resents the constant-rate solution we should obtain from
our methods and is given by Eq. 23. As shown in Fig.
6, Methods 1 and 2 generate the correct PweD solution
very accurately. Using regression analysis to fit a semi-
log straight line to the generated p weD vs. t D data of Fig.
6 yields the following results.
For Method 1, slope=1.165 and s=10.01, and for
Method 2, slope= 1.158 and s= 10.03. These values are
in good agreement with the correct values, slope= 1.151
and s= 10.0. Note that we have not applied Method 3 be-
cause Method 3 will encounter difficulties when sharp
changes in rate or pressure occur (see Ref. 11), and for
(26) this problem, the rate and pressure change abruptly at
5
tv =tpD = 10 (see Fig. 4). Fig. 6 also shows the dimen-
sionless rate-normalized pressure drop Pwvlqv for
t D :5 tpD . The rate normalization cannot be continued into
the buildup-i.e., we cannot view the buildup as a con-
tinuation of a variable-rate drawdown test when using rate
normalization. In fact, values of p wD (t D )I q D (t D) are off
the scale (greater than 18) of Fig. 6 for tv> 1 X 10 5 .
(This is not surprising in view of the pressure/rate data
shown in Fig. 4.) The rate-normalized drawdown data dis-
457
 f/) cD=105
0
a. hwo=I03
w
0::
s=5
b=0.4
~
C/)
C/)
LLJ
0::
a..
z
t!:
~
z
C/)
C/)
C/)
LLJ
..J
z
0
ii)
z
LLJ
~
0

Fig. 8-Pressure and rate; partially penetrating well with

Fig. 7-Horner analysis for a DST. wellbore storage.

play a semilog straight line with slope= 1.157 and yield and
s = 10.06. As in previous cases, these slopes and skin-

hwo=~~
fact?r values were obtained with regression analysis.
Ftg. 7 presents the standard dimensionless Horner plot . .......................... (28)
of the buildup data of Fig. 4. In a normal DST the dura- rw kz
tion of the buildup period will be no greater ~han twice
the duration of the preceding flowing period. Thus, in our Here,
analysis of the data of Fig. 7, we use only data corre- h w = length of the open interval (perforated
sponding to shut-in times such that lit D ~ 2t D = 2 x 10 5 . interval) of the wellbore,
This means that the minimum value of the 'Horner time k = horizontal permeability, and
ratio u~ed in the ~nalysis is (t P +lit)/ lit= 1. 5. By using k z = vertical permeability.
regression analysts, we found that the data of Fig. 7 that
c~rrespond. to the i~terv~ 1. 5 < (t P +lit)/ lit< 5 can be fit
Fig. 8 presents log-log graphs of the dimensionless
With a semtlog straight lme. However, the slope of this
drawdown-pressure drop and dimensionless rate obtained
semilog straight line is 1. 303 and the skin factor estimat-
for a partial penetration problem. The open interval of
ed from this semilog line is 8. 97. These values differ by
the wellbore is adjacent to the top h feet of the forma-
more than 10% from the correct values, slope= 1.151 and
tion, and CD=10 5 , hwD=10 3 , s=S, and b=0.4. Note
s= 10.0. This indicates that the conventional analysis of
that all pressure data shown are influenced by wellbore
DST buildup data can yield erroneous estimates of the
storage effects.
~ow capacity and skin factor if buildup data are ~trongly
Fig. 9 presents a semilog plot of the dimensionless rate-
mfluenced by well bore storage effects. The results ob-
normalized pressure data, and p weD generated by Method
tained would be even less accurate if the duration of the
1. The solid curve in Fig. 9 is the constant-sandface-rate
shut-in were decreased.
(CD = 0) dimensionless pressure solution for the same
Difficulties in Horner analysis are of course not re-
pa.rtial penetration problem. For the case where CD =0,
stricted to DST data and can occur in conventional tests
It Is well known 34 that at early times the following semi-
if the buildup test is not of, sufficient duration to obtain
log equation holds:
buildup data that are not influenced by wellbore storage
effects.
We next consider a partially penetrating well located
in the center of a cylindrical reservoir. l?,Jf-Js This is the PwcD = ( 1. :Sl ) log ( ~~ ) +sib, .......... (29)
only problem considered in this paper where the open in-
terval of the wellbore is not equal to the reservoir thick-
ness. The penetration ratio, b, and the dimensionless and at late times (pseudoradial flow period), p weD is
wellbore length are defined respectively by given by

PwcD = 1.151 log ( ~~) +slb+sb, ......... (30)

b.=hwlh ................................ (27)

