A Fast Convolution Method for Implementing Single-Porosity Finite/Infinite Aquifer Models for Water-Influx Calculations W.F. Leung,* Gulf R&D Co. SHE 12276 Summary. Existing aquifer models are either inaccurate for reservoir water- computationally inefficient o influx calculations. A’ new fast convolution method (CM) that does not require lengthy data manipulation is used to implement four different single-porosity finite and infinite aquifer models for unsteady-state water-influx calculations. used to demonstrate the accuracy and approach is as much as 20% more accurate efficiency of the Numeral examples on cicalar and linear aquifers together with a step-by-step calclation, a are studies ‘show that the FCM ¢ models, These numerical than the widely used methods for both finite and infinite aquifers. ‘The models can be implemented readily in numerical reservoir simulators, as well as in hand computations. Introduction Woater influx is an important navural mechanism for primary recovery of hydrocarbons. It ormaly calor lated with mathemati model transieat model, and infnie-aquifer of accuracy, are applicable for finite aquifers, whereas the last model pertains to i more methods. Several examples of both circular and Uineat eauifers ilustrate the wiry and accuracy of the Background “The steady-state model! is applicable fora reservoir and aquifer of such a large extent that water influx does not affect the pressure state of either system. ‘Now wan Sommoonsr | Conta 100 Soin of Poa gna 0 The size of reservoirs and aquifers is usually limited. In practice, uasteady-state water inffux in which the pres- sure at the reservoir or the aquifer changes with time is frequently encountered. The literature discusses threc Spe tay ema ot twa rom finite and infinite-acting aquifers, They are de~ scribed briefly below. Pot Aquifer Model—Finite Aquifers. The aquifer pres- sure is assumed’ to be at instant equilibrium with the ‘boundary pressure in this model, This restrictive tion is valid only if fnid transmissibility berween the iad eo vey ge td tf Bac is very sonall compared with the reservoir. Fetkovitch’s PSS Model—Finite Aquifers. Fetkovitch* proposed thé PSS aquifer model to explain the late-time. ‘transient effect of water inflox. The development of the model is largely empirical, and there is no set guideline 10 determine when the model is valid. This aspect will be discussed later. ‘Transient Model—Finite and Infinite Aquifers. This ons vwater influx for Hnear* and cireatar? . Therefore, the transient model is more: ‘Figocous in treanment of than other . One disadvantage of this model, however, is thatis continuously changing with time in response to the var- jation in boundary pressure. Present Work ‘This paper describes four different aquifer models. PSS Model, The PSS concept is examined first, followed by a discossion of the FOS twodel and te FCM. Finally, several numerical examples are used to demonstrate the PSS Concept, Fora it aqui of eghitry srome- try, we show that when t>t,, the aquifer teaches ‘such that With the assumption of constant aquifer proper, te rate of water influx is determined from Darey’s law and the PSS relationship (Eq. 1) to be ++ @ay TABLE 1—PSS DRAINAGE RADIUS OF CIRCULAR AQUIFER: ee. SP Fetch Rett, “8 An Saft EQ. AB) S.A, Ea. 10) 1a 0.0405, 15" 0.1637, 0.1916, 2 0.3156 0.3601 3 os77 0.6368, 4 0.7840 0.8811 5 oars tos? 6 1.1313. 1.2002 : tase a8 8 1.3880 1.4572 9 1.4963 1.5648 8 ies lee 2 Bases aan 2 1680 aia where J=kA/pS . The cumulative and incremental water influx are obtained when the rate of influx is integrated with time. Thus and AW,=UB3-PE), -. where 0 and n designate the iniial and nth timestep, re spectively, and the aquifer capacity, U, is ob. psn, were cotati the rte expresion (a. 2a), it wonld Bave been a toe. ‘flow; however, ‘because the ‘varies with time, the fluid transfer is only to be termed PSS. tis not the intent of this work to prove the PSS rela- tioaship (Eq. ) to hold for finite aquifers of arbitrary ge~ geaetal. Nevertheless, the PSS relationship for Firs, tbe te t9 reach PSS, tp» is shown to be of the same order as the response time of the aquifer;'r. Sec- -If Eq. 3 and Eq. 2a are combined, we obtain the govern- ing equation at PSS—i.c., tt, 00, FO wtp FAD oer) where the rate constant, a, is defined by eet © OV). V Suche ~ Because bo ~0(L), k(Gpc) ~(L2/1) and the volume-to- area ratio VIA~O(L), then a~Or3"!), The initial con- dition is expressed 28 490, pl=p?. .... +6 The solution to Eqs. 4 and 6 can be obtained by either fe eo son grab = Patompter val pumea-nat peeeeeee Eq. isp by pa, We getan albemative form of | ‘aquifer pressure expressed as a function Fald™Pl5~ I -s-Pab. 8 fe We Shaadi natin Bar tor Ba flux, W,, are obtained by combining Eq. 7 (or Eq. 8) with Eq. 2a and with Eq. 2b, Convolution Eqs. 7 and 8 are known as the wherees ater at 18 with OO to, the integral a" is ot equal to at ¢* plus the incremental integral Suerte, ‘Consequently, at a given timestep, the integral tas to be evaluated from 0 to that timestep. a reall paltheo"'-Dap =f" pride ets é + [pues 0, 2 ‘Using the exponential nd weob- tain the FCM result for the integral 7 PtbemeneAL -O As seen in Eq. 9, the convohution