Analysis of Variable-Rate
Well-Test Pressure Data
Using DuhamePs Principle
L.G. Thompson, * U. of Tulsa
A.C. Reynolds, SPE, U. of Tulsa
Srmmary. ‘Ilk work considers the use of Dnhamel’s principle to analyze pressure drawdown and buildup
data when bnth 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 obtsined for a constant ssndface rate of production. The equivalent constant-rate
messure data then can be analvzed with standard mocedures (senriloc analvsis or twse-curve matcbiru z).
Introduction
Duharnel’s principle was introduced to the petroleum en-
gineering literature in the classic paper of van Everdm-
gen and Hnrst. 1 They wed Dnharrrel’s principle to obtain
the dimensionless wellbnre pressure-drop solution fnr a
continuously varying flow rate. Tlk4r solution is pre3entcd
in terms of a convolution integral. The well-larown Odeh-
Jones nrethodz arrd the more recent methnda of S01iman3
and Stewart et al. 4 can be derived directly from the van
Everdmgen mrd Hurst solution by appropriate numerical
integration procedures. The methods of Refs. 2, 3, and
4 nre restricted because their theoretical basis rests on the
aammption that the dimensionless prsssure drop term that
appears in the convolution integral is given by the semi-
log equationz.3 or the exponential integr3.14-i.e., the
methcds assnrne that if production were at a conxtarrtsand-
face rate, the dirnensiordess wellbore prsssure drop would
be giveri by the sum of the line source sOhrtiDnand the
skin factor. Thus, at least theoretically, their metJroda do
not apply to frachrrcd-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 dnre scale. The methods used in this work rely on Du-
hamel’s principle to convert variable-sandface-rate prca-
sure data to the equivalent pressure data that would have
bar obtained if production had been at a constsm 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 metkod of Kucuk and Ayestars.n,8
and our Methnd 2 (also discusssd in Appendix A) includes
ax a special case the method of Bostic et al. 6 To the best
of our knowledge, Methnd 3 (discnssed in Appendix B)
has not been considered previously in any form. Method,
3 baa advantages over the other two methods when the
late-time pressure &ta arc influenced by boundary effects.
. Nw, ‘NM Rc@moResearti!nsl.
Copyright1sss S=xW ofPwole.n! Enginem
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
<, .-
JP& 130%0
For example, Method 3 is preferable to other methods
when reservoir limit testing is conducted under variable-
flow-rate conditions.
McEdwsrds9 hsa also presented an analysis procedure
bsaed on theoretical concepts similar to those used in Refa.
1 through 8 snd in this work. However, hk procedure
is radkally different because he used the convolution
integral 1 to calculate the theoretical pressure drops that
shonld occur accordkg to the obsewed flow rate bistn-
ry. This calcnlarion requires xrr initial estimate of reser-
voir properties. The cwirnates of reservoir propcrdes are
then refmsd by arr iterative procedure that minimizes the
sum of the squares of the relative dtierences between the
observed xnd calculated pressure changes. As in Refs. 2
through 4, McEdwsrds states that the pressurs-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 perdnent to their application
have been presented previously.’0 Brief details on
Method 3, are given in Appendix B. Fnrther thcnreticxl
detaifs on all three methods can bc found in Ref. 11.
This paper (1) illustrates the applicability of our tech-
niques to a wide vsriety of problems, (2) presents a&-
tailed and carefid comparison between our s.rwlysis
teci-niques and the rate-nomrslized procedure, 12-14 (3)
presents a new proccchrre (Method 3) snd illustrates its
applicabiihy to reservoir limit testing, and (4) dkcusses
how to apply our method to actual daci (Appendices A
and B) and considers the srralysis of a field test. —.
In thk work, we generally use well-known mralytical
solutions for the theoretical problem considered when
thsse analytical solutions are available. The analytical so-
lutions are avsilable in Ls lace space and am irrvertcdwith
the Stehfest aknrithnr. 12 For unfractured wells rrrnduc-
ing kiyercd reservoirs, we gene.mte the necessti sOlu-
tions using a finite-difference model that has been
&c”ssd elxewhere. 16.17For fractured wells producing
cmrminglcd layered reservoirs, we generate the patinent
solutions using a finite-difference model that is discussed
in Refs; 18 and 19.
4s3
 Definitions For the mtumliy fractured reservoir problem conaid-
eredlatr.r, khin Eq. 1 should bereplaced bykflj,whe~
Many different problems are considered in tlrk paper, and
kpfi denotes the flow capacity oftbefracmre system.
tbe specific definitions of dimensionless pressure and
Moreover, in Eqs. 3rhrough 5,+, cf, andkshouldbe
dimensiordess time vary from problem t6 problem. All
replaced respectively by+f, c~, mdkf, where the sub-
definitions given here are in oilfield units, and all defini-
script f denotes the fracture system. Fer example, kf
tionsaasume single-phase flow of aslightiy compressi-
denotes the penneabtity (acmal, not bulk) of the fracture
ble liquid of constant viscosity. The analogous definitions
system, see Ref. 23.
for gas wells are well known. 20-22In thk paper, p WDal-
For tie two-layer, commingled reservoir (unfracmred-
ways denotes the dimensionless wellbore pressure-drop
weu) prob~m considered, k and 41ct sho~d be wlacx
solution of the variable-rate problem mtder consideration
by k_md @c,, respectively, in Eqs. 1, 3, and 4. Here k
andp~~ denotes the dnensionless wellbore pressure-
and g5c,denote tbickneas-averaged values detined reapec-
drop solution that would be obtained for the same prob-
tk’ely by
lemunder constant-producing-rate condltiom. All rates
used in the equations are sandface rates. In terms of
dlmemionless variables, the objective of the methods ~=kLh1+k2h2
. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(8) ‘-”
presented is to compute p ~CD given p WD and the dimen- h
sionless sandface rates.
and
Pressure Drawdown Proble~. For radial-flow prob-
lem: in single-layer reservoirs, the dimensionless well-
@lc,lhl+@zcnhz
bore pressure drop and dimensionless sandface rate are 6,= . ................ (9)
defined respectively by h

kh(p; –pwf) where throughout, the subscript 1 refers to Layer 1 and

pwD= . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . ...(1) the subscript 2 refers to Layer 2.
141.2qrp The deftiticms given by F@. 10 through 15 pertain to
and only the two-layer fractured-well probIem considered in
this paper. For this problem, the concept of reservok con-
qD=q(t)/qr, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) d“ctivi~ i; fiP*t. MW The layer reservoir cmrduc-
tivitiea are defined by
where q, is any reference rate, iu reservoir bamek per
day. [Inthis paper, q(t) always represent tbesmdface
rate in reservoir barrels per day.] The dnensionless time
based on welfbore radius and the dimensionless tine based
on drainage area are defined respectively by
ROD=: J v
kj~jc~
k.$c,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lo)

for j= 1,2, where j is the layer index and ~ and @&tsre

given by Eqs. 8 and 9, respectively. The dimensionless
2.637 x10-4kt time based on effective fracmre half-length is defined by
~D= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)
cjctpr~
and —2.637 X 10 “~t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
‘% – ~,~:,
2.637 x10-4kt
2DA= . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)
$c,pA Z., is the effective fracture half-leWL given by the fol-
lowing equation
The dimensionless wellbore storage constant is defined by
Lx, =R,DILxfl,+R,mL,n, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(12)
5.615C
cD=— . . . . . ..... . ......... .. (5) where L. , j= 1,2, is the fracture half-length in Layer
Zmjcthr; “ j. Sbnil@, we &fine the dimensionless times and dinten-
siorrless 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
—2.637 x10-4kjt ................ (13)
respectively by
‘% – $jcti&j

—2.637x 10 “kr ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(6) and

‘D’f– .+c#Lij
, kfibj
— ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(14)
and cfDj = k ,L
J .%
5.615C
—— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 for j= 1,2, where kfibj denotes the conductivity of Frac-
CDXf– 2m$c1L%fh ture Layer j. Here Fracture Layer j denotes the part of

454 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 .

 2
, ; 26
0.0s-

!3
0.06- ‘3
$ 20 -
&
~ 18-
z
0.04- Y 16-
S.10
~
~ 14-
$ ,2 1 ! 1 ! !
0.02. 1 ! , ,
, ~7 z I(Y 103 10* 105 Iti ,,37 ye
1(7 1(Y I& Ios ]&
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, to DIMENSIONLESS TIME, tD

Fig. l—Rate resp.mme for constant-pressure production. ~9. Z+nstant-rste 201UN0nfrOnI Methods 1,2, ands.

the vertical fracture that is adjacent to Reservoir Layer and

j. For this problem, there is no crossflow between fr&-
ture layers or betwsen reservoir layers. In a practical kh(pw$-p.fi)
sense, this means tbst the two layers of the reservoir me PDs = . .................... (18)
separated by m impermeable zone and have been stimu- 141.2q,#
lated individually. Finally, we define the equivalent
dimensionless frscture conductivity by rw=tiv+, where P., denotes shut-in pressure and p@
denotes the flowing wellbore pressure at the instant of
2 2 shut~n. For layered reservoir problems, kh is repIa@d
(?J kfibjhjR=jD by kk in f?+. 17 and 18. The dimensimdms ch~ge in
.=1 ) sandfsce rate during shut-in is denoted by AqD snd is de-
cm= . . . . . ..’ . . . . ..(15)
m%, fined by

The motivations for the definitions given by Eqs. 10 q(At=O) –q(At)

through 15 sre discussed in detail in Ref. 24. AqD = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..(19)
q, . . . .
For all drawdown problems considered, the rate-
nomralized dimensionless pressure drop is denoted by
The rate-normalized dimensionless buildup pressure is
pWD/qD and is given by
given by pD,/AqD. From E+. 18 and 19, it follows thst

pwD ~(Pf– PI@)