458 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986


Fig. 9-Rate-normalized and Method 1 solutions; partial-
ly penetrating well.
where s b is the pseudoskin factor resulting from partial
penetration. 17 33 -35 The p weD values (open, circular data
points in Fig. 9) constructed with Method 1 correlate well
with the constant-sandface-rate solution (solid curve). If
we fit these p weD data with a semilog straight line for
10 2 $. t D $. 2 X 10 3 by regression analysis, the semilog
straight line obtained has slope= 2. 847 and yields s = 5. 06.
The correct values are slope=2.878 (see Eq. 29) and
s=5.0. Fitting the late-time (3 X 10 6 $. tD $.10 7 ) PweD
values with a semilog straight line using regression anal-
ysis yields slope= 1.151 and (s/b)+sb =22.09. Using the
value s=5.06 obtained above and b=0.4 then gives sb =
9.44. The correct values are slope=1.151, (slb)+sb
=22.04, and sb =9.54; see Eq. 30 and Refs. 17, 34,
and 35.
Note that we have not applied Method 2 or 3 to the data
of Fig. 8. Method 2 has stability problems when qD is
an increasing function of t D (see Appendix A and Ref.
10): Method 3 can be applied and does yield accurate re-
sults but offers no advantages over Method 1 for tran-
sient data (see Appendix B).
From the results of Fig. 9, we see that 'the rate-
normalized dimensionless pressure drop falls below the
correct constant-rate solution and cannot be used to ob-
tain highly accurate results. This behavior is typical for
well bore-storage-dominated problems. lO, 11 , 36
The results of Fig. 9 offer an interesting possibility from
the viewpoint of analyzing field data. If wellbore storage
effects are present, but sandface rate data are obtained,
our results indicate that Methods 1 and 3 will yield equiva-
lent constant-sandface data that can be analyzed by semi-
log methods. In particular, two semilog straight lines may
be obtained. The flow capacity adjacent to the open in-
terval (khw for the problem considered here), k, and the
true skin factor can be estimated from the early-time semi-
log data. Using the late-time semilog data, the total flow
capacity (kh for the problem considered here) and the to-
tal skin factor sr [sr =sb +(sib)] can be estimated. The
value of s b can then be estimated from the equation
sb =sr -(sib). The penetration ratio b can be obtained by
dividing khw by kh. Because s b is a unique function of
h wD and b, h wD can then be estimated from Brons-
Marting charts, 35 and then klkz and kz can be estimated
with the obvious rearrangement of Eq. 28. This type of
analysis procedure can be extended to layered-reservoir
problems. 17
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
9
>..' 10- , w' 200, s = 0
ANALYTICAL SOLUTION, C0
o 108
-0
0
0
105 108 1011
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, t 0
Fig. 10-Pressure response; naturally fractured reservoir
with wellbore storage.
In recent years, an intense research effort has been
devoted to the study of naturally fractured reservoirs. It
has been shown that in an infinite naturally fractured reser-
voir; a semilog plot of the wellbore pressure resfonse vs.
time may exhibit three semilog straight lines. 23 7 38 Ref.
39 examines the conditions under which all these semi-
log straight lines will exist when the reservoir is bound-
ed. Refs. 38 and 40 consider the effect ofwellbore storage
and skin on the pressure response but do not consider the
effect of the outer reservoir boundary. By using the ana-
lytical techniques of these studies, or by combining the
known solutions in an appropriate way, we found that it
is easy to construct the dimensionless wellbore pressure
response in a bounded, naturally fractured reservoir when
early-time data are influenced by wellbore storage effects.
The solution to this problem can also be obtained with
a finite-difference model. 41
Fig. 10 presents a semilog plot of the dimensionless
wellbore pressure drop (drawdown) vs. flowing time, t D.
The solid curve represents the solution for CD = 0 and the
circular data points represent the solution for CD = 10 8 .
Here, the naturally fractured reservoir model of Ref. 23
is used. As discussed in the definition section, p wD , t D ,
and CD are given in terms of fracture properties; for
example,
5.615C
CD= , ...................... (31)
27rJc tfhftr w
2
where jC tf denotes the porosity I compressibility product
for the fracture system and hft is the total thickness of
the fracture system. Because CD is based on fracture
properties, CD= 10 8 is a reasonable value for the dimen-
sionless wellbore storage constant. For this problem, the
dimensionless fracture transfer coefficient, A. and the 1
,
dimensionless matrix storativity, w are defined respec- 1
,
tively by
..................... (32)
and
459
 o METHOD 1
RATE NORMALIZED PRESSURE DROP
)..' 10-9
w' 200
s 0
Fig. 11---Rate-normalized and Method 1 solutions, natur-
ally fractured reservoir.
where the subscript/refers to the fracture system and the
subscript m refers to the matrix system. See Ref. 23 for
a more detailed discussion of these parameters and their
physical interpretation.
For the solution shown in Fig. 10, reD is sufficiently
large that the outer reservoir boundary does not affect the
wellbore response during the time interval shown. Note
that A.' =10- 9 , w' =200, and s=O for the results shown
in Fig. 10. Also note that the Cv =0 solution exhibits all
three semilog straight lines identified in Refs. 23, 37, and
38. In both Figs. 10 and 11, a cross is used to denote the
beginning and end of the various semilog straight lines.
Note that the Cv = 10 8 solution does not exhibit the
early-time semilog straight line with slope= 1.15 and the
intermediate-time semilog straight line with slo~e = 0. 59
is obscured. (If Cv were increased to Cv = 10 for this
problem, the intermediate-time semilog straight line would
be totally obscured).
Fig. 11 presents the PwcD function generated with our
Method 1 using the Cv = 10 8 solution of Fig. 10 and the
corresponding dimensionless sandface rate, qv (not
shown). Fig. 11 also presents the rate-normalized pres-
sure drop for the same problem. The solid curve of Fig.
11 represents the Cv =0 solution of Fig. 10, which is the
dimensionless pressure drop solution obtained when the
sandface rate is constant. Note that the PwcD solution
generated with Method 1 is in excellent agreement with
this constant-sandface-rate solution. By using regression
analysis as in our previous examples, we found that the
PwcD function of Fig. 11 displays an early-time semilog
straight line with slope= 1.14, an intermediate-time semi-
log straight line with slope=0.59, and a late-time semi-
log straight line with slope= 1.15. The last two slopes are
the desired correct values but the early-:time slope (1.14)
is slightly lower than the correct value of 1.15.
The normalized pressure drop shown in Fig. 11 falls
below the constant-rate solution for t D s; 5 X 10 10 . Any
reasonably chosen intermediate-time semilog straight line
will have a slope significantly greater than 0.59. By using
regression analysis on the rate-normalized data for
10 2 s;tv s; 10 5 , we determined an early-time semilog
straight line with slope= 1. 11. Although this slope is close
to the correct value (1.15), the line falls below the cor-
rect early-time semilog straight line, as shown in Fig. 10.
Estimating w' from the difference between the early- and
4;60
s 1 -2 s 2 10
Pj 1 6~00 , Pj 2 = 3000 psi
reo 4000
Fig. 12-Pressure response; two-layer, commingled
reservoir.
late-time semilog straight lines by the procedure discussed
in Ref. 23, we obtain w' = 71 with the rate-normalized
data, whereas the same procedure applied to the PwcD
data of Fig. 11 yields w' = 196. Note that the correct value
is w' = 200. Method 3 can also be applied to the CD = 10 8
solution and yields reliable results, but Method 2 is not
appropriate for well bore storage problems.
The last problem considered here is a two-layer com-
mingled reservoir system (no crossflow between
layers 42 ,43 ). Fig .. 12 presents a semilog plot of the dimen-
sionless drawdown pressure-drop solution for a two-layer
commingled reservoir problem. Here p wD and t D are
based on average properties. Individual layer properties
or their ratios are given in Fig. 12, where the subscript
1 refers to Layer 1 and the subscript 2 refers to Layer
2. The initial pressure in Layer 1 is 6,000psi [41.4 MPa]
and the initial pressure in Layer 2 is 3,000 psi [20.7 MPa],
and the individual layer skin factors are s 1 = -2 and
s 2 = 10; thus, this problem is an extreme case and the
analogous field data would be extremely difficult to ana-
lyze by conventional methods. 43 The initial pressure used
in the definition of p wD is
k1h1Pi1 +k2h2Pi2
Pi= , ................... (34)
kh
as suggested by Larsen, 43 but the definition of pi has no
bearing on the semilog slope. For the data considered
here, Eq. 34 yields Pi =3,273 psi [22.6 MPa].
From the results of Fig. 12, we see that no semilog
straight line with slope= 1.151 exists. In fact, the mini-
mum semilog slope that can be obtained is approximate-
ly 2.8 (approximately 2.5 times the desired, correct slope.
of 1.151), which is not surprising in view of Larsen's 43
results. The results of Fig. 12 are for a constant total sand-
face rate of production, and reservoir boundaries influ-
ence the wellbore response at t D = 5 X 10 7 . For this
problem, fluid is actually injected into Layer 2 during vir-
tually the entire duration of the drawdown test. This is
a result of the low initial pressure of Layer 2.
Fig. 13 presents a semilog plot of the dimensionless
pressure drop p wv 1 vs. dimensionless time t v 1 The rate
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
 METHOD
. o I, 8 1
0 2,8 1
t:> 3
RATE NORMALIZED
PRESSURE DROP

Fig. 13-Pressure and rate responses based on Layer 1 Fig. 14-Methods 1, 2, and 3 and rate-normalized Layer
properties. 1 solutions; two-layer system.