integral at time e**! is equal to the sum of the previous integral at ® multi- ied ty an exponential decay factor ¢ T= and the f= promire any betoe oe ae oats pressure 5 poe eur f evahatng 2**1, thus data storage and computation effort are Using Eq. 9, we rewrite Eqs. 7 and 8, respectively, as eal PulByen2"" 8B, (10a) BET epf +e“ G 3-1) = G0) oi Ze gna Hag. “The result expressed by Eq. 10a is preferable to Eq. 10b because itis more convenient to evaluate the integral involving pressure than the derivative of pressure. The incremental convolution integral is evaluated in the fol- lowing section. Boundary-Pressure Interpolation Schemes. The is required to evaluate the con- ‘They are often expressed as dis- an ‘Step Inserpolation of Boundary Pressure, For the step interpolation of boundary pressure (SIBP), the interpo- ated value of boundary pressure: ceure between "and =" is given by ++ (02) Pa(= 4p) tpy"), (tp/rg)r4 to confirm va- lidity of the PSS model. Then, calctla‘e U, 5./r,, and ot fom Tale 2 and ee foreach sew vate Car Step 2-~Average Aquifer Pressure. With Ea, 13 (LIBP) or Eq, 16 (SIBP), calculate pg" from p 2, with inital conditions p? =p?, 3—Water Influx. With Eqs. 2b and 2c, caleulate sing 2° and U obtained fom Steps Note that Step 3s entirely separate from Step 2; how- ever, it may be carried out in conjunction with Step 2 to evaluate the influx quantities at each timestep. __ Limiting Cases of PSS Model. ‘Two interesting limit- is assumed to be finite. When xAt> >04h), Bas. 2, 13, and 14 redoce to the simple equations for the pot aquifer model, Whea aAs< <0(1), Sexponcnia toes Ep, 14 can still be considered an. ship be- ‘tween the aquifer and PSS Model. The PSS model preserted is governing Eq. 4, except that p, is taken to be constant. tbe inal pressure of the aquifer i taken to be the aver: ge sulferprstue of the provions timestep “i.e, pe. ‘The incremental water influx is AW =UBE—A(pitpE de"), «AS. and the total influx is caleulated by summing all the in- ‘cremental flux: WrleaW, +02. 16) 93‘TABLE 3—HUMERICAL EXAMPLE DATA 2) Creu Aputer Data Dake”) fy fe) 920 04 8, dograee irc 140° [2.4] See Dre) ra10-* 101531055) t r ratte oss swe (©) Unear.Aquiter Data: AR? Im?) 19" 19.29 104 aig FEBES ©, psi} ” Sx10-* 2x 107") gear) eran ‘TABLE 4—PSS CIRCULAR-AQUIFER EXAMPLE, R25 ep: ‘Stop 1—Basic Parameters (Tables 1, 2, and Sa) ta = §neF/2St he tt years io irrendasnadtnts Bie years U = (@/S80)3 -12)po4"5.8196=77, Rape reenc may oT Sah (tlt At — noe om 1 a ET nO a year en = 0.616, (0 Se Press im by ee ext, ae re 5 2, o 2/500 ° -240 ae a8 2290 © 210 ie 1286 302 Stop 9—Flux cess ‘The aquifer pressure at ¢**! is determined from the material-balance equation, Eq. 2b. Thus wet brt=pt-7E ‘To.adapt this model for a time-dependent boundary pres- ste, Eas. 15 Gong 7 ae ope eo the incremental inftax, been justified in ecvina work? I's of ores tat Ba 15 of the Fetkovitch model is identical to the results of ‘oar PSS model evaluated with the SIBP scheme. This fol- Jows by substiution of Eq. 14 into Eq. 2c. The Fetkovitch material-balance calculation, Eqs. 15 through 17, is ia fact a special case of the FCM, which uses the recursive ‘exponential time—e.g., 34 ~t seh errant formal, Ep 1B apd 14 and he Feovieh Fetkovitch material-balance procedure 498 ‘wonld not hold. However, this important aspect was not realized in earlier work, ‘The most impoitant discrepancy between, the two model tht amore oret veo the rage rans is used in this study. As noted previously, the PSS drainage aus Sept onthe ype of boundary pressure interpolation schemes. For a linear aquifer, it was found tat iL=Als? for SBP and foc LIP, ‘whereas Fet- kovitch incorreciy used B.5/L="% for SIBP. For a cir- colar aquifer, Tiree SBP & gen Bh AB, whereas Fetkovitch used, an approximate result (Eq. ‘A: 10), Table 1 coubares the PSS drainage rans for cit ‘cular aquifers in this srody with the value used by Fet- kovitch. As shown, Fetkovitch’s value is below the more correct value used here for R< 10. The effect of differ- of Brown in Fig. 1A sep y sep exlulatin prooedare this example sith LIBP is shown in detail in Table 4. A similat proceditre has been carried out (not shown) with, the SIBP. Unlike the Fetkovitch model, the pressure cal- culation that uses the present PSS aquifer model shown in Step 2 of Table 4 does not require an extra material: balance (ef. Bas, 1Gand 17), After the aga fer pressure is calculated, the water influx can be deter- thined separately in Step 3 of Table 4, For the present eoumple, p, changes according to a timé scale, Ar=i yar; whereas the tine wo reach PS, tp (hm Table 4), B LLLyews. As aml, les apponitianly 1 pe out forthe wandent efecto eo comely ‘We expect thatthe transient effeet might not be important Siar for comparison. Fig. 2 shows that the PSS water influxes calculated by both schemes are slightly below ‘SPE Reservoir Engineering, Sepanber 198510 the result inless the timestep is kept small. On the con- trary, the LIBP uses the full pressure change at each timestep. the major difference berween the present model and Fet” kkovitch's model is the choice of 8./r,. From Table 1 with SIBP and with R=5, 3./r, is determined for the PSS and Fetkovitch models