IPTC-17785-MS

A Novel Semi-Analytical Solution for Transient Pressure Data Interpretation

of a Fractured Well in an Asymmetric Reservoir
F.M. Al-Thawad and M. Jamiolahmady, Heriot-Watt University

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10 –12 December 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted
to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax ⫹1-972-952-9435

Abstract
The presence of fractures and faults play a significant role in recovery and performance of tight reservoirs
exploited with hydraulically fractured wells. Faulting may result in asymmetric reservoirs, i.e. different
quality reservoirs across the fault plane, due to the displacement of reservoir blocks along the fault plane.
Typically, numerical well-test packages are used to match the pressure responses of such complex geology
and well geometry. The limitations of such approaches in terms of ease of use and wide range of possible
solutions plead for more attractive approach. Hence, here a semi-analytical approach has been followed
to develop a new practically efficient flow solution for a well intersecting a finite conductivity vertical
fracture in an asymmetric reservoir. The solution is characterised mainly by the bilinear flow resulting
from formation and fracture linear flows. The pressure derivative curve exhibits a distinctive feature of
an early fracture linear flow regime at a very early time reflecting the first fluid flow into the well from
the fracture only. The shape of the derivative plot also suggests the characteristics of a bilinear flow,
quarter slope, uttering the fracture characteristics, followed by a radial flow, zero slope, articulating the
quality of the two reservoirs. Type curves of dimensionless time and pressure are presented along with
field cases for vertical wells intersecting natural fractures or exploited by hydraulically fractures. The
results of this paper enable reservoir engineers to carry out modelling of such complex reservoir/well
scenarios with increasing certainty and long-term benefits and greater additional and favourable business
impacts.

Introduction
Ramey (1976) and Raghavan (1977) have previously presented a review of the work done on flow along
and toward fractures. They highlighted that intersecting fractures will strongly affect transient flow
behavior of the well. Houze et al. (1984) described a well intersecting an infinite conductivity fracture in
a naturally fractured reservoir simulated using a double-porosity model. Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1978)
presented a semi-analytical solution for the analysis of the transient pressure data of analysis for fractured
wells in symmetric reservoirs, which is most likely to occur in the case of small fractures or strike-slip
faults. Yet, in the case of reverse or normal faulting with large throw (Juxtaposing), different quality
2 IPTC-17785-MS

Figure 1—A Fault that has juxtaposed different geology across the fault plane.

Figure 2—A schematic sketch of the flow geometry under study.

reservoirs could adjoin the fault plan. That is, faulting may result in a sudden displacement of rock along
the fault plane that possibly yields, a large-scale slippage resulting in different quality fault blocks on both
sides of the fault. Many production logs have shown two different fault-blocks resulting from a reverse
fault that offset two zones sequence. Figure 1 illustrates a good example of faulting that juxtaposes
different geology across the fault plane, whereby; two different quality zones are aligned through the fault
plane. Here a semi-analytical solution for such a scenario is presented.
Numerical well test packages are limited and are largely affected by grid geometries and sizes
especially when analyzing wells with complex geometry or geological setting. Analytical solutions, on the
other hand, can enable the well test analyst to carry out modeling of complex reservoir/well scenarios
more easily and with increasing certainty. In this study, a mathematical model is developed for a well
intersecting a natural fracture (or hydraulic fracture) in a linear composite reservoir, where the well/
fracture is located between the two different permeability regions. Solution provided can handle different
fracture/reservoir complexities; i.e., radial homogenous reservoir, fractured well in homogenous reservoir
and fractured well between two regions with different properties.
Problem Statement and Solution Development
As mentioned above, in this investigation a semi-analytical solution to a finite conductivity fracture
separating two regions of different mobilities is provided. Figure 2 shows the flow geometry that has been
considered. Here, the flow domain of the statement problem has been divided into three flow regions
namely; (i) a reservoir region-1(with its specific properties) that defines flow into the fracture from the
below, (ii) a fracture (with its specific fracture properties), which allows fluids to flow along the fracture
and towards the well and (iii) a reservoir region-2 (with its specific properties) that defines the fluid flow
IPTC-17785-MS 3

into the fracture from the top. The flow per unit area is defined to be positive from above and negative
from below. It should be noted that we aim to have a solution to the pressure versus time and space in
general and wellbore pressure with time in particular.
Laplace and Fourier transformations were applied to the three equations governing the two dimensional
flow in these three regions. These mathematical transformations were with respect to dimensionless time
(t), in terms of transformed parameter (s) and a space variable (x), in terms of the transformed parameter
(␳), respectively. The equations (with the associated boundary conditions) were solved in the Laplace
space and inverted numerically using Gaver-Stehfest numerical inversion, Villinger (1985), for more
details see Appendix A.
The resultant expression for the wellbore pressure in Laplace domain is:
(1)

where;
(2)

and,
␩Df, ␩D1 and ␩D2 are the dimensionless hydraulic diffusivity of fracture, region-1 and region-2,
respectively, as defined:
(3)