qD1 is also shown. Here PwD 1 , tD 1 and qD 1 are based
on Layer 1 properties are defined respectively by
.................. (35)
2.637X10~ 4 k1t
t D1 = - - - - - - - ................... (36)
~ 1 ctl p,r;
and
q1 (t)
qD1 = - - , .. .............. (37) layer properties by the rate-normalized analysis proce-
q,
where q 1 (t) is the sandface rate of production from Layer
1 in reservoir barrels per day. Fig. 14 presents a semilog
plot of the p weD solutions vs. t D 1 , where the p weD solu-
tions are generated by Methods 1, 2, and 3 using the pres-
sure/rate data of Fig. 13. The rate-normalized
dimensionless pressure drop, p wD 1 I q D 1 , is also shown
in Fig. 14. The solid curve is the Layer 1 pressure-drop
solution that is obtained when Layer 1 is produced at a
constant sandface rate. Note that the PweD solutions
generated and the rate-normalized pressure-drop solution
all correlate well with this single-layer solution during
transient flow. (The p weD solutions also correlate well
with the sinfle-layer solution during pseudosteady flow,
tD > 5 X 10 .) In particular, the PweD and PwDl lqDl vs.
t D 1 plots all display a semilog straight line with
slope= 1.151, an~ analysis of data yields an excellent ap-
proximation for the skin factor of Layer 1, s 1 = -2.
(Data obtained for Layer 2 can also be analyzed by simi-
lar procedures. 11 )
The results for the two-layer problem indicate that, if
individual layer sandface rate data can be obtained, then
individual layer properties can be obtained with a con-
ventional semilog analysis by Method 1, 2, or 3 or the
rate-normalized analysis procedure. FetkoviGh 44 clear-
ly indicates that it should be possible to estimate individual
dure when individual layer sandface rate data are availa-
ble. Thus, the preceding results on rate-normalization may
b~ viewed as a theoretical confirmation of his hypothesis.
Fractured Wells. We consider the application of our
methods and the rate-normalized procedure to vertically
fractured well problems. We discuss uniform-flux and
infinite-conductivity fractures 45 as well as finite-
conductivity fractures. 18 19 46 47 For planar fractured
wells (uniform flux or infinite conductivity) where well-
bore storage effects exist, the dimensionless wellbore
pressure-drop solution can be generated with well-known
superposition procedures-e.g., see Ref. 48. The finite-

10

o PRESSURE, Pwo
oRATE, q 0

Coxf =0.1

10
Fig. 16-Rate-normalized and Method 1 solutions; infinite-
conductivity fracture.
Fig. 15-Pressure and rate; infinite-conductivity fracture
with wellbore storage.

SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 461

 - CONSTANT RATE SOLUTION, UNIFORM FLUX
NORMALIZED PRESSURE, C oxf 0.1
('oxf)u=0.072,(Pwo)u 1.10
1 RcD1/Rco2" 2 ,Cto21.6
('oxf). 10- , (Pwo). 1.0
I I
MATCH PO~x
10
Fig. 17-Rate-normalized infinite-conductivity solution
matched with uniform-flux solution.
conductivity fractured well with wellbore storage and skin
problem has recently been solved analytically by Lee and
Brockenbrough. 49 Technically, their solution is an ap-
proximate solution but correlates extremely well (for
t DxJ < 0. 5) with the rigorous solution obtainable by
fimte-difference methods. The results of Refs. 45 through
49 assume a single-layer reservoir. Refs. 18, 19, and 24
considered the performance of finite-conductivity verti-
cally fractured wells draining multilayered reservoirs.
Fig. 15 presents a log-log plot of the dimensionless well-
bore pressure drop and dimensionless sandface rate vs.
dimensionless time, t Dx , for an infinite-conductivity
fractured well producinla single-layer reservoir. Well-
bore storage effects are present with C Dx = 0.1 and the
1
surface rate is constant. (See the definition section for the
definitions of the variables used here.) As shown in Fig.
15, qD = 1 for tDx1 ;::: 1. Here qD = 1 implies that the
surface and sandface rates are equal.
Fig. 16 presents a log-log plot of the rate-normalized
dimensionless pressure drop and p weD data obtained from
Method 1 with the pressure and rate data of Fig. 15.
(Method 3 can also be used to obtain p weD but Method
2 is not appropriate.) The solid curve in Fig. 16 is tQe
constant-sandface-rate infinite-conductivity solution 45
(CDx =0). The results of Fig. 16 indicate that the PweD
1
solutiOn generated by Method 1 correlates extremely well
with the constant-sandface-rate solution (solid curve),
whereas the rate-normalized dimensionless pressure falls
below the constant-sandface-rate solution for t Dx < 1.
We were surprised to find that the rate-nornfalized
dimensionless pressure of Fig. 16 can be type-curve
matched reasonably well with the uniform-flux fracture
solution during the time range 10 -:- 2 :$ t Dx :$ 4. This is
illustrated in Fig. 17, where the solid curve i the constant-
sandface-rate wellbore pressure drop for a uniform-flux
fracture. The solid, circular data points are the rate-
normalized pressure drop solution of Fig. 16 type-curve
matched with the uniform-flux solution. Note that these
data points represent the rate-normalized pressure drop
obtained from the infinite-conductivity fracture solution
with wellbore storage effects, CDx =0.1. The scales in
Figs. 16 and 17 are the same-i.d:, both represent the
scales used in the infinite-conductivity .solution. The point
labeled with a cross represents the match point, with the
subscripts u and i representing the uniform-flux and
462
k/k2=0.01, h1/h2=2,
Cto1/Cto2" 50 Lxt/Lxf 2 " 4
10
Fig. 18-Buildup pressure response; finite-conductivity
fracture; two-layer system.
infinite-conductivity scales, respectively; that is, the type-
curve match aligns the point t Dx = 0. 077!, p wD = 1. 1 on
the uniform-flux scale with the point t Dx = 10 - 1 ,
1
p wD = 1. 00 on the infinite-conductivity scale.
We now consider a vertically fractured well draining
a commingled two~layer reservoir. The fracture is of finite
conductivity and there is no crossflow between the frac-
ture layers: no wellbore storage exists, fracture storage
effects are negligible, and the initial pressure is uniform
throughout the system. We discuss only the buildup
response subsequent to a long producing period
(t pDxJ =2.5 X 10 - 4 ) at a constant total sand face rate.
Fig. 18 presents a log-log plot of the dimensionless build-
up response, p Ds, vs. dimensionless shut-in time, !l.tDxr
Here p Ds and !l.t Dx are based on average properties and
!l.t Dx is based ori the effective fracture half-length,
i x1 . 1Values of the pertinent variables are given in Figs.
18 and 19. As shown in Fig. 18, the dimensionless
buildup-pressure response (circular data points) correlates
extremely well with the dimensionless drawdown-pressure
response (solid curve). This drawdown response is for
an equivalent single-layer problem that is discussed in de-
tail in Ref. 24. This aspect is not pertinent to our main
theme that individual layer properties can be determined
if individual layer sandface rates are known.
In Fig. 20, PDs 1 and !l.qD 1 are plotted vs. dimension-
less shut-in time, !l.t Dx11 ; p Ds 1 , !l.q D1 and !l.t Dx1, are
based on Layer 1 properties. In particular, !l.q D 1 is de-
fined as
q1 (!l.t=O)-q 1 (!l.t)
f:l.q D1 = , ............... (38)
qr
where q 1 (in reservoir barrels per day) represents the
sandface flow rate from Fracture Layer 1 during the build-
up period.
Fig. 19 presents the rate-normalized dimensionless pres-
sure, PDs11!l.qD1, and the dimensionless pressure PweD
generated from the data of Fig. 20. Here Method 1 (Eq.
A-9) was used to generate PwcDl and the subscript 1
denotes Layer 1 properties. The solid curve represents
the dimensionless drawdown wellbore pressure drop for
the corresponding single-layer problem. BothPwcD1 and
pDs1 I !l.q Dl correlate well with this drawdown solution for
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
 LAYER I PROPERTIES _ _
5 1
Cml" 50, k 1=0.002 md, 1c 11 3xl0 psi
h1 40ft, k 11 b1 40md-fl,
Lx 400 fl
11
lo-3 lo-1
DIMENSIONLESS SHUT-IN TIME, llt0xfl
Fig. 19-Correlation of rate-normalized and Method 1 so-
lutions with Layer 1 solution.
t:..t Dx1 < 1, although Method 1 yields slightly better re-
sults. Buildup data for t:..tDx 1 > 1 fall below the draw-
down solution as a result ofproducing-time effects. 50
Results similar to those shown in Fig. 19 can also be
generated from Layer 2 data. The results of Fig. 19 il-
lustrate that individual layer properties (k, Lx1 , and C1)
can be obtained for similar field cases provided individual-
layer sandface flow rate data are measured. This conclu-
sion applies both to drawdown and buildup data. 11
In general, we have found that when these methods are
used to convert (variable-sandface-rate) pressure build-
up data to equivalent constant-sandface-rate drawdown-
pressure data, the equivalent drawdown data generated
will match the desired constant-sandface-rate drawdown
solution provided that t:..t~0.1tP, where tp is the produc-
ing time. This condition is only a rule of thumb. A more
detailed discussion of producing-time effects is given in
Ref. 11.
Field Example
Here, Method 1 is applied to analyze an actual buildup
test where the buildup data are influenced by afterflow
(wellbore storage effects). We also discuss the rate nor-
malization procedure for this problem.
For buildup data analysis, the real variable version of
Method 1 is given by Eq. A-9. Given actual buildup pres-
sure and sandface rate data, Eq. A-9 can be used to gener-
ate the equivalent normalized draw down response, p FCN,
where
A t:..p(0)
p FCN(tj) = - - . . . .................. (39)
q,
o q(Llt=O)-q(Lll)
Fig. 21-Shut-in pressure and rate; field example.
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
10
10- 4 103 1o2 1o1 1 10
DIMENSIONLESS SHUT-IN TIME, Moxfl
Fig. 20-Shut-in pressure and rate based on Layer 1 prop-
erties.
Here, ~p(tj) represents the pressure drop in pounds per
square inch that would be obtained if production were at
a constant sand face rate q r. Eq. A -9 is used to generate
P FCN as a function of shut-in time so actual knowledge
of t:..p(tj) and q r is not necessary. As discusseft in Ap-
pendix A (also see Refs. 6, 10, and 11), PFcN(tj) repre-
sents the equivalent (constant-sandface-rate) normalized
drawdown pressure change; thus, standard drawdown
analysis procedures (type curves or semilog analysis) can
be used to analyze the P FCN vs. t:..t data.
For the buildup test we consider, the rate-normalized
buildup pressure is denoted by t:..p/ t:..q and is given by
t:..p Pws -pwfs
-----=----, .................... (40)
t:..q q(t:..t=O) -q(t:..t)
where Pws is the shut-in pressure and Pwfs represents the
final flowing wellbore pressure-i.e., the pressure at the
instant of shut-in.
Brownscombe Case 5. The buildup test considered is
Brownscombe's Case 5. 51 This is a multiphase-flow
problem and hence the total sandface rate (q t) must be