—. . ...... . . . . . . . . . . ..(16)
qD 141.2q(t)p
(See E@, 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: –PM) divided by the ssndface flow rate, q(t).
BrdIdup Problem. For buildup problems, tp &notes the
producing time before shut-in nnd & 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
tp and are denoted by ,tPD, tPDA,t D. , and tPD~~. S~-
gf. .
lady, the various dimensionless s ut-m tunes sre given
by Eqs. 3,4,6 (or 11), and 13 with t replaced by At and
sre denoted, by AtD, AtD~, AtDXL,.~d AtD= . The per-
meability and perosity/compresslbfity prodfuct used in
these definitions must be adjusted according to the prob-
lem under consideration as in the drawdown case.
For buildup, we define the dimensionless shut-in pres-
SURS, PD, and ~~, , by
kh(p~-pw.)
pDs = . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1?)
141.2q,.u
SPEFomtio. Evaluation,October19s6
kk(pw, –p~)
~Ds
—=
. . . . . . . . ..(20)
AqD 141.2[q(At=O) –q(At)]p
(Rx layered reservoir problems, replace k by ~ in
Ea. 20.)
he &mensiordess pressnres defined in this section
(I@. 1, 17, and 18) represent the dimensionless solution
to the varisble sandfacerate problem under consideration,
snd p ~ represents the dimensionless constsnt-sandface-
ratc solution for the corresponding problem. Given
PWD(PDS for buildup) ~d qD(AqD for b~dup), PWD
is obtsined by the procedures discussed in Appendices A
snd B. Regardless of whether p.@ is generstsd from
buildup &tam- drawdown &ta, pWcD afways represents —
~ Wlvdent cOm@t-mW drawdown solution.
Results
Here, we show thst given the dimensionless drawdown
pressure response pWD(pD, for buildup) resulting from
the known variable sandface rate qD, we can use the
metbnds of Appendices A and B to compute pW@, where
P WCDrepresents the e@vnlent dimensionless pressure
response thst wordd have been obtained for a constant
ssndface rste of production. Throughout this section,
455
 -S
g J?,o., _-
1
0
!d g
j . ~g
g
o PRESSURE DROP
~!5 ❑ SANDFACE RATE
g<
~ g 10-3 -
z~
PRESSURE DROP ●
am
Mam
WEUJ jow
go~ 25 _
. g;
gE * m g 105 -
Ij$ ~g DRAWDOWN CD = 105
. J
=W BUILDUP CD= 102
~ 521 - 02
?5-2 S=IO
Zz ?6Q
WE z
Xa w
z ,.-7 1 1 1 1 !
E ,.2 ,.4 ,06

DIMENSIONLESS TIME; to X JO-7 DIMENSIONLESS TIME, tD

F@. 3—Rate-normalized solution and sOlutiOn frOrtI 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. A4
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
eqnivdents of Eqs. A-12 and A-15 for dtawdown and
buildup, respectively. Method 3 is given by the dimem
sionfess 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 applicab~lty
of the rate-normtilzed analysis procedure is con-
sidered. 12-14
snd at late times (tD >~x 106 in Fig. 1), the rate
response (qD/p WD) is governed by exponential decline.
Throughout fis work, T denotes Euler’s constant,
T= O.57722. Fig. 2 presents a SefilOg plOt Ofp WD VS.
tD where p ~ baa been computed in three diffetent ways
(fvfethnda 1, 2, and 3). The solid curve represents the
equivalent mnstant-sandface-rme solution and we note that
pti matches this solution at all times regardless of the
method used to generate p ~. For transient flow, we
shmdd obtain
PWCD=l.151 10g[(4tD)/ey]+S. . . . . . . . . . . . . .(23)

Unfractstced WefIa. AU problems considered in this sec-
tion assume a wefl located in the center of a cylindrical
reservoir.
It is now popular to coaaider well-testing problems
where production is at a constant BHP—e. g., see Refs.
25 tbrouzh 27. The first mobIem considered assnmes
constant-~ressure productk% at a well lncated in a bound-
cd cylindrical reservoir-i. e., the same problem consid-
ered in Refs. 25 through 27. It is importrmt to note that
the right side of the rate-normalized equation (Eq. 16) is
referred to m l/qD in Refs. 25 through 27.
Fig. 1 t’C3p1&3ntSa Setibg plot of qD/p@ vs. ?D fOr
the constant-pressure production problem wheres= 10 and
reD ‘4,000. Here, s representa the skin factnr and rcD
denotes the dimensiotdess drninage mdi~ and is defined
by
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(21)
r~ =relrw.
As is well known, ‘-27 the trmsient portion of the data
approxnnately satisfies the semifog equation—i. e.,
hD@D=l.151 10g[(4tD)/e7]+S, . . . . . . . . . . .(22)
Fig. 2 indicates that all methods work well. By using
regression analysis to fit a semilo straight line tO the
i
PWD W. tD dat8 for 102< tD <10 , we determined the
following values. For Metbnds 1 and 2, dope= 1.148 and
S= 10.O6; and for Method 3, slope= 1.149 ands= 10.09.
Thus dl three procedures yield exccUent approximations
to the correct values, slope= 1.151 and s= 10.0.
Fig. 3 depicts a Cattesian plot ofp WCDvs. tD and
p ~tJ4D W.. tD. Tbk is a dimensionless version of the
type of plot used to estimate reservoir PV in teservoir
limit wting.zs,zg During pseudosteady-state flow, the
constant-sand face-production solution is given by
PWCD ‘2mtDA +h(reD)-o.75+S
=>+ln(r~)-0.75+s. . . . . . . . . . . . ..(24)
r eD
mere the drainage area ia given by A=rr~D and thus
tD.4 ‘rDh~~); s= f%s. 3 ~d 4.1 AS is we~ ~Own, 29
pseudosteady-sfsde flow @q. 24) begins at tD~ =0.1,
which corresponds to tD =5 X 106 fnr the problem con-
sidered.

456 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986

 1
on 0.0 <“ METHOD
s ,&—-——=——
——
~ 17- o,l, e.1
!g= . m2, e.1
$?
s % . Rm N0Rf4ALEE0
-1 ZW PRESSURE DROP
g ?!j ,5 -
& ~
. . &!
2$.
g= 0 DRAWDOWN
CC,.105 ,“
Wul,s -
22 B
%f s
E~
=.om 1.2
0
, , I I
= II
00 Wxlo+ LOxl& I,sxlos 2.OX1O5 10 ,.2 I& I@
DIMENSIONLESS
TIME, to DIMEN:%NLESS %E, tD
-.. .
‘lg. 5—Pressura and rate responses fOr a DST, GxIesian Fig. 6—Methods 1 and 2 rata-normalized solufions DST
Olot data.

when regression an~vsis is used to fit a $might lime
of the form given by E.q. 24 tfuougb the p .,D or p .D/qD
late-dme &ta of Fig. 3, snd rm is cslctdatod from the
slope of the line (s10pe=2/r2~), the fol.lowiug results are
obtained. Using &ta fmm tDA= 0.1 to tDA= 0.5 yields
reD =3985 for Method 1 or Method 2 pWCD &ta,
reD ‘3993 fOr Method 3 P WCDcL@ snd
reD=3813 for rate-nor’maliied da@..
Using all data for tD~ >0.1 yields
reD ‘3975 fi0rr3 Nfethorf 1 m’ Method 2 p WCDdats,
ro ‘3997 for Method 3 Pd data, and
reD = 3354 for rate-nortnaliied dsts.
From these results and additional resufts given in Ref.
11, we conclude that Method 3 provides the best unalysis
prucerfure when,pressuze data are influenced by reservoir
boundaries. Mormver, rate normalization is not an ef-
fective procedure for the nmlysis of &ta strongly influ-
enced by reservoir boundaries.
We now cmtsider a drilfstcm rest (DST) problem. 3@32
We consider only one flow period fo310wedby one sfmt-
~ ~ri~. The flowing psriud reprcsenta the slug test pru~
lem considered in Refs. 31 and 32. To conform to stsn-
dard notatiun, we,bave defined the dimensionless pressure
change by
Pi–Puf
pwD=— . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
Pi -Po
where pi denotes the initial reservoir pressure and PO
denotes the welfbore pressure at time zeru—i.e., p. is
the pressure iu the DST tucdjust before the beginning of
the flow period. Simifnrly, we define the dimensionless
sandface rate by
141.2q(t)Jl
qD=
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ..(26)
kh(p~ -p~)
In this paper, the deftitions given by F@. 25 and 26 arc
used ordy for the DST problem.
Fig. 4 presents a log-log plot of p ~D (Eq. 25) and qD
~q- 26] VS. ;D. ‘fbe results of Fig. 4 represent a flow-
ing period (producing time, tPD= 105) fullowed by a
buifdup period of duration AtD =9 x 10s. Here CDrep
resents the total time of the test su fD = 105 at the end
SPE Fomtim Bvaluarim,October1986
of tbe flowing -. ncriud and tn =106 at the end of the buifd-
up test. In Eq. 25, p ~ represents the wellbore
pressure-i.e., the flowing wellbure pressure for draw-
duwn and the shut-in wellbore pressure fur buildup. Simi-
lsrly, q(t) in Eq. 26 represents the sandface flow rate in
reservoir bsrrels per&y butb duriug rkawdowu and build-
uP. Fur the res~~ sf30wIIin Fig. 4,s= 10 and the dirnen-
siordess weUbore storage constsrrt is CD= 105 for
drawdown and CD= 102 for buildup; During the draw-
down pctiod, p ~D decreases (PW incr~scs) as a result.
uf the increase in the fluid head, but this behsvior is not
clearly ideudtiable on Fig. 4 because of the mture of log-
log plots. The decrease inp ~D during drawdown can be
seen inure cleatly in Fig. 5, which represents a Cartesi-
~PIOt OfP@ ~d qn W-. t~ for 0st~s2X105. The
sandface rate q~ decreams throughout the total test.
Fig. 6 is a semilog plot ofp ~CD vs. tD, where pW@
is generated from the pressurekste data of Fig. 4 witfr
the dimensionless equivalents of Method 1 (&L A4) and
Method 2 @q. A-12). Note that, in using rfrese methods,
we have used txztbthe drawdown and buildup data uf Fig.
6 to obtain tJzeequivalent constant-sandface-rate dimen-
sionless pressure drop for a total flowing time of
tD = 106; scc Ap~ndlx A. The solid line in Fig. 6 rcp-
resenrs the constant-rate solution we should obtsin from
our methuda and is given by Eq. 23. As shown in Fig.
6, Methods 1 and 2 generate the correct p ~cD solution
very accurately. Using regression airslysis to fit a semi-
log straight line to the generated p .,D vs. tD datn of Fig.
6 yields the following results.
For Method 1, slope= l.165 and s=1O.O1, and for
Method 2, alopc= 1.158 ands= 10.03. These values are
in goud agreement with the correct values, slope=1.151
snd S= 10.0. Note that we have not applied Method 3 be-
cause Method 3 wifl encounter diftkxdties when sharp —.
changes in rate or pressure occur (see Ref. 11), and for
this prublem, the rate snd pressure charge abruptly at
JD ‘tpD = @ (~= W 4). Fig. 6 ~SO shOwstie dimen-
sionless rate-normalized pressure drop p .D /qD for
tD < tpD. ‘fhe mtC nu2MdiZ.StiOn~Ot t% Wntirtutd intD
the buildup-i.e., we cannot view the buildup as a con-
dnustion of a variable-raie drawdown test when using rate
nunnalization. Ir3fact, v@ues of pWD(fD)/gD (fD) we uff
the acsfe @eater tbrm 18) uf Fig. 6 for tD >1 x 105.
Ws is not surprising in view of the pressurekate data
abuwn in Fig. 4.) The rate-normalized dmwdown &ta dis-
4s7
 .
$ I I I I 1