(4)

(5)

FCDf is the dimensionless fracture conductivity described by:

(6)

The fracture’s reference permeability is the arithmetic average of the two adjoining regions (the well
is located in the center between the two regions), namely:
(7)

the region’s reference permeability is:

(8)

kd1 and kd2, are the region-1 and region-2 dimensionless permeability:
(9)

(10)

The reservoir parameters that can be determined from the type curve matching of the forwarded
solution are: reservoir permeabilities (k1 & k2), fracture permeability (kf), fracture width (wf), fracture
conductivity (kf . wf) and dimensionless fracture conductivity (FCDf). The fracture half-length (xf) can also
be estimated, as a result of estimating the flux distribution. It should be noted that the assumed finite
conductivity fracture dictates a non-uniform in-flow flux distribution along the fracture plane as the
fracture pressure (pf) is smaller close to the well and larger towards the tip of the fracture with a larger
inflow of the fluid. Guppy et al. (1982) noted that producing fractured wells at high flow rates can cause
4 IPTC-17785-MS

Figure 3—Dimensionless time vs. dimensionless pressure and pressure derivative using Gaver-Stehfest (1985) numerical inversion from Laplace
transform.

Figure 4 —Dimensionless time vs. dimensionless pressure and pressure derivative with Wellbore Storage using Kuchuck and Aystaran (1985)
dimensionless equations.

non-Darcy effects in the fracture, resulting in a pessimistic fracture conductivity and causes different flux
distribution. The same assumption is valid for highly propped fractures and damaged fracture-face cases.
At this stage, this exercise has not been performed due to numerical issues with flux integration algorithm.
Solution Behavior
The type curve solution of dimensionless pressure and its log-derivative versus dimensionless time for
different dimensionless fracture conductivity has been plotted in Figure 3.
IPTC-17785-MS 5

Figure 5—Dimensionless time vs. dimensionless pressure derivative exhibiting the Early Fracture Linear Flow regime.

Figure 6 —Derivative overlay of a vertical well in a homogenous reservoir and a fractured well in an asymmetric reservoir where both reservoirs have
the same average permeability of 50 md.

It shows some distinctive features: fractured well pressure behavior at early times, where the curve
signifies a ¼ slope as a result of a bilinear flow reflecting two linear flow regimes along and into the
6 IPTC-17785-MS

Table 1—Comparison between the results of the analytically based constructed model and this study.
Analytical Model This Solution

Xf (ft) Fcf (md-ft) kn (md) Xf (ft) FCf (md-ft) k1 (md) k2 (md)

2000 8e4 33 Not Estimated 8e4 33 33

Figure 7—Pressure and derivative match using this study to Synthetic Analytical Data.

fracture. Finally, a homogeneous total behavior, with an Infinite acting radial flow (IARF) derivative
stabilization. The solution code is enabled with dimensionless skin and wellbore storage (WBS) using
Kuchuck and Aystaran (1985) dimensionless equations. Such a scenario albeit limited to positive skin
only, is shown in Figure 4. Looking more closely to the type curves in Figure 5, it is noted that the pressure
derivative curve exhibits a distinctive feature of an early fracture linear flow regime at a very early time.
This feature reflects the first fluid flow into the well from the fracture only, and validates the stability of
the solution at very early times.

Validation of Solution
Synthetic Case-1: Fractured Well Bounded by Two Different Regions from this Study
A synthetic case of a fractured well in an asymmetric reservoir was studied, where region-1 and region-2
permeabilities are 20 md and 80 md, respectively, and the average permeability calculated from this
solution is the arithmetic average of 50 md. This case is compared to another case, of a well located in
a homogenous reservoir with an average reservoir permeability of 50 md. By super-imposing the two
pressure derivatives of both cases, a perfect overlay is achieved through the late time data of the radial
flow, confirming the reliability of the average permeability calculation method by this solution, Figure 6.
This was anticipated as the well is located in the center between the two regions.
IPTC-17785-MS 7

Table 2—Comparison between the results of a numerically based model and the new solution.
Numerical Model This Solution

Xf (ft) Fcf (md-ft) Kn (md) Xf (ft) FCf (md-ft) k1 k2

2000 1.32e6 33 Not estimated 1.32e6 kav ⫽33
13 53

Figure 8 —Pressure and derivative match using this study to Synthetic Numerical Data.