used in the analysis. 14 52 -54 Fig. 21 presents the conven-
tional log-log plot of t:..p vs. t:..t and the log-log plot of
the change in sandface rate, t:..qt, vs. shut-in time, t:..t.
Here
f:..p=pws -pwfs ... ..... (41)
and
Fig. 22-Match of rate-normalized response with uniform-
flux type curve.
463
 ..
L&J
(!)
z
<t 0.6
::I:
u
~~
=>c
en'
cnm
l.&Ja:: 0.4
a::,
a_,_
c~
L&J ..
N-
- CT
_J<l
<t,
~c.
O::<l 0.2
0
z By using Eq. A-9, we constructed the PFcN function
L&J
~ to obtain a good match of the P FCN vs. fl.t data using the
a::
0 uniform-flux type curve; however, we found that these
o 10 20 30
SQUARE ROOT OF SHUT-IN TIME,
.rt;;t, v'MINUTES
Fig. 23-Square root of time plot of rate-normalized
response.
where qt represents the total sandface flow rate (oil, gas,
and water) in reservoir barrels per day. Because after-
flow (wellbore storage) is present, the log-log plot of fl.p
vs. fl.t displays a unit-slope line at early times that is the
characteristic behavior of wellbore-storage-dominated
data. (The well-known 1.5-log-cycle rule indicates that
none of the data lie on the conventional semilog straight
line.)
The log-log plot of the rate-normalized data display a
half-slope line at early times that is characteristic of a frac-
tured well. This can be seen in Fig. 22, which shows the
type-curve match of the rate-normalized data obtained
with the uniform-flux type curve for vertically fractured
wells. Using the match points recorded in Fig. 22, we
obtain (kh/~-t),=163.8 md-ft/cp [49.9x10 3 mdm/Pas]
{(kl~-t)r=455 md/cp [455x10 3 md/Pas]} and Lxt=
96.8 ft [29.5 m]. (These values are within 2% of the
values obtained by Fetkovich and Vienot, 14 who consid-
ered the same problem.) From these results, we find that
the effective well bore radius r ~ and skin factor are
r~=Lx le=35.6 ft [10.9 m] and s=-ln(r~lrw)=
- 5 .1. In our results, (kl ll) t represents the total mobility
because the total sandface rate was used in the analysis.
(Both the type-curve match and the double-fl.p rule indi-
cate that semilog analysis is not applicable.)
The early-time data of Fig. 22 are flat and approach
the half-slope line from above. This behavior could be
a result of the existence of damage on the fracture face;
however, the Cartesian plot of fl.p/ fl.q t vs. J"it shown
in Fig. 23 exhibits a straight line during the linear flow
period (half-slope line on the log-log plot) that extrapo-
lates to zero at fl.t=O. If damage were present, this straight
line should extrapolate to a positive value of (fl.pl fl.q t).
Thus we conjecture that the flat portion of the data may
be caused by small errors in the measurements of pres-
sures or rates. The small oscillations in Ap/fl.q, (see Figs.
22 and 23) seem to indicate this possibility.
464
Fig. 24-Match of Method 1 solution with infinite-
conductivity type curve.
from the pressure/rate data of Fig. 21. We were unable
data could be reasonably matched with the infinite-
conductivity type curve for fractured wells. Our match
is shown in Fig. 24. From the match-point values recorded
on . Fig. 24, we obtained (kh/ ~-t), = 142.6 md-ft/cp
[43.5X10 3 mdm/Pas] and Lxt=87.4 ft [26.6 m].
These estimates are roughly 10% less than the correspond-
ing estimates obtained by matching the rate-normalized
data with the uniform-flux type curve. From these results,
we found r~ =Lx /2=43.7 ft [13.3 m] and s= -ln(r~/
r w) = - 5. 3; thus {he values of the r: and s obtained are
close to the values obtained using the rate-normalized
procedure.
It seems possible that the difference between the rate-
normalized analysis results and the results obtained from
the P FCN analysis cpuld be the result of the behavior il-
lustrated in Figs. 16 and 17, which showed that the dimen-
sionless rate-normalized wellbore pressure-drop solution
for an infinite-conductivity vertical fracture with wellbore
storage effects will correlate well with the uniform-flux
solution for 10 - 2 !5 t Dx !54. On the basis of field expe-
1
rience, however, most people believe that the infinite-
conductivity type curve should be applied only when a
propped hydraulic fracture exists, and Ref. 51 gives no
indication that this is the case.
Conclusions
We have demonstrated the applicability of analysis
methods that are based on Duhamel's principle. These
methods can be used to convert pressure data obtained
when the sandface rate is variable to the equivalent pres-
sure data that would have been obtained for a constant
sandface rate of production. The methods can be applied
to both drawdown and buildup data. For the drawdown
case, the methods can of course also be applied with sur-
face rates provided that the surface rate is an accurate
reflection of the sandface rate. It has been shown that
Methods 1, 2, and 3 can be applied to a wide variety of
problems and are particularly advantageous for analyz-
ing well test data obtained from commingled layered reser-
voirs. We have introduced a new procedure, Method 3
of Appendix B, which is particularly useful for analyz- .
ing well test data influenced by reservoir boundary ef-
fects. The three methods based on Duhamel's principle
have been compared to the rate-normalized analysis proce-
dure. It has been shown that when data are strongly in-
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
fluenced by wellbore storage effects, the rate-normalized CJD = dimensionless fracture conductivity
pressure solution will be displaced below the correct h = total formation thickness, ft [m]
constant-sand-face-rate solution. We do not view the lat- hft = total fracture thickness (naturally fractured
ter statement as a castigation of the rate-normalization reservoir), ft [m]
procedure because for many problems this displacement hm = matrix thickness (naturally fractured
will not be large. Moreover, rate-normalized analysis is reservoir), ft [m]
simpler to use than Methods 1, 2, and 3, and does give
a good indication of which data points may be erroneous.
hw = thickness of perforated interval, ft [m]
Of the three methods based on Duhamel's principle, h wD = dimensionless wellbore length defined by
Method 1 is always applicable. We recommend the use Eq. 28
of Method 2 only when the sandface rate (change in sand- ~ = permeability, md
face rate for buildup) decreases throughout the test. Be"" k = thjckness-averaged permeability, md
cause of its computational complexity, we recommend the kt = fracture permeability, md
use of Method 3 only when it is important to generate kz = vertical permeability, md
accurate equivalent constant-sandface-rate data durirtg the f.x 1 = fracture half-length, ft [m]
time period influenced by boundary effects-e.g., in reser- Lx = effective fracture half-length defined by
1
voir limit testing under variable-flow-rate conditions. The Eq. 12, ft [m]
obvious limitation of Methods 1, 2, and 3 and the rate- n = index
normalization analysis is that sandface flow rates must be
available. llowever, because of the important analysis ad-
p = pressure, psi [kPa]
vantage these methods offer, particularly for heteroge- llp = pressure drop, psi [kPa]
neous formations, we expect that intense efforts will be p Ds = dimensionless shut-in pressure defined by
made to improve our ability to measure sandface flow Eq. 17
rates accurately. Currently, sandface flow rates are meas- p Ds = dimensionless shut-in pressure defined by
ured by production logging, and this requires that we con- Eq. 18
vert spinner rates in revolutions per second to sandface pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi [kPa]
flow rates in reservoir barrels per day. 55 For buildup data llp(ij) = pressure drop if production is a constant-
obtained from pumping wells, the sandface rate during sandface-rate of q r
buildup can be obtained by measuring the rising liquid PwcD = equivalent constant-sandface-rilte
level using acoustic devices. 51 dimensionless wellbore pressure drop
On the basis of this study, the following conclusions
p wD = dimensionless well bore pressure drop ob-
are warranted.
1. Methods based on Duhamel's principle can be used tained under variable-sandface-rate pro-
to analyze well test data when sandface flow rates are duction
available. PwJ = flowing bottomhole pressure, psi [kPa]