g $ =,0
2- n
~ w“ 3,5
!5! ~~ b=O.4
2
al 07
o? SLOPE .1.303 O-Jw
!s0
%6 - ~~
0. n [0-’ -
z ~~
7 0 (,7
m!xm
5 -JOm
g 10 -
$:
al
g g Ki3 -
g ~al
AZ
‘z *W
g 14 - 02 0 PRESSURE DROP, pwo _
CD 50 ❑ SANDFACE RATE, q.
z 5
% z
165
E E ,.3 5
I I r u 10 107
18
DIMENSIONLESS T~iE, to
1 KY
l+O&R TIME !:TIO, (tp+4t) /At
Fig. 8—Pressure and ratw partially penetrating well with
Fig. 7—Homer analysis fir 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 srrd skin-
factor vslucs were obtained with res!ression analvsis. fir
Fig. 7 presents the ststrdard dimen~onless Hom~r plot fzWD=~@ . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . (28)
of the buildup data of Fig. 4. In a nomrmlDST, the dura- ~w z
tion of the buildup period will be no greater tbaa twice
the duration of tie preceding flowing period. Thus, in our Here,
analysis of the data of Fig. 7, we use only dats corre- h. = Iengtb of the open interd (perforated
SpOn&IIg to sfmt-in dares such dtst AtDs 2tPD=2 X 105. interval) of the wellbore,
Thk msam thst the minimum vrdue of the Homer time k = horizontal perrnsabfity, and”
rstio med in the anslysis is (tP +At)/At= 1.5. BY ~sing k= = vertical pernreabJIty.
r%wssion analysis, we found fhat the data of Fig. 7 that
currespard to the intsrval 1.5< (tP +At)/Af< 5 can bc tit
Fig. 8 presents log-log graphs of the dimensionless
with a semilog straight line. However, the slope of this
drawdown-pressure drop snd dimensionless rate obtabrsd
semilog straight line is 1.303 snd the skin fsctor estimat-
for a partisl penetration problem. The open interval of
ed from this semilog line is 8.97. These vafucs differ by
the weUbore is adjacent to the top hW feet of the forrrra-
more thsn 10 % from the correct values, slope=1.151 and
s= 10.O. ThIS indicates that the conventional Sndysis Of tion, and CD=105, hWD=103, s=5, snd b=O.4. Note
that all pressure data shown are influenced by weUbore
DST buildup dats can yield erroneous estimates of the
storage effects.
flow capacity and skin factor if buildup data are strongly
Fig. 9 presents a senrilog plot of the dimensionless rate-
influenced by wellbore storage effects. The resalts ob-
nornrdized pressure &ta, arrd pWcD generatsd by Method
tained would be even less accurate if the drrrstion of the
1. The solid curve in Fig. 9 is the constant-sandface-rats
shut-in were decreased.
(CLI=0) dinrensionkss pressure solntion for the same
Difficulties in Homer snalysis sire of course not re-
partial penetration prublem. For the case where CD =0,
stricted to DST data and can occur in conventional tssts
it is well !ctrovmw that at early times the fOUOwing5cmi-
if the buildup test is not of sufficient duration to obtsin
log equstion boldx.
buildup data that are not influenced by wellbore storsge
effects.
We next consider a partially penetmtin well located
f
in the center of a cylindrical reservoir. 17,3’35This is the
only prublem considered in this paper where the opsn irr-
-=(?)d%)+’~,v’) -
terwd of the wellbore is not equal to the reservoir drick-
snd at Iste times (pseudoradisl flow period), P IWD is
ness.’ The penetration ratio, b, and the dimensionless
given by
weflbere length sre defined respectively by

4t~

b=hwlh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(27)
pWCD=l-151 log
() ~ +Sib+S~, . . . . . . . . . (30)

45s SPEFomtion Evaluation,October1986

 !6B , I t 1 I ( 1 , I , (

. ANALYTICAL sOLUTION, CD
=~ - 0 KY
~ ~~ —0
d-
3!3 SLOPE .0.59

0
a o
s ,,,~ ,.7
0
I&
! f
lCP
( ,.0 I
I@
I
1o11 ,~,.

DIMENSIONLESSTIME, tD DIMENSIONLESS mME. ID

,.
Fig. 9-Rate-normalized and Method 1 solutionq partial. Fig. 10—Prasaure responaq naturally fracturad resermir
[y penetrating well. with wellbore storage.

where Sb is the pseudoskin factor resulting from partial
~ne~ation, 17,33.35The pWcDvslues (open, circular&m
points in Fig. 9) constructed with Method 1 correlate well
with the constant-sandface-rste solution (solid curve). If
we fit these p .,D data with a semilog straight line for
102s tDs 2 X 103 by regression analysis, the semilog
straight line obtsim?dhas alops=2.M7 and yields s=5.06.
The correct vslues are slope= 2.878 (see Eq. 29) and
s=5.o. Fhting the kte-time (3x I06 StDs 107) p.,=
values with a senrilog straight lime usirrg regression soal-
ysis yiehla dope= 1.151 and (s/b) +Sb =22.09. Using the
value s=5.06 obtainrd above and b=O.4 then gives sb =
9.44. The correct values are slope= 1.151, (s/b) +-sb
=22.04, ad Sb =9.54; see Eq. 30 and Refs. 17, 34,
and 35.
Nme shat we have not applied Meihod 2 or 3 to the data
of Fig. 8. Method 2 has stability problems when qD is
an increasing function of tD (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 tmn-
sient data (SW Appendix B).
From the results of Fig. 9, we see that the rate-
norumliied dimensionless pressure drop falls below the
correct constant-rate solution and canuot be used to ob-
tain bigbly accurate results. Thk behavior is typical for
wellbore-storage-dominsted problems. 10.11.36
The results of Fig. 9 offer m intereatiog poasibtify from
the viewpoint of analyzing tield data. If wellbore storage
effects are present, but sandface rate &m are obtained,
our remdta indicate tlmt Methcds 1 and 3 will yield equiva-
lent ccmatant-samiface dats that can be analyzed by senri-
Iog methods. In particular, two semifog straight lines may
bs obtained. The flow capacity adjacent to the open in-
tcrwd (kh~ for the problem considered here), k, and the
true skir3factor can be estimatsd ~m the early-time semi-
log data. Using the late-time semdog data, the total flow
capacity (kk for the problem considered here) and the to-
tsl skin factor SI [s, =Sb +(s/b)] can be estimated. The
value of Sb can then be estimatsd from the equation
$6 ‘s, – (sb). The penetration ratio b can bc obtained by
dividing kh. by kh. Because Sb isa unique function
In recent years, an intrnse research effort has been
devoted to the study of naturally fractured reservoirs. It
haa been shown that in an ~nits nsrordly fractured reser-
voir, a semifog plot of the wellbore pressure res nse vs.
time may exhiih three semilog straight lines.’, P7.38Ref.
39 examines the conditions under which afl these senri-
Iog straight limes will exist when the reservoir is bound-
ed. Refa. 38 ad 40 consider the effect of wellbore sterage
and skin on the pressure response but do not consider the
effect of the outer reservoir boundmy. By using the ana-
lytical techniques of these studies, or by combting 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 resexvoir when
early-time data are influenced by wellbore storage effects.
The solution to this problem can aho be obtained with
a tinite-difference model. 41
Fig. 10 presents a semilog plot of the dimensionless
welftmre pre.ssum drop (drawdown) vs. Slowing time, tD.
The solid curve repre.ventsthe solution for CD =0 and the
circulsr tits pointa represent the solution for CD= 108.
Here, the naturally fractured reservciii model of Ref. 23
is’’used. As discussed in the definition section, p ~D, tD,
and CD are given in terms of fracture properties; for
emmple,
5.615C
CD= ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . (31)
2~4~fhfir; ‘
where $ ~ denotes the perosity/compressibility product
for the 1 acture system snd hfi is the total thickness of
the fracture system. Because CD is based on fracture
propwtisa, CD= 108 is a reasonable value for the dimen-
sionless wellbore storage constant. For this problem, the
dnensiodess fracture transfer coefficient, h‘, and the
dimensionless matrix storitivity, co’, are defined respec-
tively by
of
A’=12~
m ()
W
kfhf
.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(32)

h .D and b, h. can then be estimated from Brons- snd

Martingcharts,8 aud then .WkZ and kz can be estimated
with the obvious rearrangement of Eq. 28. T&S type of ~,_ Omcmhm
analysis procedure can be extended to layered-reservoir (33)
problems.’7 $~fhf ’”.””..’..”””.””””’””””’””’”

SPE Fomtion Evaluation, October 19S6 459

 *: 60 , ,,;,,,, I , t 1 -
<o‘6 , I I 1 k! kl/k2s0.1. (~c,l M+2C,21. 1, h,/b2 .1
. METHOD
[ ,$ 40 -,,.-, ,2.,0
. RATENORMALIZED
SRES3URE
DROP
2 Pit. soeo. P12= 3m0.mi
: 20 -
reo. 4000’
z
j. 0 -“.