to be 1.0457 and 0.8594, re- spesvely. Bocas the druaage rads calexled by te Fetkovitch moda! is 18% smaller, the and the resulting water influx should be higher. ne? 2 i i Fig. 2—Comparing PSS and transient FCM results with ex- isting methods for R= example. aa { LIB 79 PSS CTHIS LORKD © © 95S (THIS WORK) + + SCARTER AAD TRACY #8 SFETKOUITOR SIBP CUMULATIVE HATER INFLUX CHMRB > —— TRANSIENT. FOX THIS HORK) OR SUPERPOSITION —— TRANSIENT, FOXX THIS MORK) OR SUPERPOSITION z TIME (YEARS) Fig, 3~-Comparing PSS and transient FCU results with existing methods for A= 10 example, SPE Reservoir Engineering, September 1986O24 € 8 10 121416 18 20 | nore transient models for Ti iSong pees pn ben Pa linear-aqutter example. shows that the 17, of the Fetkovitch model is indeed con- scheme provides 2 more accurate representation of the sisteatly higher than the exact solution calculated by the boundary-pressure data, only this scheme is used in the SBP cree solution, whereas the preaot PSS model prnet example Fi. 4 shows tbe LIBP history anda sr- closely follows the exact solution. ies of production, reservoir stabilization, and injection _ Next, the PSS model is tested for aquifers under tran- processes carried out within the 20 years of production that the drainage diameter of the aquifer is twice as of 1,000 psi [6.9 MPa]. The calculation procedure is simi- ircolar aquifer i . large—i.e., R=10, Because the aquifer ta is to 72, t.=2? x44 x 408 year, tpeebrell fom Bp fe mala it is serctly not applicable. The results of the calculations : tins fs cacelent nortan tb Guetuation of are shown in Fig. 3 for both on schemes. boundary pressure with time. Note in this example influx sotution based on the Fetkovitch mode! is also in- ths cing Be Sah sigh you te reco baud cluded in Fig. 3 for comparison. As in the R=5exam- ary pressure increases after decreasing for the initial 6 ple, water influx calculated by the LIBP scheme tends to _years; subsequently, fluid (hydrocarbon and water) remms Correct for the time lag in response to the boundary- from the reservoir to the aquifer, reflecting a drop ia cu pressure change. For #>10 years, the LIBP-PSS influx mulatve water influx from 2.3X10® to 1.6% 10° res bol Solution converges to its corresponding transient solution, [0.366% 108 to 0.254108 res m3}. ‘herees the result based on the SIBP scheme consistent. Prasture Variation Along ReservoirlAquifer Bound- ly falls below its solution. On the ba- ary, Pressure may change substantially along the reser is of this observation, it is inferred that the simple PSS voir/aquifer’ of the complicated ‘model using the LIBP scheme provides a good estimate geometry of the reservoir and the locations ‘and strengths: of water infiox even whett early transient effect is of inject i within the resecvoirs. Several dominant. reservoirs sharing a common aquifer also: ‘As discussed earlier, not all PSS models account for 89 The effect of the -time transient effect, Therefore, as with the LIBP- variation wnay be treated approximately PSS and SIBP-PSS solutions, the solution also withthe PSS mode! as follows. Firs, all boundary regions deviates from the exact solution. The accuracy of the Fet- th diferent pressures ps0, Pa(). « are identified: ovitch model for is example is comparable to that of Under PSS, i is assumed thatthe uid transfer from jhe LIBP-PSS, as seen in Fig. 3: Nevertheless, the Fetkovitch aquifer to cach region may be represeated by ‘odel snot recommended becanse itis not consistent as Ibodel eter cnderpredits or waerinfox, — W~7APA~PICO), - 18) or overpredicts = 10) or a small (R=! epending on «large (R10) or small Re sie, fel2..."aod the sity index Jp fers wit TSS model osened oy a tamale Sh CjiBaiXp)q~ The total outflux from the aquifer is aquifer properties given in Table 3b. Becanse the LIBP _ given by a summation of the individual flux g;, which 496 ‘SPE Reservoir Engineering, Sepoember 1985is also determined by the material-balance equation (Eq. 3); bence, we obtain an: ‘governing equation of the PSS aquifer mode! subject to a temporal and spa- tial varying boundary pressure p, @P ,, 1): &. Dailei-Pei0), ceceeeeeeseeesee (19) where ar il¥)—. Eq. 19 cam be siti by et nition of the global rate constant, a, and the spatial aver- age boundary pressure, P,, 25 a= Bar cece t bees tees eeeeeneeee @0a) and PO= Va Dawid. cevetettteeeeseeeee (200) gs. 20aresubtiuted into Eq, 19, we obtain he ial ‘equation, which is ‘identical sults derived previously are applicable with p() replaced by FO. ‘Transient Model For Finite Aquifers. The transient model accounts for early-time transient effects that are for finite aquifers subject to variable ‘pressure. Before discussing the FCM for this application, the clas- ‘technique for the transient model will be reviewed briefly. boundary pressure, it is given by w= ul ° gun, deeeeeeeegreeee en where for a circular aquifer, . UU’ =2x(O/360)hr}ob=2UKR?—1).....-+--- (228) and tp=ki(euer?); ... ++ (22b) and for a linear aquifer, Ur =Uacs¥ and tp=leppel?). .. 0.26.00. eee (23D) “The dimensionless rate functions, @, for linear? and circular? aquifers have been calculated previously and are Plotted in Fig. 6 a5 a function of dimensionless time and A eaten wnterinfaxty te at alll previous, times in a reversed manner—i.e., 057! 