Synthetic Case-2: Analytical Data from A

Commercial Well test Software Table 3—Well and reservoir properties of the field data set 1.
A synthetic analytically-built symmetric reservoir Property Value
model of a well intersecting a finite conductivity Wellbore Radius, ft 0.23
fracture was constructed using a commercial well- Pay Zone, ft 100.0
test package to validate the proposed semi- Porosity, % 19.0
analytical solution. Table 1, shows the input data to Formation Volume Factor, bbl/STB 1.39
Viscosity, cp 0.35
the analytically based constructed model and results
Total Compressibility, psi⫺1 7. 17e⫺6
obtained by super-imposing of pressure data of this
solution on the proposed type curve as shown in
Figure 7. A good agreement between the two is
noted in both Table 1 and Figure 7. There is a slight deviation in the match, between tD of 1.0e8 to 1.0e8,
which is attributed to the infinite fracture half-length concept of this study.
Synthetic Case-3: Numerical Data from A Commercial Reservoir Simulator
A synthetic numerically-built asymmetric reservoir model of a well intersecting a finite conductivity
fracture was constructed and the pressure transient data were generated to be analyzed in a commercial
well-test package. The two region’s permeabilities are 13 md and 53 md, respectively, where the
arithmetic average of both regions is 33 md. Table 2, shows the input data to the numerical model and
results obtained by super-imposing the pressure data of the numerical simulator on the proposed type
curve as shown in Figure 8. Again a good agreement between the two is noted in both Table 2 and Figure
8. Similarly to the previous case 2, the slight deviation in the match, between tD of 1.0e7 to 1.0e10 is
attributed to the infinite fracture half-length concept of this study.
8 IPTC-17785-MS

Figure 9 —Pressure and derivative match of the field data set 1 with a type curve of the solution proposed by this study.

Figure 10 —Pressure and derivative match of the field data set 1 with a type curve of the Cinco-Ley and Samaniego’s solution available in the used
welltest package.
IPTC-17785-MS 9

Figure 11—Pressure and derivative match of the field data set 2 with a type curve of the solution proposed by this study.

Table 4 —Comparison between the results obtained for the field data set 2 by the solution proposed by this study and the Cinco-Ley and Sa-
maniego’s solution available in the used well test package.
Cinco-Ley and Samaniego’s solution This Solution

xf (ft) FCf (md-ft) FCDf k (md) xf (ft) Fcf (md-ft) FCDf k1 (md) k2 (md)
240 12.6e3 2.0 25 Not estimated 12.6e3 2.0 ⫽ 24
kav28 20

Field Cases Table 5—Well and reservoir properties of the field data set 2.
Property Value
In this section the data available for two fields are
analyzed using the proposed solution. In both these Wellbore Radius, ft 0.26
two cases the reservoir is assumed to be of a uni- Pay Zone, ft 140.0
Porosity, % 15.0
form quality. Field data for an asymmetric reservoir Formation Volume Factor, bbl/STB 1.39
case was not available. However, considering that Viscosity, cp 0.73
the model matches the numerically-built asymmet- Total Compressibility, psi-1 7.8e-6
ric case, it is expected that the conclusion for its
applicability to field cases considered here can be
extended to asymmetric reservoirs.

Field Case-1: A Fractured Vertical Well in A Sandstone Reservoir

The first field case example data set corresponds to a vertical well intersecting a finite conductivity
fracture in a sandstone reservoir. The objective here is to evaluate the reliability of our solution for a
practical field example, where the flow is dominated by the fracture bi-linear flow regime and followed
by radial flow regime. A fracture skin and the wellbore storage flow regime are also evident at the
early-time data. Table 3 summarizes well and reservoir properties.
The data is matched to a type curve provided by the new solution, Figure 9. The results were validated
by those obtained based on the Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1978) solution, Figure 10, available in the used
10 IPTC-17785-MS