2. If individual layer sandface flow rates are available, Pwfs = flowing wellbore pressure at shut-in, psi
then the methods can be used to estimate individual layer [kPa]
properties. Pws = shut-in wellbore pressure psi [kPa]
3. The three methods can be used to estimate reservoir p0 = bottomhole opening pressure (DST), psi
PV when reservoir limit testing is conducted under [kPa]
variable-flow-rate conditions (the rate-normalized proce- P FCN = normalized pressure drop for constant-
dure should not be used under these circumstances). sandface-rate production, psi/RB-D
4. Although the rate-normalized analysis procedure may
[kPa/m 3 d]
yield sufficiently accurate results for practical purposes,
the rate-normalized pressure drop is displaced below the q = sandface flow rate, RB/D [res m 3 /d]
equivalent constant-sandface-rate solution during the time q' = derivative of the sandface flow rate
period dominated by wellbore storage effects. (tn+l -tj)
q D = dimensionless sandface rate defined by
Nomenclature Eq. 2
A = drainage area, ft 2 [m 2 ] qr = reference sandface rate, RB/D [res m 3 /d]
b = penetration ratio defined by Eq. 27 r e = reservoir drainage radius, ft [m]
cj = coefficient defined by Eq. B-2 reD = dimensionless drainage radius
cn = coefficient defined by Eq. B-2 r w = well bore radius, ft [m]
c1 = system compressibility, psi - l [kPa - l ] r ~ = effective. wellbore radius
c tf = total fracture compressibility, psi - 1 R cjD = dimensionless reservoir conductivity of
[kPa -l] Layer j, defined by Eq. 10
C = wellbore storage constant, RB/psi s = skin factor
[res m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ] s b = pseudoskin factor resulting from partial
CD = dimensionless wellbore storage constant for penetration
radial flow problems s 1 = total skin factor
C Dx = dimensionless well bore storage constant for t = time, hours
1
vertically fractured wells t D = dimensionless time based on well bore
Ct = fracture conductivity radius
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 465
 dimensionless time based on Layer 1 prop- 6. Bostic, J.N., Agarwal, R.G. and Carter, R.D.: "Combined Anal-
erty defined by Eq. 35 ysis of Postfracturing Performance and Buildup Data for Evaluating
an MHF Gas Well," JPT (Oct. 1980) 1711-19.
tvA dimensionless time based on drainage area 7. Pascal, H. and Quillian, R.G.: "New Method for Predicting
tvxt dimensionless time based on fracture half- Deliverability From Variable Rate Drawdown Data," paper SPE
length 7932 presented at the 1979 SPE Symposium on Low-Permeability
Gas Reservoirs, Denver, May 20-22.
tJ point in the subinterval [t1 ,t1+ d defined in 8. Kucuk, F. and Ayestaran, L.: ''Analysis of Simultaneously Meas-
Eq. A-7 ured Pressure and Sahdface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing,"
producing time before shut-in, hours JPT (Feb. 1985) 323-34.
9. McEdwards, D.G.: "Multiwell Variable-Rate Well Test Analy~is,"
dimensionless produ~ing time before SPEJ (Aug. 1981) 444-53. .
shut-in 10. Thompson, L.G., Jones, J.R., and Reynolds, A.: "Analysis of
At shut-in time, hours Pressure Buildup Data Influenced by Wellbore Phase Redistribu-
tion," SPEFE (Oct. 1986) 435-52.
Atv dimensionless shut-in time based on well-
11. Thompson, L.G.: "Analysis of Variable Rate Pressure Data Using
. bore radius Duhamel's Principle," PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK
dimensionless shut-in time based on (1985).
fracture half-length 12. Gladfelter, R.E., Tracy, G.W., and Wilsey, L.E.: "Selecting Wells
Which Will Respond to Production Stimulation Treatment," Drill.
X match point and Prod. Prac., API (1955) 117-28.
'Y Euler's constant (0.57722) 13. Winestock, A.G. and Colpitts, G.P.: "Advances in Estimating Gas
() weighting factor for a uniform weighting Well Deliverability," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1965) 111-19.
14. Fetkovich, M.J. and Vienot, M.E.: "Rate Normalization of Buildup
for all i1 Pressure Using Afterflow Data," JPT (Dec. 1984) 2211-24.
)...' dimensionless fracture transfer coefficient 15. Stehfest, H.: "Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms,"
defined by Eq. 32 Communications of the ACM (Jan. 1970) 13, No. 1, 47-49.
16. Prijambodo, R., Raghavan, R., and Reynolds, A.C.: "Well Test
viscosity Analysis for Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs with Cross flow,''
porosity, fraction SPEJ (June 1985) 380-96.
thickness-averaged porosity I compressibility 17. Reynolds, A.C., Chen, J.C., and Raghavan, R.: "Pseudo-Skin
Factor Caused by Partial Penetration," JPT(Dec. 1984) 2197-2210.
product defined by Eq. 9, psi - 1 18. Bennett, C.O., Reynolds, A.C., and Raghavan, R.: "Analysis of
[kPa - 1 ] Finite-Conductivity Fractures Intercepting Multilayer Reservoirs,''
fracture porosity, fraction SPEFE (June 1986) 259-74.
19. Bennett, C.O.: "Analysis of Fractured Wells," PhD dissertation,
dimensionless matrix storativity defined by U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1982).
Eq. 33 20. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr.,, and Crawford, P.B.: "The Flow
of Real Gases Through Porous Media," JPT(May 1966) 624-36;
Trans., AIME, 237.
Subscripts 21. Agarwal, R.G.: "Real Gas Pseudo-Time-A New Function for
f = fracture system Pressure Buildup Analysis of MHF Gas Wells,'' paper SPE 8279
infinite-conductivity scale presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 21-24.
j layer index 22. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: "Application ofPseudotime to Build-
m matrix system up Test Analysis of Low-Permeability Gas Wells with Long-
u = uniform-flux scale Duration Wellbore Storage Distortion," JPT(Dec. 1982) 2877-87.
23. Serra, K., Reynolds, A.C., and Raghavan, R.: "New Pressure
1 Layer 1 Transient Analysis Methods for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,"
2 Layer 2 JPT (Dec. 1983) 2271-83.
24. Camacho-V., R.G., Raghavan, R., and Reynolds, A.C.: "Response
of Fractured Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs, Unequal Fracture
Length," paper SPE 12844 presented at the 1984 SPE/DOE/GRI
Acknowledgments Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, May 13-15.
Portions of this study were completed by L. G. Thomp- 25. Fetkovich, M.J. and Thrasher, T.S.: "Constant Well Pressure
Testing and Analysis in Low Permeability Reservoirs,'' paper SPE
son with a grant from Flopetrol Johnston/Schlumberger 7928 presented at the 1979 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting,
as well as a U. of Tulsa research assistantship. We thank Denver, May 20-22.
these sources and the Dept. of Petroleum Engineering, 26. Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady Flow to a Well
U. of Tulsa, for financial support. Producing at Constant Pressure," JPT (Oct. 1980) 1803-12.
27. Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Transient Rate
Decline Analysis for Wells Produced at Constant Pressure," SPEJ
(Feb. 1981) 98-104.
References 28. Jones, P.: "Reservoir Limit Test," Oil & Gas]. (June 18, 1956)
1. van Everdingen, A.S. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the 184-96.
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans. , 29. Earlougher, R. C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph
AIME (1949) 186, 305-24. Series, SPE, R,ichardson, TX (1977) 5, 29-30.
2. Odeh, A.S. and Jones, L.G.: "Pressure Drawdown Analysis, 30. van Poollen, H.K.: "Status of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques and
Variable Rate Case," JPT(Aug. 1965) 960-64; Trans., AIME, 234. Analysis," JPT (April 1961) 333-39.
3. Soliman, M.Y.: "New Technique for Analysis of Variable Rate 31. Kohlhaas, C.A.: "A Method for Analyzing Pressures Measured
or Slug Test,'' paper SP~ 10083 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual During Drillstem-Test Flow Periods," JPT (Oct. 1972) 1278-82;
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-7. Trans., AIME, 253.
4. Stewart, G., Wittmann, M.J., and Meunier, D.: "AfterflowMeas- 32. Ramey, H.J. Jr., Agarwal, R.G., and Martin, 1.: "Analysis of Slug-
urement and Deconvolution in Well Test Analysis," paper SPE Test or DST Flow Period Data," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept.
12174 presented at the SPE 1983 Annual Technical Conference and 1965) 37-42. I

Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8. 33. Gringarten, A.C. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An Approximate Infinite
5. Jargon, J.R. and van Poollen, H.K.: "Unit Response Function From Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating Line Source Well,''
Varying Rate Data," JPT(Aug. 1965) 965-69; Trans., AIME, 234. SPEJ (April 1975) 140-48.

466 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986

34. Bilhartz, H.L. Jr. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "The Combined Effects To apply the schemes to variable-sandface-rate draw-
of Storage, Skin and Partial Penetration on Well Test Analysis," down data, partitions of the time interval [0, t] must be
paper SPE 6753 presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12. used, and for buildup, partitions of the time interval [0,
35. Brons, F. and Marting, V.W.: "The Effect of Restricted Fluid Entry Llt] must be used. For both drawdown and buildup, these
on Well Productivity," JPT(Feb. 1961) 172-74; Trans., AIME, partitions are denoted by {t1}/!,;t I , where for draw down
222.
36. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Verification of the Gladfelter-Tracy-Wilsey
Concept for Wellbore Storage Dominated Transient Pressures O=to <t1 < .. .. <tn <tn+l =t, ........... (A-1)
During Production," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (April-June 1976) 84-85.
37. Streltsova, T.D.: "Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured
Reservoir," SPEJ (Oct. 1983) 769-80. and for buildup,
38. Cineo-L., H. and Samaniego-V., F.: "Pressure Transient Analy-
sis Methods for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," paper SPE 11026
presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and O=to < t1 < ... < tn < tn+l =Llt. . .......... (A-2)
Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
39. Chen, C. et al.: "Pressure Transient Analysis Methods for Bounded
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPEJ (June 1985) 451-64. Here, P FCN denotes the equivalent normalized drawdown
40. Bourdet, D. and Gringarten, A.C.: "Determination of Fissured
Volume and Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by Type-Curve pressure drop we wish to generate-i.e., P FCN represents
Analysis," paper SPE 9293 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual the normalized pressure drop we would obtain for a con-
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24. stant sandface rate of production. Notationally,
41. Reynolds, A.C. et al.: "The Wellbore Pressure Response in
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," JPT (May 1985) 908-20.
PFcN=Llp!q, .......................... (A-3)
42. Tariq, S.M.: ''A Study of the Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with
Well bore Storage and Skin Effect,'' PhD dissertation, Stanford U.
(1977). where Llp is the pressure drop in pounds per square inch
43. Larsen, L.: "Wells Producing Commingled Zones with Unequal that would occur if the well were produced at a constant
Initial Pressures and Reservoir Properties," paper SPE 10325 sandface rate equal to q r. The methods considered here
presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-7. are used to generate P FCN and knowledge of Llp and q r
44. Fetkovich, M.J.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves," is not necessary or desired.
JPT (June 1980) 1065-77. The drawdown analysis scheme referred to as Method
45. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady- 1 for n~ 1 is given by
State Pressure-Distributions Created by a Well with a Single Infinite-
Conductivity Vertical Fracture," SPEJ (Aug. 1974) 347-60; Trans.,
AIME, 257.
46. Cineo-L., H., Samaniego, F., and Dominguez, N.: "Transient
Pressu.re Behavior for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical
Fracture," SPEJ (Aug. 1978) 253-64.
47. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D., and Pollock, C.B.: "Evaluation and
Performance of Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive where
Hydraulic Fracturing," JPT (March 1979) 362-72.
48. Cineo-L., H. andSamaniego-V., F.: "EffectofWellboreStorage n-I
and Damage in the Transient Pressure Behavior of Vertically
Fractured Wells," paper SPE 6752 presented at the 1977 SPE
sum= 2::: PFcN(ij)[q(tn+l -tj)-q(tn+l -ti+I)].
}=0
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12.
49. Lee, S. and Brockenbrough, J.: "A New Analytical Solution for
Finite Conductivity Fractures with Real Time and Laplace Space ........................... (A-5)
Parameter Estimation," paper "SPE 12013 presented at the 1983
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, When n = 0, Eq. A -4 is replaced by
Oct. 5-8.
50. Raghavan, R.: "The Effect of Producing Time on Type Curve Anal-
ysis," JPT (June 1980) 1053-64. ")-[Pi -pwf(tt)]
51. Brownscombe, E.R.: "Afterflows and Buildup Interpretations on P FCN ( to - ................ (A-6)
Pumping Wells," JPT (Feb. 1982) 397-405. q(ti)
52. Perrine, R.L.: "Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves," Drill. and
Prod. Prac., API (1956), 482-509.
53. Martin, J.C.: "Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive 0
Here denotes a point in the subinterval [t1 , t1+ I] of the
Reservoirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Flow partition of Eq. A-1 and is given by
Buildup Analysis," JPT (Oct. 1959) 321-23; Trans., AIME, 216.
54. Chu, W.C., Reynolds, A.C., and Raghavan, R.: "Pressure 0=8itJ+l +(1-()J)tJ, .................... (A-7)
Transient Analysis of Two-Phase Flow Problems," SPEFE (June
1986) 151-64.
55. Awad, M.A. and Tergiman, J.: "Importance of~ottom-Hole Flow where
Monitoring During Transient Pressure Testing,'' Proc., SPWLA,
New Orleans (June 1984). 0 !5 () F:::; 1. .............................. (A-8)
Appendix A-Dimensional Version of
Methods 1 and 2 Selection of the ()1 values will be discussed later. (If we
In Ref. 10, using dimensionless variables, we derived choose 81 = Vz for all}, then the method of Eq. A-4 rep-
methods for the generation of constant-sandface-pressure resents the dimensional version of a method presented in
data given pressure and variable-sandface data measured Ref. 8.) For buildup data, Method 1 is given by
as a function of time during drawdown or buildup. Here,
the dimensional versions of the methods of Ref. 10 are
recorded, and guidelines for the practical application of
these methods are presented.
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 467
where
n-1
sum= 2::: PFcN(iJ)[q(tp +tn+1 -tJ)
J=O
-q(tp+tn+1-tJ+1)] . ................ (A-10)
When n=O, Eq. A-9 is replaced by
........... (A-ll)
Here, the partition of Eq. A-2 is used; Pws represents the
measured shut-in pressure, Pwfs represents the flowing
wellbore pressure at the instant of shut-in, and t P repre-
sents the producing time. The q's represent the sandface
rates recorded during shut-in. Because t P corresponds to
L1t=O and L1t=tn+l (Eq. A-2), we can use the notation
q(L1t=O) for q(tp) and q(L1t-tJ) for q(tp +tn+1 -tJ),
which indicates that knowledge of t P is unnecessary.
For drawdown analysis, Method 2 for n;;::: 1 is given by
to generate P FCN as a function of time. Given buildup
pressure and sandface rate data, the schemes of Eqs. A-9
and A-15 can be used recursively to generate P FCN as
a function of shut-in time. If both drawdown and buildup
pressure and rate data are available, Eqs. A-4 and A-12
can be used to obtain P FCN as a function of total test time.
In all cases, P FCN represents the normalized draw down
pressure response that would be obtained if production
were at a constant sandface rate.
When necessary, linear interpolation is used to obtain
P FCN and q values appearing on the right sides of Eqs.
A-5, A-10, A-13, and A-16. If we choose OJ= 1, for all
j, then except for this linear interpolation procedure, Eq.
A-12 is equivalent to Bostic et al. 's method.
As discussed in Refs. 10 and 11, it is necessary to use
an iterative procedure when applying Method 2. For build-
up data, if the change in sandface rate, q(L1t=O) -q(L1t),
is increasing as in wellbore-storage-dominated data, then
Method 2 (Eq. A-15) will be unstable unless the partition
of Eq. A-2 is selected so that
tJ+ 1 -tJ ~ tJ -tJ-1 ...................... (A-18)