28), Oes*! —15-').. .O08*1). These rate solutions are ly not expressible by simple ftinc- 47‘TABLE 5—TRANSIENT CIRCULAR-AQUIFER EXAMPLE, A=6 @ uP: U (am 35 Tab 4 ate -0s087 a ‘ly =2008katGper? =5.87 ma, af 0.0797, H, =5.5841, m= 2, a} =1.2978, H, =0.2104, ons wo,o008s7, “5 ses. oy 2 (Ge) 4.510) _ Ea. BS) o 27000 0 4 2500 20 428 2 2200 5 =1.070 timesteps, the amount of data handling and computation effort becomes substantial. The problem is compounded because the size of each timestep in the simulation may tot be the same; therefore, the rate functions evaluated atthe previous este re ot applicable ate eames timestep and have to be re-evaluated. Consequently, the analytic solution under the state of the art dots not lend itself readily to numerical reservoir simulations. ‘The FCM is used to implement the analytical solution of the transient model. The implemeatation of the tran- sient model with the. FCM is similar to that of the PSS model, and it is detailed in Appendices B and C for cir cular and linear aquifers, respectively. 438 ‘Step 1--Baste Parameters (Tables 3a and B-t) ‘Stored Parameters (=3M +3) YU, BS (oe W,) oF 3 (for AW,), AA? = 1), 4 -07taHo} ont, Halt a » Oat; mat,2. MM (M2 this example) Eat Set 2 Eien th ‘Step 3—Flux (MMRB) ‘techy A “AW, a hin czby _eebn abn ab) Eo (Eo 2) °° ZrO = Qo o 2,780 0 oO 1 2800-240 «=~ 10732-88528 858.458 2 220-2100 1629.84 6.002863. 1972" 9.16 1 ae. ws. ‘Step 1 same as (a) ‘Sep 2—Pressure (ps) ‘Stop 3—Flux (UMAB) exe etby exe) abs ° 2.740 o 0 ~0018 2601 373 379 0090 «25731289 8.10 Transiént Circular-Aquifer . The circular ‘aquifer examples (Table 3a) with R=5 and 10 are used to iflustrate the transient model implemented with the FCM. A detailed step-by-step calculation procedure for the R-=5 case with LIBP and SUBP is shown in Tables ‘Sa and 5b, respectively. Because the series summation ‘converges rapidly to the exact solution, only two leading order terms (Bf=2) are used. The use of only two terms is also consistent with the results obtained by van Ever- ingen and Hurst? for finite aquifers. As shown in Ta- ble 5, nine variables need to be stored in active memory and 11 algebraic operations are required per timestep, re- sulting in a total of 110 operations for 10 timesteps. In ‘SPE Reservoir Engineering, Sepember 1986ve 4p, 08 -¢b) ee 4.88) eas Co ae 6,445 (120% 10.00 + 2259.10 + 196x7.46+ 170%4.89) 6.446 (120 10.83 + 2252 10.00 + 196 8.104 1707.48 $148x 4.88) 8,448 (120 11.27 + 225 x 10.83 + 196 x 10.09 + 1709.10 4146x7464 123%: 6,448 (120 11.52-+ 225% 11.27 + 196% 10.65 + 170 10.09 $146x9.10+ 123 x7.46 + 1054.88) 6,448 (120 x 11.69 + 225 x 11.52 + 196% 11.27 + 170 10.89 $148 x 10.08 4 123 9.10-+ 105 x 7.48 9 844.89) 6,446 (120 11.81 + 2250 11,59 + 1983 11.52 +1700 11.27 ++ 148% 10.834 123 x 10.004 108 x 9.10+84%7.46 465x428. 6,446 (120% 11.89. 225 x 11,81 + 196% 11.69+ 170% 11.52 9 146% 14.274 123 10.83. 105 x 10.09 4649.10 $68X7.46047 4.88) general, the number of variables that need to be stored is GM+3) aod the total algebraic operations is (4M+3), where Mand N are the total number of terms used in the summation and the total timesteps involved, respective- ly. For finite-sized aquifers, M is usually less than 5. com = Suit re eps of wea tenn (M=2) is ient for the des of Te seis degree of scary 1a he way of be FC, camron hs been made in Fig. 2 between the FCM results and the conventional method for the R=5 case, AS means and seven operations per timestep are required for this . method. ‘A similar comparison has been made in Fig. 3 between the FCM results and,the superposition resulis for the R=10 case. Again, good agreement is obtained in this ‘comparison, and conclusions similar to the Ree5 case can be drawa. ‘The only difference between the R= 10 and ‘R=5 examples is that the large? aquifer tends to be more infinite-acting during the early-time period. Therefore, the relative error during the early-time period is slightly Sighe han the R=5 case when only the leading term it used. Again this errr can be controlled wit the se of ‘he calculation fo ‘mmemaory in the computation process is 2N (see Table 6), SSPE Reservoir Engineering, September 1986 ‘which increases linearly with increasing timesteps. For (e-g., table nap an aye) a st en method. As such, the above ressure/time curve reap baigeted ct be ening a fer response would be more pronounced for larger timestep sizes. To study the sensitivity of schemes, the 499‘TABLE 7—MODIFIED PSS MODEL PARAMETERS Seavanson age 8 At was doubled, Hence, it follows that the LIBP scherme Provides a more accurate representation of the continu- ‘ous p,(0) history and is less sensitive to larger timestep Size than the cooventional SIBP scheme. fx. The Carter and Tracy method requires a table lookup of f and the derivative of f at each timestep. It can be seen from Eq, 24 that the Carter and Tracy method re- major drawback of this method is that it is aot very ac- ‘curate. This is demonstrated in the following numerical ‘examples. ‘The water fluxes calculated by Eq. 24 for R=5 and 10 axe show in Figs. 2 and 9. Figs, 2 and 3 cel sbow that the Carter solution underpredicts Infor by as mach a3 20% a the eatly-tie petod, This discrepancy results from an incorrect that the. rate of water influx is constant at each timestep. 