Table 6 —Comparison between the results obtained for the field data set 2 by the solution proposed by this study and the Cinco-Ley and Sa-
maniego’s solution available in the used commercial welltest software package.
Cinco-Ley and Samaniego’s solution This Solution

xf (ft) Fcf (md-ft) FCDf k (md) xf (ft) Fcf (md-ft) FCDf k1 (md) k2 (md)
240 58.4e3 1.0 190 Not estimated 58.4e3 1.0 ⫽ 190 190
kav190

Figure 12—Pressure and derivative match of the field data set 2 with a type curve of the Cinco-Ley and Samaniego’s solution available in the used
welltest package.

commercial well test software package. The flow capacity to oil has been found to be nearly the same,
2400 md-ft from this solution and 2500 md-ft from Cinco-Ley and Samaniego’s solution. The fracture
conductivities are also identical as shown in Table 4.
Field Case-2: A Fractured Horizontal Well in A Carbonate Reservoir
At this stage the field case example data set of a horizontal well intersecting a finite conductivity fracture
in a carbonate reservoir, was considered. The aim is to evaluate the reliability of our solution for a
practical field example, where the flow is completely dominated by the fracture. The early-time data
performed of a horizontal section drilled in the top, has been slightly distorted due to wellbore storage and
phase segregation. Table 5, summarizes well and reservoir properties.
The flow capacity to oil has been found as 26600 md-ft. The proposed solution was used to match the
pressure data and compared the results to Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1978) solution for a well intersecting
a finite conductivity fracture in a symmetrical reservoir. It should be noted that as mentioned before this
solution is developed for more complex geological systems (two regions), but it can correctly handle a
simple system as well. As clearly shown in Table 6, the consistency of the solution is confirmed as the
estimated reservoir parameters are in excellent agreement, i.e. the parameters estimated for a symmetric
IPTC-17785-MS 11

reservoirs case using both solutions are identical. The data is matched to the curve provided by this study,
Figure 11 and validated by Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1978) solution, figure 12, using a commercial
software package.

Conclusions
A new semi-analytical solution is proposed to handle a finite conductivity fracture in symmetric and
asymmetric reservoirs (two different regions bounding the fracture plane). The pressure derivative curve
exhibits a distinctive feature of an early fracture linear flow regime at a very early time. This feature
reflects the first fluid flow into the well from the fracture only, and validates the stability of the solution
at very early times. This is followed by the characteristics of a bilinear flow, uttering the fracture
characteristics, and then by a radial flow, zero slope, articulating the quality of the two reservoirs. The
reliability of the proposed solution was demonstrated in a systematic approach using three synthetic cases
and two field cases. Firstly, analytically and numerically-built models were constructed of the simulated
flow geometry with the pressure data behavior displaying an excellent agreement with the type curves of
the proposed solution. The estimated reservoir parameters from the type curves were also confirmed to be
in good agreement with input data. This exercise included an asymmetrical reservoirs scenario as well as
the scenario of a symmetrical case. The validity confirmation of the proposed solution was then
established further through analyzing two field cases of vertical and horizontal wells intersecting a finite
conductivity fracture in a sandstone and carbonate reservoirs, respectively.

Acknowledgment
The Authors are grateful to Heriot-Watt University and Saudi Aramco for permission to publish this work.
Also they highly appreciate the support and fruitful discussions they had with Dr. N. M. Anisur Rahman
and Mr. Hassan Nooruddin.

Nomenclature
a ⫽ Distance from origin, ft
B ⫽ Formation volume factor, RB/STB
C ⫽ Wellbore storage, bbls/psi
cf ⫽ Formation compressibility, psi–1
ct ⫽ Total compressibility, psi–1
dF ⫽ Distance to fault, ft
df ⫽ Distance to fracture, ft
FCDf ⫽ Dimensionless fracture conductivity
FCf ⫽ Dimensional fracture conductivity, md-ft
h ⫽ Formation thickness, ft
k ⫽ Matrix permeability, md
k1 ⫽ Fracture permeability, md
k2 ⫽ Fracture permeability, md
kf ⫽ Fracture permeability, md
kd1 ⫽ Fracture permeability, md
kd2 ⫽ Fracture permeability, md
kdf ⫽ Fracture permeability, md
kf .wf ⫽ Fracture conductivity, md-ft
kr ⫽ Reference permeability, md
kn ⫽ (n) reservoir permeability, md
Pi ⫽ Initial formation pressure, psi
12 IPTC-17785-MS