%
m -20 -.
~

., .200 g
3
s g .So 1 1 r , 1
0
* K? W -
.
1$ I* I@ 105 IW 107 @
‘%lmfislew’%w, ,:” DIMENsIONLESSTIME, tD

Fig. 11 —Rate-normalized and Method 1 SolutlOnS, natUr- F@ 1S!-Pressure responsq two-layer, commingled
ally fractursd resewolr. reservoir.

whers the srrbscript~refers to the fracture system and the
subscript m refers to the matrix system. See Ref, 23 for
a more detniled discussion of these parameters and their
physical interpremtion.
For the solution shown in Fig. 10, reD is sufficiently
large that the outer reservoir bormdary dces not affect the
wellbore respnnse during the time interval shown. Note
that k’ =10–9, o’ =2(X), and s=O for the results shown
irr Fig. 10. Also notethat dre C~=Osolution exhibitaall
three semilog strnightlines idenfitiedirr Refs. 23,37, and
38. In both Figs. 10 and 11, a cross is usexl’to derrotc the
begimdrrg and end of the various semilog straight lines.
Note that the CD= 108 solution does not exlibb the
early-time semilog straight line with slope= 1.15 and the
intermediate-time semilog straight line with slo =0.59
is obscured. (If CD were increased to CD= 10 r. for dns
problem, the intmmediate-dme semilog straight line would
be totally obsmwed).
Fig. 11 prexmts the p .m fiction generated with our
Methnd 1 using the CD = 108 solution of Fig. 10 and the
corresponding dimensionless sandface rate, qD (not
shown). Fig. 11 also pmsenta the rate-normalized pres-
sure drop for the same problem. The solid curve of Fig.
11 represents the CD =0 solution of Fig. 10, which is the
dimensionless pressrrre drop solution obtained when the
shrrdfacc rate is constant. Note that the p ~cD solution
generated wifb Method 1 is in excellent agreement with
this constant-sandface-rate solution. By using regression
srralyais as in our previous examples, we found that the
PWCD function Of ‘lg. 11 disP1aYs~ e~IY-fie se~Og
stm@rt line with slops= 1.14, an irrtermedinte-dnre smrri-
Iog straight Iine with dope =0.59, md a late-rime semi-
log straight line with slope= 1.15. The 12st,tw0 slopes are
the desired cor’rcct values but the esrly-dme slope (1.14)
is slightly lower than the corrwt value of 1.15.
The norrrmliied pressure drop shown irr Fig. 11 falls
below the constnrrt-rate solution fortDS5X1010. Any
reasorrsbly chosen irrterrncdiate-dme scmilog straight line
will have a slope significantly greater than 0.59. By using
re ression anslysis on the, rate-norrnslized dat2 for
10% stD<Io5, we detemrined an early-time semilog
atmight line with sIOps= 1. I 1. Aftbougb this slope is close
tn the correct value (1.15), the line falls below the cor-
rect early-time semilog strsight line, as shown imFlg. 10.
Estimating d‘ from the difference between the cdy- and
+50
late-time semilog stmight lines by the proccdnre discussed
in Ref. 23, we obtain @‘=71 with the rate-norrnaliied
data, whereas the s2me procedure applisd to the p..D
dats of Fig. 11 yields o’ = 196. Note that the comcct value
is u’ =2@3. Method 3 can also be applied to the CD= 108
solution and yields reliible resrdfs, but Method 2 is not
apprOpriatS for wellbore storage problems.
The last problem considered here is a two-layer com-
mingled rese~oir system (no crossflow between
layera42,43).Fig.. 12 presents a semilog plot of the dimens-
ionless drawdown prcssnre-dmp solution for a two-layer
commingled reservoir problem. Here p WD and tD 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 rhe subscripr 2 refers to Layer .—.,..
2. The initial pressure in Layer 1 is 6,000 psi [41.4 MF?a]
and tbe initial prcsaure in Layer 2 is 3,000 psi [20.7 MPa],
and the indkidrral layer skin factors are s ~= –2 arrd
S2 = Ift thus, this problem is an exmeme case and the
analogous field data wmdd be extremely difficrdt to arra-
lyr.c by conventional methnda.43 The initial pressure used
in the definition ofp WD is
. (34)
as auggestcd by Larsen, 43 brrt 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. frr fact, the mirri-
mum semilog slope that can be obtained is approximate- ..
Iy 2.8 (approximately 2.5 times the desircc! correct slope
of 1.151), which is not surprising in view of Larsen’s43
results. The rcsuft.sof Fig. 12 are for a constant total sand-
face rate of production, and reservoir bomrdmies irrtlu-
ence dre wellbore response at tD = 5 x 107. .For this
problq, fluid is actually injected intDLayer 2 during vir-
tually the entire duration of the drawdown test. This is
a rmult of the low initial pressure of Layer 2.
Fig. 13 presents a semilog plot of the dimensionless
pressure dropp .D1 vs. dimensionless time t~~. The rate
SPE Formation Evaluation, Ocrokr 1986.
 [B!’
Fig. 13—Pres8ure
properties.
‘lMENslONE=

and rate responses

I@
TIME,
’01
I@

basad on Layer 1
a

qD1 is ~~ shown. Here PwDI , tD1 and q~, are based
on Layer 1 properties are defined respectively by
k,h, (pi~ –pwf)
PwDI = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (35)
141.2qr/t
2.637 x10-4k1t
t~, = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(36)
@,c,, JLr;
ql ($
qDl=~, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(37)
where q ~(t) k the sandface rate of prcducdon from Layer
1 in reservoir bards per day. Fig. 14 presents a semilog
plot of the p ~cD solutions vs. tDl, where the p ~cD solu-
tions are generated by Methnda 1,2, and 3 using the pres-
sure/rate data of Fig. 13. The rate-normalized
dimensionless pressure drop, p ~Dl /qDl, 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 p ~CD solutions
generated smdthe rate-normalized pressure-drop solution
all correlate well with this single-layer solution during
transient flow. (The p ~ solutions also correlate well.
with the sin le-layer solution during pseudosteady flow,
tD >5 x 10 $’.) In particular, the pW=D and p .D1 /qDl vs.
tDI PIO~ ~ disP1aY a semilog stmight line with
slope= 1.151, and anslysis of data yields an excellent ap-
proximation for the skin factor of Layer 1, s, = –2.
(Data obtained for Layer 2 can also be &alyzcd by simi-
lar procsdurei. 11)
The results for the two-layer problem indicate that, if
individual layer ssndface 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 snalysis procedure. Fetkovich” clem-
ly indicates that it zhould be pmsible to estimate individual
layer propemies by the rate-normalized amdysis proce-
dure when individual layer sandface rate data are availa-
ble. Thus, the preceding re.suhaon rate-normalization may
b viewed as a theoretical confmrion of hia hypothesis.
-..
Fractured Weffs. We consider the application of our
methods and the rate-norrmdizcd procedure to vertically
fracmrcd well problems. We discuss uniform-flux and
infinite-conductivity fractures45 as wefl as tinite-
conductivi~ fractures. 18.19,46.47For planar fractured
wells (uniform flux or infnite conductivity) where well-
bore storage effects exist, the dimensionless wellbore
pressuredrop solution can be genemted with well-known
mPerPnsitiOn prOc~u~s—e. g., see Ref. 48. The finite-

Fig. 16—Rat~norrnaIized and Method 1 solution% infinite

conductivity fracture.
Fig. 15—Pressure and ratq infinite-conductivity fracture
with wellbore storage.

SPE FonnaticIn Evaluation, October 1986 ‘al

“\.. ,(’--
 .s[0 1 I T
< E — G?NSTbNTRATESOLUTION,WUFORM FLUX
: . NoRMALIZEDPRESSURE,CD% -0.1 kl/kz=O.O1, hllh2 .2,
* z

k
&- p
0 (IDX,]U.0,07Z, (PW.)u-1.10 CfDj/QM50. Lxf,/Lxfz.4
10 “!
s 2:
%/Rcoz .2 ,CmP 1.6
~ %a
%, :u-
~g ,
k?
#1
E 0:
.
ZE
: $- ,.-l +1%(+2W =no
; x
z ii kfl b#kf2b2 .2
E
z ,.-1 1 ! LLL 162
,@ ,0.5 10
10-) I 10
DIMENSIO’8LESS sHUT-IN%’ME; At%
‘iMENslONLEss TIME, ‘Dxf

Fig. 17—Rate.normalized inf inlte-ccmductivify solution Fig. 1S—Buildup pressure response; Sinite. conductivity
matched with uniform-flux solution. Iractur* two-layer system.

conductivim fractured well with wellbore stors~e and skis
problem his recently been solved aualydcaily ~y Lee and
Brockenbrough. 49 Tecfilcally, their solution is an ap-
proximate solntion but correlates extremely well (for
tD.rJ < 0~5) wifi *C rigOrOus sOhJtiOn Ob~nable by
f%ute-difference methuds. The results of Refs. 45 through
49 sssume a single-layer re~rvoir. Refs. 18, 19, and 24
considered the performance of finite-conductivi~ verti-
cally fractured wells draiuing mrdtilayered reservoirs.
Fig. 15 presents a log-log plot of the dimensionless wefl-
bore pressure drup snd dimensionless ssndface rate vs.
dimensiouIess time, tDx,, for an infinite-conductivity
fractured well producing a single-layer reservoir. Well-
bore storage effects ~e present with CDzf=0.1 and the
surfsc.e rate is constant. (See the definition section for the
definitions of the variables used here.) As shown in F,g.
15, qD = 1 for fDzf >1. Here qD = 1 implies that the
surface and ssndface rates are equal.
Fig. 16 pressnts a log-log plot of the rate-nonnsked
dinreusiordess pressure drop arid P.@ data obtained from
Method 1 with the pressure and rate data of Fig. 15.
(Method 3 can afso be used to obtain p WCDbut Method
2 is not appropriate.) The solid curve in Fig. 16 is the
constsnt-smrdface-rate infmits-conductivity solutions
(CD=,=0). The resufts of Fig. 16 indicate that the PWD
solution generated by Method 1 correlates extremely well
with the constant-ssndfacc-rate solution (solid curve),
wheress the rate-normalized dlmensiordess pressure fails
below the constant-sandface-rate solution for t~z,: 1.
We were surprised to find that the rate-nornmhzed
dimensiordess pressure of Flg. 16 cmr be type-curve
mstched reasonably well with the uniform-flux fracture
solution during the time rauge 10’2s tDT~s 4. Thk is
illustrnfcd in Fig. 17, where the solid curve N the constsnt-
ssadface-rste wellbore pressure drop for a uniform-flux
fracture. The sofid, circubr dats points are the rate-
nornrti]zed 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
iafinhe-conductivity scsfes, respectively; that is, the type-
curve match sligns the point ZDX=0.072., p WD= 1.1 on
the uniform-flux scale with tLe point tD1; = 10-1,
P@= 1.00 on the inffite-conductivity scale.
We now consider a vertically fractured wefl draining
a cnnuuingled two-layer resemoir. The fracture is of finite
conductivity and there is no crossflow between the frac-
ture layers: no welIbore storage exists, fracture storage
effects sri negligible, snd the initial pressure is uniform
throughout the system. We discuss only the buildup
response subsequent to a long producing period
(tPDx =2.5x10”) at a constant totsl sandface rate.
Fig. {8 presents a log-log plot of the dimensionless build-
up response, PD,, vs. dimensionless shut-in time, AtDx,.
Here PD, snd AtLMrare based on aversge properties snd
QrDl is based on Ore effective frscture half-length, ...
L.f. tslues of the pertinent variables are given in Figs.
18 and 19. As shown in Fig. 18, the dimensionless
builduppressure. response (circulsr data poinrs) $urrelates
extremely well with the dimensiordess drawdoyn-pressure
response (solid curve). This drawdown response is for
an equivalent singfe-layer problem that is discussed in de-
tail in Ref. 24. This aspect is not pertinent to our main
theme that individual layer properties cm be determined
if individual layer sandface rates are known.
In Fig. 20, PD,I and AqDl sre plotted vs. dimension-
less shut-in time, AtDxf,~pD.1, Aqm ad Atmo are
bssed on Layer 1 propermes. In particular, AqDl 1s de-
fined as
AqD, = ql(Ar=o)–ql (AO
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (38)
q,
where q ~ (in reservoir barrels per dAy) represents the
sandface flow raft from Fracture Layer 1 during the build-
up period.
Fig. 19 presents the rste-nommfizcd dimensionless prcs-
Sure, p~,~ /AqD1, and the dirIWXISiOIdSSS pressure p WCD