0 CUPARATIVE WATER IMPLI Cre) a 4. s1eP Ls » 2 In Figs. 2 and 3, it is interesting to compare the ac- curacy of the, various approximate methods. For exam~ ple, with reference to the SIBP results at 1=6 years in Fig. 2, the transieat model gives the correct value W,, 58.176 108 res bot [9.249 10° res m?). The PSS model yields W7,=56.848%10° tex bl (9.036106 re 1], 2% less than she exact solmion, ‘The method, however, yields ied Bes I0e resp bel (9.677%10* res 1°}, 5% more than the exact. ‘The Canter and Tracy method gives W, =53. SSS eaaxci08 tes bbl (8.561%10° res m3], 7% below the correct ‘value. From this comparison, we concluded that the pres- ‘ent PSS model is the closest approximation to the exact ancient model among the tee approximate aquifer Gvample of Transent Liner-Agulfer Model. The” previous linear-aquifer example is used to illustrate the results for aquifer pressure and cumulative water” inux are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. As pointed out earlier, these results are used as a basis for validating the PSS model. MPSS Model, Because the PSS model camot account jo curately forte fast tania effet wen the afer ean {is detailed in Appendix D. In this model, a modified aver- age aquifer pressare is defined as : Pampa O=C-BiPO+BP aps. - ‘SPE Reservoir Engineering, September 1986Aty §5.67 > tanga Jor U, Af same 3s Table: ‘TABLE 8—MPSS CIRCULAR-AQUIFER EXAMPLE, R=3 BR (Step 1—Basic Parameters (Tables 1, 2, 3a, and 7: * : S33 7MPSS mel vata Herpat Ota? a BB or Table 9 under S18P) =2R* I (3 w/t KF? ~ 1] 0.482 ye" oer Yeats =08007 6, =0.9907 (Table 7) (a) UEP: Step 2—Pressure (psi) ‘Step 3—Flux (MMRB) Pd we AW, 2,740 o o Zernr 488 a8 2,561.61 13.80 9.43 2,417.98 2695S (0) SIBP: 7 . ‘Step 2—Pressure (psi) Step 3—Flux (MMRB) es Pe Pa ond AW, 2 Geen esi eT _eaBF ay cen by O 2,740 2,740 2,740 2,740 oO 3 2500. Be aeeesy 2eo107 oe 2 2290 2,395 2,586.79: 2,573.50 9.09 2 bio bie | zesar | 2eze8s 18 ‘where p1(() is the interpolated pressure given by either Pu €q. 1) or psy Eq. 12), and Pet is the average ‘aquifer pressure obtained from the PSS model. As shown in Appendix D, the weighing coefficient, 81, is a func- tion of R. A tabulation of 8, for a practical range of R values encountered in reservoir smdy, is given in Table 7. The sole effect of 8 is to boost the characteristic response of the PSS aquifer model to early-time changes that oocur at the reservoir/aquifer boundary. Table 7 shows that 8; varies between the two limits of &/x? (as R approaches unity) and 1 (as R>50). In the latter, as By approaches 1, Papa approaches Papa. Hence, the tect et efferiv in coftcng fo tbe trie ete inthis Ln In wich cas the Sate model (with M> 1) or the infinite aquifer model discussed later would be more appropriate. The time range of liability of the MPSS mode! is compared with the rmodel in Table 7,1 clear thatthe dimensionless time range of validity ofthe MPSS model has been increased above the PSS model on the average by about one logarith- mic eycle for R= to 50. ‘MPSS Circular-Aquifer Example. The PSS examples for R=5 and 10 illustrate the accuracy ofthe new method. A step-by-step calculation for the two examples with both LIBP and SIBP is detailed in Table 8, The computation cffort required for the MPSS model is n0 more than the PSS model except that Fe spas bas to be calculated at ev- ery tinestep (see Table 8). The cumulative water inffax calenlated with the MPSS model for R=5 is shown in Fig. 7. The LIBP and SIBP results calculated with the new ‘SPE Reservoir Engineering, September 1986 method agree excellently with their respective exact so- lutions. The MPSS solution in Fig. 7 is more accurate than the corresponding PSS solution in Fig. 2, especially for the SIBP results. For comparison purpose, the Carter and Tracy result in Fig. 2 is replotted in Fig. 7. This 1e- sults significantly less accurate when compared with the MPSS solution. ‘The MPSS solution for R= 10 is plotted in Fig. 8. Con- clusions similar to those with the R-=5 case can be drawa here. The discrepancy between the PSS solution and the exact solution in Fig. 3 is minimized with the use of the modified method. One interesting observation is that, un- like the PSS solution that coaverges with time to the ex- act solution from below, the MPSS solution converges to the exact solution from above. As shown in Fig. 8, the Carter and Tracy solution is again significantly less, accurate than the MPSS solution. Infinite-Aquifer Model. Aquifers behave as virtually in- finite when R is greater than 50, in which case tp/R* < <1 for typical aquifer properties. The rate func- tion shown in Fig. 6 does nét seem to reach the constant Portion of the curve within the time range of practical ap- Plication. The series solutions (Eqs. B-3 and B-4 for cir- cular aquife? and Eqs. C-3 and C-4 for linear aquifer) are theoretically applicable to infinite aquifers. The number of terms for convergence of the series is large, however, this approach is ruled out in practice. A practical solv tion to this problem isto correlate the theoretical rate