P1 ⫽ Region-1 pressure, psi

P2 ⫽ Region-2 pressure, psi
Pf ⫽ Fracture pressure, psi
Pwf ⫽ Flowing BHP, psi
Pd ⫽ dimensionless pressure
Pd1 ⫽ Dimensionless Region-1 pressure
Pd2 ⫽ Dimensionless Region-2 pressure
Pdf ⫽ Dimensionless fracture pressure
Pdwf ⫽ Dimensionless fracture pressure
⫽ Pressure in Laplace domain
⫽ Pressure in Fourier domain
q ⫽ Flow rate at surface, STB/D
rw ⫽ Wellbore radius, ft
r ⫽ Distance from the center of wellbore, ft
S ⫽ Skin factor, dimensionless
s ⫽ Laplace parameter
tD ⫽ Dimensionless time
tDf ⫽ Fracture dimensionless time
wf ⫽ Fracture width, ft
xf ⫽ Fracture half-length, ft
xd ⫽ Dimensionless x-coordinates
yd ⫽ Dimensionless y-coordinates
⌬p ⫽ Pressure change since start of transient test, psi
⌬t ⫽ Time elapsed since start of test, hours
␩ ⫽ 0.0002637 k/␾␮ct, hydraulic diffusivity, ft2/hr
␩Df ⫽ Fracture hydraulic diffusivity, dimensionless
␩D1 ⫽ Region-1 hydraulic diffusivity, dimensionless
␩D2 ⫽ Region-2 hydraulic diffusivity, dimensionless
␮ ⫽ Viscosity, cp
␾ ⫽ Porosity, fraction
␳ ⫽ Fourier parameter
Subscript
C ⫽ Conductivity
D ⫽ Dimensionless
F ⫽ Fault
f ⫽ Fracture
w ⫽ Wellbore

References
AlThawad, F., Alshahri, A. Algattan, A.: “Optimizing Horizontal Well Placement in the Faulted
Ghawar Field by Integrating Pressure Transient and 3D Seismic,” paper SPE 62986 presented at
the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1– 4 October 2000.
Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego, F.: “Transient Pressure Analysis of Fractured Wells,” paper SPE 7490,
first presented at the SPE 53rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (ATCE) that was held
in Houston, 1–3 October 1978.
Guppy, K.H., Cinco-Ley, H., Ramey H. J., and Samaniego-V, F.: “Non-Darcy Flow in Wells With
Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fractures,” paper SPE 8281 (1982).
IPTC-17785-MS 13

Kuchuck, F. and Aystaran, L.: ‘Analysis of Simultaneously Measured Pressure and Sandface Flow
Rate in Transient Well Testing,” JPT (1985).
Houze, O. P., Roland, H., and Ramey H. J.,: “Infinite Conductivity Vertical Fracture in a Reservoir
with Double Porosity Behavior,” paper SPE 12778, presented in the Annual California Regional
Meeting held in Long Beach, CA, April 11-13, 1984.
Ramey, H.J.: “Practical Use of Modern Well Test Analysis,” paper SPE 5878, presented in the SPE
46th Annual California Regional Meeting held in Long Beach, CA, April 8-9, 1976.
Raghavan, R.: “Pressure Behavior of wells Intercepting Fractures,” Proc., Invitational Well-Testing
Symposium, Berkeley, CA, October 19-21, 1977.
Villinger, H.,: “Solving cylindrical geothermal problems using Gaver-Stehfest inverse Laplace trans-
form,” Geophysics, (1985).

SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

bbl ⫻ 1.589 873 E–01 ⫽ m3
cp ⫻ 1.0 E⫹00 ⫽ mPa.s
ft ⫻ 3.048 E–01 ⫽ m
ft3 ⫻ 2.831 685 E–02 ⫽ m3
psia ⫻ 6.894 757 E⫹00 ⫽ kPaa
14 IPTC-17785-MS