for allj. Because we normally wish to use partitions such

that tJ+ 1 -tJ > tJ -tJ_ 1 , this restriction is inconvenient.
For drawdown cases where q(t) is increasing, it is also
necessary to require that the inequality of Eq. A-18 holds
where when Method 2 is applied (Eq. A-12). On the other hand,
if q(t) [q(L1t=O) -q(L1t) for buildup] is an increasing func-
n-1 tion of time, it is necessary to choose the partitions of
sum= 2::: PFcNCtn+l -tJ+1) the time intervals such that
J=O
tJ+1 -tJ >tJ -tJ-1 ...................... (A-19)
X[q(tJ+I)-q(tJ)] . .................. (A-13)
for all j to achieve stability if Method 1 is used. When
When n=O, Eq. A-12 is replaced by q(t) [ q( L1t = 0)- q( L1t) for buildup] is a decreasing func-
tion of time; no restrictions on the partitions ofEqs. A-1
and A-2 are necessary to achieve stability. A detailed sta-
................. (A-14) bility analysis is given in Refs. 10 and 11.
It is convenient to choose points of the partitions ofEqs.
A-1 and A-2 to correspond to times at which pressure and
The corresponding scheme to be used in the analysis of rate data are measured. However, it may be necessary
buildup data is to add or to delete points from partitions selected in this
way to achieve stability and/or accuracy. At times where
[PwsCtn+1) -pwfs] +sum they have not been measured, pressure and rate data are
P FCNCtn+1 )= " ..... (A-15) generated from the measured data by linear interpolation.
q(tp) -q(t P +t 0 )
We recommend the following guidelines for use of
Methods 1 and 2 in the analysis of field well test data.
for n2:: 1, where Plot, on log-log coordinates, q(t) vs. t for drawdown data,
n-1
or q(L1t=O) -q(L1t) vs. L1t for buildup data.
sum= 2::: PFcNCtn+l -tj+l)[q(tp +iJ+1) Case 1. If the slope of this log-log plot is always zero
J=O
or negative, then both Methods 1 and 2 are stable regard-
less of how the partition of Eq. A-1 (Eq. A-2 for build-
-q(tp +tJ)]. . ...................... (A-16)
up) is selected. In this case, either Method 1 or 2 can be
used successfully. Method 2 generally will give slightly
When n=O, Eq. A-15 must be replaced by more accurate results but Method 1 always is more com-
putationally convenient. In using either method, one
should use OJ= 1 for allj. For either method, sufficient-
ly accurate results will generally be obtained with 10
points per log cycle in the partition of Eq. A-1 (Eq. A-2
Given drawdown pressure and sandface rate data, the for buildup) but adding more points will increase the ac-
schemes of Eqs. A-4 and A-12 can be used recursively curacy obtained.
468 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
' . '
Case 2. If the slope of the log-log plot mentioned above
is positive, Method 2 will be unstable unless the inequal-
ity of Eq. A-18 is satisfied. In this case we recommend
using Method 1 with 01 = V2 for all j and with a partition
selected such that the inequality of Eq. A-19 is satisfied.
More specifically, as shown in Refs. 10 and 11, we should
choose the partitions such that
Iq(tn+1 -tj)-q(tn+1 -tj+1) I :S 1, ........ (A-20)
q(t n + 1 - t n)
when analyzing drawdown data, and such that
I q(J1.t=O) -q(J1.t- t n) I
q(J1.t- t.)-
1
q(J1.t- t.1 + 1)
:S 1' ........... (A-21)
when analyzing buildup data. Sufficient accuracy can be
obtained by choosing partitions that contain 10 or more
points per log cycle, but it may be necessary to use fewer
than 10 points for some log cycles to maintain stability.
For either Case 1 or 2, accuracy will be enhanced by
using more than 10 points per log cycle in regions where
the absolute values of the slope on the log-log plot of rate
q(t) [q(J1.t=O) -q(J1.t) for buildup] vs. time is large. 11
The dimensionless version ofEq. A-4 is given in Refs.
10 and 11 and can be obtained by multiplying Eq. A-4
by kh/141.2~-t and letting
khPFcN khJ1.p
PweD= ............. (A-22)
141.2~-t 141.2q rJ.t
The dimensionless versions ofEqs. A-9, A-12, and A-15
can be obtained by the same procedure and are also given
in Refs. 10 and 11. .,.
For the analysis of transient data~ either Method 1 or
2 should be applied following the guidelines delineated
above. When pressure and rate data are controlled by out-
er boundary effects, Method 3 of Appendix B will yield
the most accurate pseudosteady-state P FCN data.
Appendix &-Dimensional Version of
Method 3
The derivations of Methods 1 and 2 of Appendix A are
given in Refs. 10 and 11. The derivation of Method 3 is
similar and is given in Ref. 11. Here, we present only
the dimensional version of Method 3. The analysis of
reservoir limit tests conducted under variable-rate condi-
tions appears to be the most important practical applica-
tion of Method 3. Thus, for brevity, we include only the
draw down version of Method 3. The buildup analog is
given in Ref. 11.
By using the notation of Appendix A, Method 3 for the
analysis of drawdown data is given by
where
Cj=q(tn+1 -tj)-0.5[(tn+1 -tj)q'(tn+1 -tj)]
............................. (B-2)
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
and
n-1
sum= ~ PFcN(t1+ 1)(c1 -c1+ 1 ). ....... (B-3)
j=O
In Eq. B-2, the term q' (t n + 1 - ti) denotes the derivative
of the rate function evaluated at time tn+ 1 -tj.
The following procedure is recommended for the prac-
tical application of Method 3.
1. Let {t m} ~~b denote the set of points at which pres-
sure and rate data are measured. On each associated subin-
terval, t m, which is strictly < t and :S t m+ 1 , compute the
derivative of the rate function with
- q(tm+d-q(tm)
q 1(t m+1)= , .............. (B-4)
tm+1 -tm
for m = 0, 1 ... s. Here the "superscript" - is used to
denote that Eq. B-4 gives the value assigned to q'(t) at
all times that lie in the subinterval t m , which is strictly
<t and :Stm+ 1 At this point, we have a table composed
of values tm, Pwf(tm), q(tm), and q'(t m+d for
m=0,1 .. . s.
2. Define the sequence of times {t1 }/!,11 at which
PFcN data are desired.
3. Compute PFcN(t 1) from the following equation:
Pi-Pwf(tt)
PFcN(t1)= , ........... (B-5)
q(t t) -0.5t 1 q, (t t)
where pi is the initial pressure at the beginning of the
drawdown test.
4. Compute subsequent values of P FCN by applying Eq.
B-1 recursively. At each step of the procedure, both q
and q' must be evaluated to compute c1 ; see Eq. B-2.
Terms of the form q(tn+ 1 -t1) are evaluated by linear in-
terpolation between measured rate vs. time data. Terms
of the form q' (t n + 1 - t j) are evaluated by searching the
table constructed in Step 1 to find the subinterval such
that t m < t n+ 1 - t j :S t m+ 1 , and then set
q'(tn+1 -tj)=q'(t m+d ................. (B-6)
As shown in Ref. 11, Method 3 is stable if q(t) is a
smoothly decreasing function of time. If q(t) is an increas-
ing function of time, then the points {t1} 1!t 1 at which
P FCN is computed must satisfy the inequality
tj + 1 - tj > tj - tj _ 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-7)
for allj to guarantee stability. Generally, if 10 points per
log cycle are used in the partition {t1 } 1!t 1 , then suffi-
cient accuracy will be obtained when Method 3 is applied.
Further details are given in Ref. 11.
Sl Metric Conversion Factors
bbl X 1.589 873 E-01 = m 3
ft X 3.048* E-01 = m
psi X 6.894 757 E-00 = kpa
conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers office Sept. 16,
1984. Paper accepted for publication April19, 1985. Revised manuscript received Feb.
26, 1986. Paper (SPE 13080) first presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition held in Houston, Sept. 16-19.
469