fanc- .tion for infinite aquifer R=c> with an exponential series 01CUMULATIVE HATER INFLUX CHHRB) ‘similar to Eq. B-1, where M is restricted to a practical value of perhaps less than 10. Specificeliy, the correla tion series is a Bmr0- Dy mete, - 26) where nq and fq are the linear and nonlinear coetfi- cients, respectively. It was found that to fit the rate func ion curve accurately with a nonlinear least-squares ‘method, about one nonlinear coefficient is required for ‘every additional logarithmic y function was curve-fitted with Eq. 26 with three nonlinear terms for every three consecutive cycles from tp =10~$ 10 107. The results from the correlation are given in Ta- ble 9. Another correlation used six nonlinear terms and covered a wider time span from tp = 10~> to 10? (Ta- bie 9). This correlation is ‘with the theoretical result in Fig. 9. These results show that the correlation agrees well with the theory except when fp <0.004, and then slight deviation is observed. The correlation func- tions provided in Table 9 should cover most of the prac- tical time range of interest. The i ion of the infinite-aquifer model with the FCM using the correla~ tion functions is given in Appendix E. so {— SUPERPOSITION (EXACT SOLUTION) (* ° © MODIFIED PSS (THIS MORK) ‘SUPERPOSITION (EXACT SOLUTEGN) © © © SODIFIED PSS (THIS JnRK) * * © CARTER SND TRACY, ge cycle. The theoretical rate, S 6 7 #8 3 18 TINE (YEARS) Fig. 8 Comparing modified PSS method with existing mettiods for A= 10 example. Infinite-Aquifer Example, The accuracy of the FCM for infinite aquifers was tested with an exam- He The cueaar- ages datas Tate a were wad in the calenlation with the assumption that the aquifer was taken to be infinite. A smaller pressure change was used with p,=2,740 psia [18.9% 10° kPa] initally reducing to 2,714 psia (18.7% 103 kPa] in 0.1 year, A smaller timestep size was used to study the fast transient effects. ‘The timestep was taken to be 0.01 year, and the SIBP scheme was used with 10 wniform timesteps in between the end points. Thns the dimensionless timestep was cal- culated to be 5.67x10~?, which is 1/100 of the timestep used in the previous circular-aduifer examples. A corre- lation ia this time range wit three ooalinear terms was selected froi Table 9 for this example. ‘A comparison is made in Fig. 10 between the water inftux calculated by the FCM, which uses the analytical ‘correlation, and the conventional superposition method, which uses the rate function tabulated by van Everdin- gea and Hurst.> The figure shows excellent agreement, between the two methods, which confirms the accuracy of the FCM applied to infinite aquifers. For comparison ‘purpose, the same example was calculated with Carter and ‘Tracy's method, and the result is shown in Fig. 10. As with the finite-aquifer examples, Carter and. Tracy's method consistently underpredicts water influx by as much SPE Reservoir Eogincering, September 1986820%. Therefore, this casts serious doubts as to the ac- curacy of this widely used method for both finite and in- finite aquifers. teh operation The data storage and requirements for implementing the Tetof agile del wih he RCM are similar to the transient model for finite aquifers, name- ly 3M¢+3 and M(4M+3), respectively. The cormespood- ing requirements forthe ‘method are 2N and Nive, respectively, the operations involved in the rate function evaluation. When the number of timesteps exceeds 14, there is less data manipulation for the FCM (with three nonlifcar terms) than for the super- position method. This criterion is ustally met in a typi- cal numerical reservoir simulation, which has hundreds of timesteps. Moreover, the storage requirement for the FCM is below that ofthe Superposition method. There fore, the FCM is a more accurate and efficient means of implementing the infinite-aquifer model than the super- position method and Carter and Tracy's method. Use of Aquifer Modes. The various ways te-use the four aquifer modes presented in this sidy ae summar- ate dae For short early-time transient cases, use the PSS model. It is more accurate than the Fetkovitch and Carter and Tracy models and more efficient but less accurate than the superposition method. For moderate transient effect cases, use the MPSS model. It is more accurate than the PSS, Fetkovitch, and Carter and Tracy ‘models and is mote efficient than and as accurate as the ‘superposition method. For significant transient effect cases, use the transient model. It is more accurate than the MPSS, PSS, Fetkovitch, and Carter and Tracy models and is more efficient than and as accurate asthe superpo- sition method. Infinite Aquifers, For dominant transient effect cases, use the FCM infinite-aquifer model. It is more accurate. than the Canter and Tracy model and is more efficient than and as accurate as the superposition method. Conclusions 1, The PSS model, transient model, MPSS mode, and infnite-aquifér model for water-infitx calculation have been studied. The fist three models are applicable to finite aquifers, whereas the last model is applicable to infinite aquifers. Moreover, these models are demonstrated in de- tail for both circular and linear aquifers. The PSS and ‘MPSS models can be used for other nonregular aquifer geometries provided thatthe drainage radius can be ¢s- 2. The solution to the water-influx problem is a rate function, which consists of a series of exponential fume- tions. An FCM that uses the exponential property of the rate function has been developed. Recursive integral for- ‘olas have been derived for each model with the FCM. ‘These integral formulas do not require past boundary- pressure history; therefore, data storage and manipula- tion are minimized. ‘3, Coaventional SIBP and new LIBP schemes have been used to evaluate the convolution integrals. The SIBP Scheme is found to be less accurate than the LIBP scheme, especially when the timestep size is large. 