obtained from the infinite-conductivi~ fracture solution
with wellbore storage effects, CDX,= 0.1. The scales in
Figs. 16 and 17 am the sarnc-i.e., both represent the
scales uacd in the infiuite-conductivity sohrtion. The point
Iabcled with a cross represents the rustch point, with the
subscripts u sud i representing the. uniform-flux sad
462
generated from the data of Fig. 20. Here Method 1 (Eq.
A-9) was used to generate p ~cDl und the subscript 1
denotes Layer 1 properties. The solid curve represents
the dimensionless drawdown wellbore pressure drop for
the correspendmg single-layer problem. Both pwl sad
~Lkl/AqIX corda~e we~ Withthis drawdown solution for
SPE Forrrdion EvahMion, Octob$r 19a6
 m
10
+:=

cm?.%,
R,.o.cazmd.+,c. ‘3x10’P3i-’ .O
Z& ,
ma. .
yu-::
?g::: ,..,
:!
.= -+
:s O PRESSURE,E&,
o RATE, Aq,,
ii=
g,= 0 16;0+
DlMENS!&ES2 WJT+N TIME, At
10- IW3 ,& “Jr, 10
~fl DIMENSIONLESSsHuT-IN TIME, AtDx~,

Fig. 19-Correlation of rate-normalized and Method 1 so- ~9: 20—shut-in PreSSUre and rate based on Layer 1 prop-
lutions with Lsyer 1 solution. erties.

AjDXf<1, although Method 1 yields slightly better re-
sufts. Buildup data for AtDx >1 fall below the drsw-
down solution as a result o t producing-time effects. 50
Results similar to those shown in Fig. 19 cm SISObe
generated from Layer 2. data. The resufts of Fig. 19 il-
lustrate that individual layer properties (k, L x{, ~d Cf)
can b-sobked for simifsr field cases provided mdividual-
layer sandface flow rate data are ms&urcd.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-ssndface-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 Ats O.Itp, where tp is the produ-
cingtime. 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 sftertlow
(wellbore storage effects). We also discuss the rate nor-
malization procedure for this problem.
For buildup data analysis, the red variable version of
Method 1 is given by Eq. A-9. Given actusl buifdup pres-
sure snd sandface rate data, Eq. A-9 can be.used to gener-
ate the equivalent normalized drswdown response, pFm,
where
..
Here, f@) represents the pressure drop in pounds per
square inch that would be obtained if production were at
a constant sandface rate q,. Eq. A-9 is used to generate
F’,rm %sa function of shut-in time so achmf knowledge
of @(tj) aod q, is not necessmy. As dkcusse~ in AP-
pendm A (also see Refs. 6, 10, and 11), ~~dtj) ~P~-
sents the equivalent (constant-sandface-rate) normalized
drawdown ‘pressure ‘change; thus, standard drawdown
analysis procedures (type curves or semilog analyais) can
he used to anslyze the PFCN vs. & data.
For the buildup test we consider, fhe rate-normafised
buildup pressure is denoted by Ap/Aq and is given by
Ap _ Pws-PWf,
. (40)
~–q(At=O)–q(At)’ ““””””’””””’”””’”
where p ~$ is the shut-in pressure and p ~$ represents tbe
final flowing welfbore pressure-i. e., the pressure at the
instant of shut-in.
Brownscombe Csse 5. The buildup test considered is
Brownscombe’s Case 5.’1 This is a mukipbase-flow
problem and hence the total sandface rate (q,), must be
used in the analysis. 14.m-54Fig. 21 presents the conven-
tional log-log plot of Ap vs. At and the log-log plot of
the chsnge in sandface rate, Aq,, vs. shut-in time, At.
Here
,AP=Pws-P@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(41)

PFw(;j)=x!l
qr
.........................(39) ‘dAq, =q,(At=O)=q,(At), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(42)

> 10

.:$

D
MAT.H
MINT
q L? PWO.l .16 + .!.0 +;
—m
,%-. E lhf . 2,25Z10-%!.IOO”; ”U!M
og~, \
& ~
~: ~ ~f::r+p ‘

$$$ ,,2 SLOW L,NE

.-. . .
% ,0-’,
10 10 I@
SHUT-lNTIM&: At, MINUTES

Fig. 22—Match of rate-nonnaliid response with uniform.

flux type Cuwe.

Fig. 21 —Shut-in pressure and mtq field example.