Appendix A
Solution Assumptions
y Vertical well penetrating a horizontal layer with a circular cylindrical infinite drainage domain.
y The drainage domain is divided into two linear composite reservoirs (fracture is splitting the two reservoirs) with
different quality, permeability k.
y The porous volume is bounded by top impermeable boundary and

y Initially (at time zero) at constant pressure and

y Production occurs through a fully penetrating Uneven flux vertical fracture with fracture conductivity of (kf . wf).
y Post-fracture production, the transient is radial and has not reached the lateral boundaries.
y Reservoirs are homogeneous and isotropic within each side of the fracture.
y Reservoirs are not alike from each side of the fracture.
y Single phase with slightly compressible fluid (cf), the reservoir total compressibility is (ct), costant viscosity (uf) and
formation volume factor (B), flows from porous media to the fracture.
y Fluids properties are independent of pressure.
y Gravity forces are neglected.
Considerations for selecting different reference permeabilities
As noted from Appendix, dimensionless variables have been used to reach to the proposed general solution. One of those
dimensionless variables is permeability. Any reference permeability, kr, can be used to convert the reservoir permeability into
dimensionless form as long as it is consistent with the other reservoirs. In generating results, we have used kr⫽1.0 to retain
the dimensionless permeability to be the same as the dimensional permeability. As for the fracture reference permeability; an
arithmetic average of the two reservoir region permeabilities is used .

Considering that, the hydraulically fractured well is located between region-1 and region-2. This calculation of the fracture
dimensionless conductivity, , will reflect a realistic influence of the two reservoirs.
Reservoir 1
(A-1)

Reservoir 2
(A-2)

Then;
the dimensionless PDE equation for a finite conductivity fracture in an asymmetric reservoir:
(A-3)

where;
(A-4)

(A-5)

The fracture reference permeability is the arithmetic average of the two bounding reservoirs:
(A-6)

(A-7)

(A-8)

(A-9)

where;
IPTC-17785-MS 15

Figure A-1—Fracture with a source term

(A-10)

and the dimensionless pressure is

(A-11)

the dimensionless coordinates written as

(A-12)

(A-13)

the dimensionless time

(A-14)

Validation of solution
Cinco-Ley and F. Samaniego (1978) solution assumes a symmetric system on both sides of the fracture. However, this
approach assumes asymmetric system (unequal mobility ratios of the two regions surrounding the fracture). Thus, if you apply
the symmetric reservoir approach where the rate per unit area from the two regions are equal, they become identical, except,
this approach assumes an infinite fracture half-length.
(A-15)

Adding a source term using Heaviside Step function:

Differentiate equations with respect to x and y and time then substitute in the MBE equation and use Heaviside unit step
function for the plane source (Figure A-1). The below diagram clarifies the statement problem:
The unit step function is a used to “switch” on and off. It is expressed mathematically as H(x-a), where a designates the
shift from the origin. The corresponding dimensionless PDE equation for a finite conductivity fracture with a source term in
an asymmetric reservoir:
(A-16)

for this statement problem both (a & ⌬x0 where the well, source term, is at origin (a ⫽ 0)
Initial Boundary condition
(A-17)

Boundary condition
16 IPTC-17785-MS

(A-18)

Laplace Transformation
The Laplace transformation of all equations with respect to dimensionless time (tDf) in terms of parameter (s):
Fracture:
(A-19)

(A-20)

(A-21)

Fourier Transformation
The Fourier transform of all equations with respect to space variable (xD) in terms of parameter (␳)
Fracture:
(A-22)

Where; the Fourier transform on the delta function ␦(xD – a):

(A-23)

(A-24)

Reservoir 1:
(A-25)

The solution to the above Helmholtz equation

(A-26)

Hence,
(A-27)

Since it is infinite for Res2 at(–yD), Figure A-2, it becomes:

(A-28)

(A-29)

Similarly for
Reservoir 2:
(A-30)

(A-31)

Since it is infinite for Res2 at(⫹yD), it becomes:

IPTC-17785-MS 17

Figure A-2—Res1 is infinite at –yD

(A-32)

then, @ yD ⫽ 0:
(A-33)

(A-34)

Solving for Fractured Wellbore Pressure in Fourier Domain

Differentiating the above w.r.t. (yD):
(A-35)

(A-36)

Substitute in the above fracture equation in Fourier space and solving for :
(A-37)

Take inverse of Fourier transformation with respect to ␳ for reverting it back to the variable xD, in Laplace domain:
(A-38)

The above integration is an even function in ␳ domain whilst it cannot have negative values, the above equation can be
simplified as the final equation for the wellbore pressure in Laplace domain is:
(A-39)
18 IPTC-17785-MS

where;
(A-40)

(A-41)

The solution code is enabled with dimensionless Skin and wellbore storage (WBS) using Kuchuck and Aystaran (1985).
dimensionless equations and limited to positive skin only:
(A-42)

(A-43)