4. The PSS model for finite aquifers.has been studied ‘in detail. Contrary to the Fetkovitch model, it is found that the drainage radius under PSS depends on the type ‘SPE Reservoir Engineering, Sepiember 1986 0) tp= 107% to 10-* te 0181946 x 103 a12912% 108 0.14198x 10" a ° 1 2 3 @tp=10-* 0 10° = te o = 1 Tareo 2 012970x103 3 o.r4s0ax 104 @) tp 510°? 10 "te Oo = 1 6039406 2 1.1008 3 13.486 Wty=t to 10° m te 0.11265x1075 0.77735 x10~* 0.77758%10-9 ton 10° 10 10” te o7est4x10-* 0.70914 107% 0.67444 10> 1.4928 10.015 0.10272 10% w 0.057857 0.048213 0.63294 10-2 0.22595 x 10-* 0.18780 10" 3.4800 o.ssee7x 108 0.15859 108 0.55477 x 103 (0.104525 10? 0.16109 10% (0.16075 10° 0.28778 108 0.48252 x 10* 0.23648% 10° 0.23107 10° 41.1004 0.48289 o21t07 ‘1083240© © SINFINITE AQUIFER < THEORY) —— CURVE FIT (6 EXPONENTIAL TERNS) RATE FUNCTION 1a = = ‘ 8 we? 1@ 18 10! 1 DIMENSIONLESS . TINE cof boundary-pressure jnterpolation and is vot a constant as assumed in the literature. A sumerical example (with R=5) is used to demonstrate that the incorrect value of the drainage radius used by the Fetkovitch model results in an overprediction of water inflox. 5. The PSS model, developed for finite aquifers, is found to yield satisfactory results even for large aquifers with R=10. 6. ison of the PSS-SIBP model with the widely ‘used Carter and Tracy method (SIBP} reveals that the PSS model is more accurate than the Carter and Tracy method for the R=5 case and that it is as accurate as the Caner ‘and Tracy method for the R= 10 case. Moreover, the PSS ‘model is simpler to implement than the Carter and Tracy method, which requires the use of the pressure function and its derivative. 7. The transient model for finite aquifers is implemented with the FCM. Numerical examples on circular and lin- car aquifers demonstrated that the FCM solution is iden- tical to the solution obtained with the conventional superposition method. Because the FCM is free of super- position, data handling is minimized. This savings in com- tational effort and data storage is substantial in atypical reservoir simulation where hundreds of timesteps are in- volved. * 8. The PSS model is modified to account for the early- Fig. 10—Comparing FCM with existing methods forinfinke- | time transient effect. The result of the MPSS model is, salle example. in fact, identical to the firstterm approximation of the ‘wansieht model. In the circalar-aquifer examples with R=5 and 10, the MPSS solution agrees closely with the exact solution obtained by the superposition method. so SPE Reserves Engieering, September 1906 INFINITE AQUIFER. SISP —— beet sountor- seerontioe So 8 ero ras ome 55 + 6 cre me auc CUMAATIUE HATER INFLUX (RE) 0 te ee enema 2a ee Tine (EARS >of the FCM vwith ae merical In contrast, the widely used Carter and ‘Tracy method for the same water influx by as tmuch as 20%. q = mth root of Eq. A-9 A = area at reservois/equifer contact, 8? {m?] tn = mth, convolution integral defined by Eq. C5, psi [kPa} ‘A= beight of circular aquifer, ft [rx] Hy = coefficient defined by Eq. B-2 1 = index representing different reservoir/aqu:- fer boundary regions J = productivity index of aquifer, RB'(psi-D) {res m3/kPa-d) Jor) = zero-order and first-order Bessel function of the first kind k = permeability, ma L = length of linear aquifer, ft {m) m = mth term in FCM summation ‘M = total terms used in FCM summation n= nth th N= total number of timesteps P = pressure, psi [kPa] ‘= pressure function = instantaneous flux rate, ‘= rate function rq = aquifer outer radius, ft [m} 1, = aquifer inner radius or reservoir outer radius, ft [ma] ‘all RB/D [res m3/d] V = aquifer volume, ft? {m>] ‘ = cumulative water influx, res bbl [res ma] ¥, = location along reservoir/aquifer boundary ‘Yo,¥; = zero-order and first-order Bessel fanction of the'second kind ‘SPE Reservoir Engineering, September 1986 cx = rate constant in PSS Model, L/yr 8 = weighing coefficient in MPSS model 3 = drainage radiis, ft [m] A = change in a variable $ = nonlinear correlation coefficieat for infinite-aquifer model 11 = linear correlation coefficient for infinite- aquifer model o= ineaton tne vaible © = angle subtended by the arc of circular aquifer # = fluid viscosity, ep [Pas] 7 = characteristic time, years © = porosity Superscripts D = dimensionless variable n= timestep O = initial state — = volume-averaged quantity * = reference state ‘Subscripts @ = aquifer 1 = interpolated LI = linearly interpolated ‘mpss = modified psendosteady-state value ss = pseudosteady-state value 1 = reservoir 5 = reservoir/aquifer boundary 35 = steady-state falue ‘SI = step-interpolated @ = asymptotic value under PSS Acknowledgments I thank the management of Gulf R&D Co. for permis- sion to publish this paper. I also thank Wil Culham for support throughout this study. References R.: “Active Ol and Reservoir Energy,” Tras., AIM 33537. eJ.C.: Conduction of Fea in Solids, s0- ‘edition, Oxford Pres, New York Cy (1959) 100. "The Application of Sete Sars ti Aqpifer Systems," 9) 816-2 5 SK el seen Ae Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Applied (979) 325. 