SPE Formation Evahxion, October 1986 463

 1 1 1 1 ! 10
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
0 By using Eq. A-9, we constructed the PFm function
SQUARE ROOT OF SHUT-IN TIME,
@~
Fig. 23—Square root of time plot of rats-normalized
where 4, remcsents the total sandface flow rate (oil. ms,
and wa;~r) ‘k reservoir ba~els per day. Because ~er~
tlow (wellbore storage) is present, the log-log plot of Ap
vs. At displays a unit-slope fiie at early time$ 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 tfre rate-normalized dats display a
baff-slope line at early times that is characteristic of a frac-
mrcd welf. ‘II@ can be seen in Ilg. 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 (k/r/p)r = 163.8 md-ftlcp [49.9x 103 md. dPa. s]
{(~#),=455 md/cp [455x 10’ md/Pa.s]} and L.ti=
96.8 ft [29.5 m]. (These values arc withh 2% of the
values obtained by Fetkovich and Vtenot, 14 who conside-
red the ssme problem.) From these results, we find that
the effective wellbore radius r~ and skin factor are
rL=Lx /e=35 .6” ft [10.9 m] and s= –ln(r~/rW)=
–5. 1. {n our results, (klp), represents the total mobMy
because the total sandface rate was used in the analysis.
(Both the type-curve match and the double-Ap rufe indi-
cate thnt semilog analysis ia not applicable.)
The enrly-time data of Fig. 22 are flat and approach”
the haff-slope line from above. This behavior could be
a rcsuft of the existence of damage on the fracture face;
however, the Cartesian plot of AplAqZ vs. ~t shown
in Fig. 23 exhibits a straight line during the linear flow
period (lmlf-slope line on the log-log plot) that extmpo-
latcs to zero at Ar=O. If damage were present, this stight
line should extrapolate to a positive vafue of (Ap/Aq,).
Thus we conjecture that the flat portion of the data may
be csuscd by smalf errors in the measurements of pres-
sures or rntes. The small oscillations in Ap/Aqt (see Figs.
22 snd 23) seem to indicate this possibility.
464
MATCH
MINT
“m
gz %..1.0!, P.c.. 1%5
“)
“o
.> fox,
.2.4
.10-2,
A+.100.1””!8,
?& ~-+---
1
m.
=?.
:;
& ho-al
J +.,,.01
00
10”1 0 * ,.,
10 10*
sHUT-IN TIM!: At, MINUTES
’19. 24-Match of Method 1 solution with infinite.
conductivity type curve.
-
from the pressure/rate data of Fig. 21. We were umbIe
to obtain a eood match of the P nC,Vvs. At data using the
mriform-flu~ type curv~ howe~~~, we found that ~ese
dsta could be reasonably matched with the infinite-
conductivity type curve for. fractured wells. Our match
is shown in Fig. 24. Fmm the match-point values rccordcd
on Flg. 24, we obtained (khlp) ~= 142.6 md-ftlcp
[43.5x103 red-m/Pa. s] and Lti=87:4 ft [26.6 m].
These estimates am roughly 10% less than the correspmd-
ing estimates obtained by matching the rate-normalized”
data with the uniform-flux type curve. From these rcsnhs,
we found r; =LX /2=43.7 ft [13.3 m] ands= —ln(r; /
r~)= ‘5.3; thus ~e values of the r; ands obtained are
close to the values obtained using the rate-normalized
procedure.
It seems possible that the difference between the rate-
normsliied analvais results and the results obtained from
the P,FcN am?tys;s &dd be the resutt of the behavior il-
lustrated in Figs. 16 and 17, which showed ‘lhatthe dimen-
sionless rate-nomrsliied weUbore pressure-drop solution
for an infinite-conductivity vertical fracture with wellbore
storage effects wifl correlate well with the uniform-flux
solution for 10’2s tDx, s 4. On the basis of field expe-
rience, however, most people believe that the itiltdte-
conductivity type curve should be applied only when. a
propped hydraulic fracture exists, and Ref. 51 gives no
indkation that this is the case.
Conclusions
We have demonstrated the applicability of annlysis
methods that are based on Dubamel’s principle. These
methods csn be used to convert pressure data obtsined
when the sandface rate is variable to the equivalent pres-
sure dsta that would have been obtained for a constnnt
sandface rate of production. The methods can be applied
to both drawdown mrd 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
retlcction of the sandface rate. It has been shown that
Methods 1,2, and 3 can be applied to a wide variety of
problems and sre particularly advantageous for analyz-
ing well test &ta obtained from commingled layered reser-
voirs. We have imoduced a new procedure, Method 3
of Appendw B, which is ptiicularly useful for analyz-
ing well test &ta influenced by reservoir boundary ef-
fects. The three methods based on Duhamel’s principle
have been compsred to tie rate-nommdiied analysis proc-
edure.It has been shown that when data are strongIy in-
SPE Formmion Evaluation, OclOba 1986
 fluenccd by wellbnre stcmige effects, the rate-normalized Cm = dimensionless fracture conductivi~
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- hfi = total fracture thickness (natrrrully fruchrrcd
ter statement as a castigation of the rate-normalization reservoir), ft [m]
prncedure because for many problems this displacement h. = matrix thickness (natnrdly fractured
will not bc large. Morcnver, rate-normalized analysis is reservoir), ft [m]
simpler to use than Methods 1, 2, arrd 3, and dues give
h. = thickness of perforated interval, ft [m]
a guod irrdication of which data points may be erroncmrs.
h .D = dirneusiordess wellbnre length defined by
Of the three metfmds based on Duharnel’s principle,
Method 1 is rdways applicable. We recommend the use Eq. 2g
of Metbud 2 ordy when the ssndface rate (change in sand- ~ = “prmeabfi~, md
face rate for buiIdup) decreases throughout the test. Be- k = thjckrress-averaged pcnneabiity, nrd
cause of ita murrputzdiond complexity, we recommend the kf = fracture perrneabdity, md
use of Method 3 only when it is impnrtarrt to generate k, = vertical permeability, md
aczumte equivalent constarrt-aarrdface-rate.data during the LX, = fracture half-length, ft [m]
drrreperiud brtluenccd by boundary effects-c.g., irrreser- L = effeqive fracture half:length defined by
voir liit tcstirrg under vsriablc-flow-rate rcmditions. Tbe Xf
E’+ 12, ft [m]
obvious firrritation of Methods 1, 2, mrd 3 and the ratc- n = index’
norrmdization arrslysis is that sandface flow rates must be
p = pressure, psi [kPa]
available. However, because of the importaut analysis ad-
vmrtage these methuds offer, particularly for heteroge- Ap = p~ssure drop, psi ma]
neous formations, we expect that intcrrse efforts will be PD. = henSiOIrleSS shut-in pressure defined by
made to iruprove our abdity to measure sandface flow Eq. 17
rates accurately. Currently, sandface.tlow rates are meas- PD. = dh;~ shut-in pressure defined by
ured by production logging, aud this requirss that we con-
vert spinner rates in revolutions per second to sandface qi = initial reservoir pressnre, psi @a]
flow rata irr reservoir barrels per &y. 55 For buildup data @(rj) = pressure drop if production is a cOnStant-
obtained from pumping wells, the sarrdface rate during sandface-rate of q,
buildup can be obtairrcd by measuring the rising liquid
P WCD= qtivdent constant-sandface-rate
level using acouatic devices. 51
dnensionless wellbore ‘pressure drop
On the basis of Ork study, the foflowing conclusions
PWD = dimensionless wellbore pressure drop ob-
are warranted.
1. Methods based on Duharnef’s principle can be used tahd under variable-sandface-rate pro-
to adyzc well rest data when sandface flow rates ure duction
available. PW = flowing bottorrrhole pressure, psi ~a]
2. If individual layer ssndface flow rates are avsilable, pm = flowing wellbore pressure at shut-in, psi
then the methods can be used to eatinrate individual layer &Pa]
properties. PW. = dtut-in wellbore pressure psi @a]
3. The three methods can be used to estimate reservoir PO = bOttOfiole opening pressure (DST), psi
PV when reservoir fimit testing is conducted under ma]
variable-flow-rate conditions (the rate-normalized pr.xc- PFCN =’ norrnaliied pressure drop for constarrt-
dure should not bc used under these circumstances).
sandface-rate production, psi/RB-D
4. Although the rate-norrnaliied analysis prucedure m2y
yield suftlcieritly accurate results for practical purpnses, walm3. d]
the rate-normaliicd pressure drop is displaced below the q = s~dface flow rate, RB/D [~ m3/d]
equivalent corrstarrt-samlface-rate solution during the time q‘ = derivative of the sandface flow rate
periud dominated by wellbore storage effects. (tn+l ‘tj)
CID = diMenSiOIdeSs saudface rate defined by
Nomenclature Eq.2
,4 = drainage area, fiz [m2] qr = reference sandface rate, Rf3/D [reS ~3/dl
b = penetration rstio &fined by Eq. 27 r, = reservoir drainage radius, ft [m]
Cj = cc-et%cient defined by Eq. B-2 ro = dinrensiouless drainage radk
c. = coeftlcient defined by Eq. B-2 rw = we~bOre ~di”s, ft [m]
c1 = system compressibility, psi’1 [kPa-l] rw‘ = effective wellbore radius
ctf = toti fiaCtUm Compressibiity, psi -l RqD = dnerrsiordess reservoir conductivity of
[@a-l] Layer j, defined by Eq. 10
C = wellbore storage cmrstarrt, RB/psi s = skbr factor
[rcs m3/stock-tank m3] sb = “pseudoskin factor rcsuking from ptisI
CD = dimensionless wellbure storage constant for peuetrmion
mdiaf flow problems s, = total skin factor
C&, = dimensiordess weflbore stnrage constant for r = time, hours
vertically fractured wells fD = dimensionless ti3rreba.scd On ~e~~rc
Cf = fracture conductivity radius
SPE Fomtion Evahmian, Cktoter 1986 4s5
 t n, = dimensionless time based on Lswer 1 nrou.
“.
6. Bostic, J, N,, Aganval, R.G. and Carter, R.D.: “Combined Anal-
efty defined by Eq. 35 “ “ ‘ ysis of Postfmctming Performance and Buildup Data for Evaluating
an MHF Gas Well,,, JPT (Oct. 1980)1711-19.
‘D,4 = ~~ensio~ess time bas~ 011 dr~nage area 7, Pascal, H. and Quillian, R. G.: ‘<New Method for Predicting
tDx, = dlMeIMiOUless time based on fracture half- Deliverability From Variable Rare Drawdown Data,,, paper SPE
lenglh 7932 presented at the 1979 SPE Syq-.xium on Low-Permeability
Gas Reswvoirs, Denver, May 20-22.
~j = point in the subinterd [tj ,tj+, ] defined in 8. Kucuk, F. and Ayesm’an, L.: ‘sAnalysis of 3imulianeo. sly Meas-
EG. A-7 ured Prmwre and Sandface Flow Rate i“ Transient Well Tesd”g,, Y
tp = prod~cing time before shut-in, hours JPT iFeb. 1985) 323-34,
9. McF.&wds, D,G.: ‘iMddwdl Variable-RateWell Test Analysis,,,
tPD = diienSiOfdess producing time before SPEI (Aug. 1981) 444-53.
shut-in 10. Tiwmpmn, L.G., Jones, J.R., a“d Reynolds, A.: ‘,Analysis of
At = shut-in time, hours Pressure Buildup Data 3nfluenced by Wellbore Phase Redistribu-
tion.” SPEFE (Oct. 1986)435-52.
AtD = dnensionless shut-in time based on well-
bore radius
ASDX,= dimensionless shut-in time based on . .
fracture half-length 12. Gladfelter, R.E., TIXY, G.W., and Wilsey, L.E.: ‘W&l@ Wells
Which Will Rq.md to Fmducdcm Stinmlatim Treatment,,> Drill,
~ = ~atch point and Prod. Pmt. , API (1955) 117-28.
y = Euler’s constant (0.57722) 13. Winestrxk, A.G. and Colpins, G.P.: ‘,Advances in Estimathg Gas
Well Ddiverabfify.z> J. C&. PeI. Tech, (ldy-Sem. 1965) 111-19.
O = weighting factor for a uniform weighting
14, Fetkovich. M,J. and Vienot. M. E,: %x. Normalizationof Build.~
for all ;. Presmre Using Afterflow Data,,, JPT (Des. 1984) 2211-24.
A’ = dimensiofdess ffacture transfer coefficient 15, Mehfest, H.: “NumericaJ Inversion of Laplace Trmsfonns,’,
Commu”icariom of rheACM (lam 1970) 13, No. 1,47-49,
defined by E@. 32
16 Prij.rnb-cdo, R., Raghavan, R., .md Reynolds, A.C.: ‘.Well Test
p = viscosity ~y$is f.r wells pr~.ciag tiYe~ R=ewOi~ wi~ CMSSflOW;’
_ q$ = po;os~y, fraction SPEJ(Jme 1985) 380-96.
#c, = tficfmess-averaged porosity/compressibility 17, Reynolds, A.C., Chen, J. C., and Raghavan, R,: <‘Pseudo-3kin
Factor Cawed by PardaJPenetmdm,!, JP7fOec. 1934)2197-2210.
product defined by Eq. 9, psi-1 18. Bmmtt, C. O., Reynolds, %A.C.,and Raghavam, R.: ‘.Analysis of
[kPa-i] Finite-Condwivicy Fractures Imercepti”g Multilayer Reservoir,”
SPEFE (June 1986)259-74.
$f = fracmre porosity, fraction 19. Be.neu, C.O.: ,’AmIysis of Fractured Wells,,, PhD dissertatim,
co’ = diiensiofless matrix storativity defined by U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1982).
Eq. 33 20, A1-Hussdny, R. , ~ty, H.J. Jr.. and Crawford, P. B.: “The Flow
of Real Gases Thro.& Porous Media.’, JPT(MaY 1966)624-36
Tin., AIME, 237;
SubWripts 21. A@v@, R.G. : .<Real Gas Pseudo-Thn+A New Function for
f = fracture system Pressure Buildup Analysis of MHF Gas Wells,,, paper WE S279
i = intinite-conducti~lty scale presmmd at tie 1979 SPE Ann”al Technical Conference and
Ex.libitiq Las Vegas, Sept. 21-24.
j = layer index 22. !-% W.J. and Holditch, S,A., ‘<Applicationof Ps?udotimem Build.
m = matrix system “p TM Analysis of Low.Pemeabilhy Gas Wells with Imnz-
~ = ~*ifO~.fl”X ~~~e Duradm W.ellb.x?SfomSeDismrtion,’, JPT(Dec. 1982) 2877-87.
23. Sem, K., Reynolds, A. C., and Raghavan, R.: ‘,New pressure
I= Layerl Tramient Analysis Melhcds for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,,z
2 = Layer 2 JPT (Dec. 1983) 2271-S3.
24. Camacho-V., R.G., R@OJm, R., andReymlds, A.C. : ‘.REWW.SS
of FracmmdWdk Fm&.ing Layered Reservoirs,UnequalFracture
Length,’, paper SPE 12844 presented at !he 1984 SPE/DDE/GP3
Acknowledgments U.wnve.tionslGasRecoveIYSymposium, Pittsburgh,
May 13-15.
Portions of thk study were completed by L.G. Thomp- 25. Fefkovich, M.J. and Thrasher, T. S.: ‘aConsfant Well Pressure
Testing and Amdy$isin Law Permeability Reservoirs,>, pqer SPE
son whh a grant from Flopetml Johnston/Schlumberger 792Spresented at the 1979SPE Rccky MounminResional Meed”g,
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, .md Raghavrm, R., ..tiniteady Flow to a Well
U. of Tulsa, for financial support. Prtiu.im at Constant Presmre.,, JPT (Oct. 19gO) 1803-12.
27, Ehlig-Ecmomides, C.A. and Ramey, H,]. Jr.: “Transient Rate
Dcclim Analysis for Wells Pmdwed m Constant pressure,,, SPEI
Feb. 1981) 98-lC@.
References 28. Jones, P.: ‘<ReservoirLindt Test,,, Oil& Gas J. (1.”. 18, 1956)
1. van Everdingen, A.S. and Hum, W.: The Application of Ow 13+96.
LaplaceTransformation
to FlowProblemsinResemoirs,’! Tram., 29. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances<. Well Test Anolyif, Mmograph
,4fME (1949) 186, 305-24. Series, SPE, Rjch?.rdsom,TX (1977) 5, 29-30.
2.Odeh,A.S. and Jones, L. G.: ‘,Pressure Drawdown Analysis, 30, vm Poolle”, H. K.: ‘Status of Drill-Stem Testing Teduiq.es md
VariableRate Case, ‘sJff (Aug. 1965)960-64; Tram., ASME,234 AlldySiS, XVJ.w (April 1961) 333-39.
3. Soliman, M. Y.: .<New Technique for Analysis of Variable Rate 31. Koldhaas, C.A.: .’A Medwd for Aru.lyzi”g Presswes Measwed
or SlnS Test,’7 paper SPE 1CCB3presented at fhe 1981SPE Annual During Driliwmn-Test F1OWPeriods,,, JPT (OCt. 1972)1278-82
Technkal Conference and Exhibition, %n Antonio, Oct. 5-7. Tram., ASME, 253.
4. Stevmn, G., Winmmn, M. J., and Meunier, D.: “Afferflow Meas- 32. Ramey,H.J. Jr., Asarwa&R.G., and Matin, I.:”...%alysis of Slug-
uremem and Deconvoludon in Well Test Analysis,” parer SPE Test or DST Flow Period Data,, sJ, cd.. Per. Tech.(July-Sepf.
12174presented at the SPE 1983 Annual Tezhnkal Conferenceand 1965>3742.
Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8. 33, Gringariem A.C. and Ramey, H,J. Jr.: ‘CA. Approximate fntinite
5. hrgon, J,R. and van F’collen,H.K.: ‘Thdt RespmiseFu.cdon Fmm Conductivitysolution for a F%m&JfyPenmming Line Source Well,”
v~~g ~ Da%” JpT(Aus. 1965)963-6% TWLS..~E. ~. SPEJ (APril 1975) 14048.

464 SPE Formadon Evalmtion. October 1986

 34. Bilhartz, H.L. Jr. and Ramey, H.]. Jr.: “The Cmnbincd Effccfs To apply the schemes to variable-sandface-rob draw-
of Slorage, Skin and Ptial PenetrationonWellTestAIMIysis,,, down data, partitions of the time interv~ [0, t] must be
paper SPE 6753 presented at tie 1977 SPE Annual Tecimicaf
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CM. 9-12. used, and for buildup, partitions of the time interval [0,
35, Bmm. F. and Mating, V.W.: “TIE Effectofkmkted Fluid Enlry At] must be used. For both drswdown and buildup, these
on Well FTcducdvify,,, JPT (Feb. 1961) 172-74, Trans., AfMB,
.-.
psrdtions are denoted by {tj}jE~l, where for drawdown
Z22.
36. Ranmy, H.J. Jr.: .<Verikicmionof the Gladfelter-Tracy-Wdsey
Concept for Wellbore Storage Dombmted Transient Pressures O=to<f, < . . ..<tm<tn+. =t. . . . . . . . . . ..(A-l)
During Pmd.cfion,” J. C&. Pet, Tech. (April-June 1976) 34-85.
37. Soelt.wva, T.D.:‘.Well JWssure Be&vim of a Na@maJJy Fracmred
Reservoir;’SPEJ (Oat. 19s3) 769-SO. sod for buildup,
38. Cimo-L., H. and Samaniego-V., F.: <‘pressureTransient Analy-
sis Methcds for Nammlly Fractured Reservoirs,.+ papr SPE 11026
W.$en~ at fbe 1982 SPE Annual Tcchni.al COtiere”.e d O=tO<tI <... <tn<tn+l=Af. . . . . . . . . . ..(A-2)
Exhibition, NW Orleans, Sqt. 26-29.
Tramien! Anafysi.sMethodsfor Bounded
39, Chen, C. sl al.: Ylessure
Nafmally Fractured Reservoirs,,’ SPEJ (J.m 19S5) 451-64. Here, P,Fm denotes the equivalent normalized drawdowo
40. Bmudet, D. and Gr@rfea, A,C. : , ‘Detaminadm of Fissured .
Volume and Blcck Siie in Fractured Rewwoirs by Typ#2.Ive pressure drop we wish to generate-i.e., P.Fa represents
Analysis,” paperSPE9293presentedat the 19S4SPEAm.af the normdiied pressufe dfop we would obtain for a con-
TechnicalConference and Exhibition, Dallas., Sept. 21-24. stant sandface rate of production. Notationally,
41. Reynolds, A.C. et al.: ‘<The Wellbore Pressure Response in
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,,, JPT (May 1985)90S-20.
42. Tariq, S.M.: ‘<AStudy of fhe Behavior of Layered Reser@irs wifh
PFcN=Ap/qr, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-3)
Wellbm Storage and Skin Effect,” PhD dissertation, Smnford U.
(1977). where Ap is the pressure drop in pounds per square inch
43. Larsen, L.: “Well$ Producing Commingled Zmm with Uneqml that would occur if the well were produced at a constant
Jnhial Freswlres and Rese.t-mir Pmperdcs,,, paper SPE 10325 sandface rate equal to q,. The methods mnaidered here
presented at the 19S1 SPE Ammal Technical Conference and
Exhibition San Antonio, Oct. 5-7. afe used to generate PPW and knowledge of Ap snd q,
44. Fefkovich, M, J,: ‘&DeclimCwve Analysis Using Type Curves,,> is not necessary or desired.
JPT (Jwre 19S0) 1065-77. The drawdown analysis scheme referred to as Method
45. Gringartm, A. C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: VJnsteady- 1 for n> 1 is given by
Stafe Presmre-DEmMicms Created h a WdI vfiti a Sinde -. Jnfinite-
Co”ducdvi& Verdcal Fracture,’, SPEJ (Aug. 1974)347+ Tram.,
AJME. 2S7. [Pi–P@”+l)l-sm, ,..,,,,,, (A4)
46, Chin-L., H,, %maniego, F., and Domiuguez, N.: ‘STransiem PFcN(in)=
Pr.s$sureBehavior for a Well wifh a Fhite ConduXivily VerdcaJ q(t”+ , –t”)
Fracture;x .7PEJ (Aug. 1978) 253-6-$.
47, Agarvd, R.G., Caner, R. D., and Pollock, C.B.: “Eva.lu&m and
Performance of l.ow-Pemmability Gas WelJsSdnudated by Massive where
Hydrmlic F..acmring,>, JPT (March 1979) 362-72. -. . .
48, Ci”co-L., H. md Sa.mmiego-V., F.: “Effect of Wellbore Storage “—l
and Damage in tie Transient Pressure Behavior of Vmdcafly
Fractured Wells, ” paper SPE 6752 presented at the 1977 SPE
s~= Z
j=O
pFC,V(~)[dr.+1 ‘fj)-dt”+l ‘fj+l)l.

Atm.al Tecb”ical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9–12.

49. L@&S. and Brockmbrough, J.: ‘<ANew A@tical .%lutirm for
Finite Conductiviw Fractures with Real Tine and ldwe Smace . . . . . . . . . . . ..’ . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-5)
Parameter Estimation,” paper SPE 12013 presented it the i9S3
SPE Ammal Teh”icd Co”fereme and Exhibition, San Fmncixo, men ~qo, ~. A-4 is replaced by
Oct. 5-8.
50.JWwm, R.: ‘“TheEffecfofF’rdcingTim m ‘ryp cuw AMI.
ysis,39JPT (June 19s0)
1 1053-64. pF&(;o)= [Pi ‘Pwf(tl )1
51.Bmwn%mmk, E.FR.: , CAfteflows and Buildup Inta’pretatiom on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. (A-6)
Pumping Wells,,, .JPT
. . (Feb. 1982) 397-405. q(t ~)
52.Pemine, R.L.: “Analysis; of pressure Buildup Curves,,> DrilL ad
Prod. Pmc, , API (1956), 4S2-509.
53.Martin, J. C.: “Sirnpli!ied &@ions of FJow in Gas Drive Here ~ denotes a point in the submterwd [tj, tj+t] Ofthe
Hesermirs md the ThmretimJ Foundado” of Multiohase Flow psmition of 3?q. A-1 and is given by
Buildu~ Analysis., s JPT(Oct. 1959) 321-23: Trans.. .iJ2.fE, 216.
34. Chn, W. C.,- Reynolds,’ A. C., &d R@&.n, R“.: T&sure
Tramient AmJvsis of Two-Phase F1OWProblems.,, SPEFE (June
;=ejtj+,+(1–e.)t., ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7)
1986) 151-64.”
55. Awad, M.A. and Tergim, J.: ‘%npx’tance of Bouom-Hole Flow where
Monitoring During Transient Pressure Testing,r> Proc., SPWL.%
New Orleans (June 1934). Osejsl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-8)
‘Appendix A-Dimensional Vereion of
Methods 1 and 2 Selection of the tJj values wifl be discussed later. (lf we
IIJRef. 10, using dimensionless variobles, we derived choose Ej= % for all j, then the method of Eq. A-1 rep-
methods for fhe generation of constant-sandface-pressure resents the dinzensionsl version of a method presented in
data given pressure and vsriable-sandface data mesaured Ref. 8.) For buildup &ta, Method I is given by
as a function of time during drawdown or buildup. Here,
the difnensionaf versions of the methods of Ref. 10 are pFm(;n)= [Pws(fn+l)–Pwd +sum
recorded, and guidelines for the practical application of , . . . . . ..(A-9)
these methods are presented. fmp)-lxzp +1.+1 –k)

SPE Formation Evaluation, OcfoteI 1986 467

where
–q(tp+tn+l–tj+l)]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-IO)
when n=O, Eq. A-9 is re~laced by
~Fa(;o)= [Pw$(fn+l)–PWl
. ......
q(~p)–q(tp+tl)
Here, the partition of F.q. A-2 is US@ pm representa the
measured shut-in pressure, p ~ represents the flowbrg
wellbore pressure at the instant of shut-in, and fp repre-
sents the producing time. The q’s represent the sarrdface
rates r~orded during shut-in. Bccawse tP cnr’responds to
At=O and At=tn+, @q. A-2), we can use the notation
q(At=O) for q(tp) and q(At–tj) for ,q(tP +?”+ I ‘Ij),
which indicates that knowledge of tp K unnecessW.
For drawdown analysis, Method 2 for n= 1 is given by
to generate PFm aa a function of time. Oiven buildup Y.
pressure and sarrdface rate data, the schemes of Eqs. A-9
and A-15 can be used recursively to generate PFN as
a furrction of shut-in time. If both drawdown and buildup
pressure and rate data are available, F.qa. A-4 and A-12
can te used to obtain PFa aa a function of total test time.
In SUcases, PFCN represents the normalized drawdown
pressure respnnae that would be obtained if production
were at a constant aarrdface rate.
when necessary, linear interpolation is used to obtain
PFCN and q vahres appearing on the right sides of Eqs.
(A-11) A-5, A-10, A-13, and A-16. If we choose dj=l, for dl
j, then except for this linear interpolation procedure, Eq.
A-12 is equivaferrt to Bostic et al.’s method.
As discussed in Refs. 10 and 11, it is necessary to usc
an iterative procedure when applying Metbcd 2. For build- . .
up data, if the change in sandface rate, @t=O) –q(At),
is increasing as in wellbore-storage-domimtcd data, then
Method 2 @q. A-15) will be unstable udess the partition.
of Eq. A-2 ia selected so that
tj+, –tjstj–tj-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-is)

for SUj. Because we normally wish to u= partitions such

~Fw(tn+,)= [n-p~~.+])1-sum
~(;o) , . . . . . . (A-12) that tj+, –tj > tj ‘tj- I, this restriction is incOnve~ent.
For drawdown cases where q(t) is increasing, it is also
necessary to require that the inequahty of Eq. A-18 holds
where when Method 2 ia applied (Eq. A-12). On the other harrd,
if q(t) [q(At=O) —q(w) for buildup] is arr incrcaaing func-
n-l tion of time, it is necessmy to choose the partitiom of
sum= ~ PFm(~.+l-tj+l) the time intervals such that

rj+, —tj>tj —tj-~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-19)

x[d++l)-q(i)l. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. (A-13) \
for all j to achieve stabti~ if Method 1 is used. When
When n=O, Eq. A-12 is replaced by q(t) [q(At=O) –q(At) for buildup] ia a decreasing fmrc-
tion of time, no restrictions cmthe partitions of Eqs. A-1
~Fm(ti)=p-%@)
—. .. . . . . . . . . . .... . ..(A-14)
and A-2 nre rreceasary to achieve stabtity. A detailed sta-
q(;o)
btity analysia is given in Refs. 10 and 11.
It is convenient to chonse p-aintaof the pmthions of Eqs.
A-1 and A-2 to corm.$pnndto times at which pressure and
The corresponding scheme to be used in the analysis of rate &ta arc measured. However, it may bc rrccessary
buildup data is to add or to delete points from partitions selected in MIS
way to achieve srabtity andlor accuracy. At times where
~FcN(tn+, )= IPws(tn+i)–hf.l+sum they have not been measured, pressure and rate data are
.(A-IS) generated from the measured data by linear interpolation.
q(fp) –q(tp +io)
We recommend the foUowing guidelines for use of
Methods 1 and 2 in the analysis of field weU teat data.
for n z 1, where Plot, on log-log coordinates, q(t) va. t for drawdown data,
.—1 or q(Ar=O) –q(At) vs. At for buildup data.
NllIl= ~ P~~(tn+l ‘tj+l)[q(tp ‘~+1)
Csae 1. If the slope of this log-log plot is always zero
j=O
or negative, then both Methods 1 and 2 are stable regard-
less of how the partition of Eq. A-1 @q. A-2 for bdiid-
–q(tp+;j)]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-bS)
UP)i$selected. In thk case, either Method 1 or 2 can be
used successfidly. Method 2 generally will give slightly
when rr=O, Eq. A-15 must be replaced by more accurate results but Method 1 always is more com-
putationslly convenient. In uairrg either method, one,
~Fm(t,)= rPws(tl)-Pyl . . . . . . . . .. . . ,(A-lV should use 9j = 1 for SUj. For either method, sufficient-
q(tp)–q(~p +fo) ly accurate results wiU generrdly be obtained with 10
pointa per log cycle irr the partition of Eq. A-1 @q. A-2
Given drawdown pressure and sandface rate data, the for buUdup) but adding more poirrta wiU increaae the ac-
schemes of MS. A-4 and A-12 can be used recursively curacy obrained.

46a SPE Formation Evaluation, October 19S6

 Case 2. If the S1OPC of the log-log plot mentioned above
is pnsitive, Method 2 will be unstable urdess the inequal-
ity of Eq. A-1 8 is satistied. In this case we recommend
using Method 1 with !j = % for all j and”with a partition
selected such that the mequali~ of Eq. A-19 is satisfied.
More specifically, aa shown irrRefa. 10 and 11, we should
choose the partitions such that
drn+l “j)-dtn+l ‘tj+l)
1<1,
q(tn+, –t”)
when analyzing drawdown data, and such that
, @A~-~)-XA1-rj+,)
Is,, . .
q(Ar–O)–q(Af–tn)
when analyzing buildup data. Sufficient accuracy can be
obtained by chonsing partitions that contain IO or more
poirr~ per log cycle, but it may be necessary to uae fewer
than 10 pnirrta for some log cyclca to maintain stability.
For either Case 1 or 2, accuracy wiff be enhanced by
using more tharr 10 poirrta per log cycle in regiona where
the absolute values of the slope on the log-log plot of rate
q(t) [q(At=O) –q(At) for buildup] vs. time is large. 11
The dimensiordess version of Eq. AA is given in Refs.
10 arrd 11 and can be obtained by multiplying 13q. A4
by kM141 .2P and letting
khp~~ !&Lip
p IWD = —= — ,,. ,,, ,, . . . . . ..
141.2P 141 .2qrft
The dnerraiordess versions of Eqs. A-9, A-12, and A-15
carr be obtainqd by the sarrre procedure and are also given
irr Refs. 10 arrd 11.
For the analysis of trarraient data, either Method 1 or
2 shonfd be applied following the guidelinca defirreated
abnve. When pressure and rate &ta are controlled by out-
er boundary effects, Method 3 of Appendm B will yield
the most accurate pseudostcady-state P,ccN data.
and
n-1
sum= ~ PFcN(tj+l)(cj –cj+, ). . .(B-3)
j=O
III f+q. B-2, the tam q’ (tn+, –tj) denotes the derivative
of the raie function evaluated at time f.+ I ‘tj.
The foflowing pmccdure ia recommended for the prac-
tical application of Method 3.
. . . . . . ..(A-20)
1. Let {tm}~~~ denote the aet of points at which pres-
sure and rate data are rneaaured. On each aaanciatd subii-
terval, t., which is strictly <t arrd s tm+,, compute the
derivative of the rate function with
(A-21) q(tm+] )–q(tm)
q’(rm+~)= , . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(B4) -.
tm+l –tm
for rrr=O, 1.. .s. Here the “auperacript” - is used to
denote that Eq. B4 gives the value assigned to q’(t) at
all times that lie irr the subintcrvaf t., which ia strictly
<t arrd St.+l. At this point, we have a table compnacd
Of v~ues t~, p~r~), q(t~), and q’(F~+I) for
rrr=o,l. :.$.
2. Define the sequence of times {tj} j~~’ at which
PFW data are deaircd.
3. Compute PFcN(tI ) from the following equation:
Pi–P&h)
P~c,./(t~)= . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-5)
q(t~)–o.5t~q’(f-~)
(A-22)
where p ~ is the initial pressure at the beginning of the
drawdown teat.
4. Compute subscqucrrt values of PFm by applying Eq.
B-1 recursively. At each arep of the prncedure, borb q
-. . ..
arrd q‘ must be evaluated to compute Cj; see Eq. B-2.
Terms of the form q(rn+l –tj) are evaluated by linear in-
terpcdation between meaaured rate vs. time &ta. Terrrra
of the form q‘ (t.+, -rj) are evaluated by searching the
table cmratructed in Step 1 tn tind the subinterval such
that tm <t.+, –tj =tm+l, arrd then set

Appendix B-Dimensional Version of q’(tn+, –tj)=qz(rm+, ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (s-6)

Method 3
The derivation of Methods 1 arrd 2 of Appendix A are As shown in Ref. 11, Method 3 is stable if q(t) is a
given irr Refs. 10 and 11. The derivation of Method 3 k smrdrly decreasing furrcdon of tie. If q(r) is arrirrcrcaa-
similar and is given in Ref. 11. Here, we present ordy ing timction of time, then the pnirrta {tj }j~~ 1 at which
the dimensional version of Method 3. The analysis of PFCN is computed must satis@ the inequality
reservoir limit tcsta cmrducted under variable-rate condl-
tiorra appears to be the most important practical applica-
tj+L-tj>tj–tj_, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-7)
tion of Methnrf 3. Thus, for brevity, we include ordy the for all j to guarantee stabfity. Generally, if 10 pninta pcr
drawdown version of Method 3. The buildup analog is log cycle arc used irr the partition {tj} jl~’ , tkll Suffi-
given in Ref. 11.
cient accuracy will bc obtained when Method 3 ia applied.
By using the notation of Appendix A, Method 3 for the Further derails are given in Ref. 11.
analysis of drawdown data is given by ..
S1 Metric Conversion Faotore
~FcN(tn+l)= [Pi–P@(t.+l)l-sm, ....,.. ,@-l) bbl X 1.589873 E–01 = m3
c?! tl X 3.048* E-01 = m
psi x 6.894757 E–00 = kpa
where
w.m$nmlon ratio, is exact SPEFE
Cj=q(tn+l ‘tj)–0.5[(tn+l ‘tj)9’(tn+l ‘fj)l Orlghd mm.suipt mwN6d in the *MY ofPeomleumEngi.earsollbeSnp. 16,
l?W.FaPW-W forFubrkationP.&M
19,1%5 ,%v+sed
rmnusz6PIracakWFeb.
Z6,198$Psw(SPE 13WiJ)IimtPmn!ed e,, lb 1w4 SPE Annual Technics Cm.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(B-2) fefnma and Extibi!lcm held i“ Ho”,!m SePt W-19.

SPE Formation Evahmion, October 1986 469