6. Cater, RD. sod Tracy, G.W.2 “An Improved Method for Water Inflax,” JPT (Dee. 1960) 58-60; Trans, AIME. | (960) 219, 415-17. 7. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Flsevier Selec Publihing Co New York Ci (1978) 317. the Smackover Limestone Formation and ‘AIME (1944) 155, 9. Moore, WD. inky 0. L.G. Je: "Pressure Performance of als Comps in Couoce Agus," rw, porated ‘rae 1, Byndoor Gay, BS. Gorm 2 0sUNIT STEP OP L arnt} —— LINEAR AP 1 . are aor 100 Cire) Fig, A-2—Asymptotic PSS drainage radius as a function ‘of Boundary response time (linear aquifer), 11 ~ 6(t)/6eo1< 0.05 LINGARAP ~~ 0.57 um Los (rm) Fig. A-3—Time to reach PSS 23 a function of boundary response time (linear aquifer). Appendix A—PSS Drainage Radius ‘The PSS relationship for linear and circular aquifers for a special and informative boundary-pressuze coudition is. ‘lwmd inthis appendix. Fist, the danage rats is 3 The time-dependence of 5 can be oblained for a given ,(). For illustration, the boundary-pressare history is , assumed 10 be an exponential relationship as follows. PA =p3+(p9 ~pNem"+, Osest. ......(A2) Here, 7, is the characteristic time scale with which the boundary pressure changes. There are two limits in Eq. 506 ‘A-2: when 7,-*0, p, corresponds to a step change in pressure at 10; acd when r,-+e, p, corresponds to a Uinear change for time 1< Oma aaierete 0 a and L eo sees .- B2) on | ——;-1 Jy (GnR)? where Gy is the mth root of Eq. A-9. It is important to where R=rg/r, (with r being the aquifer radius and 7, being the reservoir radius) and ay is the first root of the Besse} equation: IU BD¥o(An)—FolGm)¥i(qR\=0, oo with Jo and J; the Bessel functions of the first kind, and Yo and Y; the Bessel functions of the second kind. In the limit R> 10, both Eqs. A-7 and A-8 approach the asymp- totic expression belrpaln R-%. ... = {A-10) ‘The PSS drainage radius, calculated with Eqs. A-7, A-8, snd A-10, i given in Table I for R=1 to $0 for both beat and step change in boundary pressures. iting conditions fol 1. tp <10~ Se an irom the definition of tp, this condition is satisfied when the reservoir radius is very large, the fluid nobility of the aquifer is very small, of (he capa ofthe aeuiteis very Tare. When ny tee three conditions holds, boli, it can be sera i Fig 8 that be aquifer is approximately given as t, and approaches eto as 1p-"0. Fot ip>10-*, only a few leading order terms in Eq. C-1 are required in the summation, However, as tp <10~4, ia which case 6<107, the convergence of the infinite sum is relative- Iyslow, consequently, a agenuner of enasindhe x presed ina cus taba fom fs tp Oe +2) o- vio: : Ie ‘Note that FCM is not applicable to Eq. C-2 because the . However, tom is Gacesod in Ue section onthe Infnkoraqater pe ater influx solution for bound aquifers subject tor ‘time-dependent boundary pressure is obtained by substitut- ing Eq. C-1 into Eq. 21. ++ (C3) 3 Meer weo=0|p2-p0s a 2x0] SPE Reservoir Engineering, September 1986When Eq, 2b and Eq, C-3 are'used, the average aquifer pressure is expressed as so=pso=S. Pal) =P.) # 2 where Bn) = ope) Rhee ote, am! Again, p,(®) in Eqs. C-3 and C-4 are evaluated accord- ingto Eg 11 or 12. The neunrancons inf is cbaied Eq. C-3 with respect to time, Thus ay, vas - 2— FY Qm-1)7Ba). 7. BL mat aon co Using Ba. 9, we obtain By re-exprested ina recursive rm: wl eos Bayt apse On-ve ots y eT ARN UNETE Map cn Substituting Eqs. 11 and 12 into Eg. C-7, we obtain the recursive relationships for B, with LIBP as Atl eB te COm-D a2 Naty ( 4 ) (22) Laen Rn Y%Qr diy a(S uw x?) \atp Qm—14 Cs Jrorvrerney, C9) Appendix D—MPSS Model Development ‘The average aquifer pressure based on the transient mode! for finite circular aquifers (Eq. B-4) may be rewritten as, Pa=Ps)—B il) —Balz—Bsls—.. =(1-B1 ~B1-B3—.--)ps +Bi(Ps—F)+B2(Ps— 12) +B3(Ps Is) +++ ‘SPE Reservoir Engineering, Seprember 1986 ‘The first 10 harmonics of 8,, are calculated for R=5 and 10 in Table B-1, For example, with R=5, from Eq. Del and Table B-1, jg is given by Ba=(1-0.9307-0.0351—0.0116-0.0057-.. +0.9307(p,—I)+0.0351(p,—Ia) . +0.0116(p,—J3)+0.0057(ps-4)+-... (D4) It is clear that the perturbation equation (Eq. D-4) with 8m 28 a stall parameter can be approximated by the lead- ing order terms. In fact, when only the first perturbation term is taken and 7; is written in its full form, Eq. D-1 becomes Pom ~D.-Bi[" EbensttonOep, oO ‘When we combine Eq. 8, Eq. A-8, and c obtained from Table 2, we get from PSS-SIBP en ol-Ods, D6) pe Pags=Ps— ° If Eqs. D-5 and D-6 are compared, itis clear that the in- ideatical. Pesopss 008 Paps $0 that Pasopss=(1-B1)?s +8 Paps: Note that F apes can be obtained from Eq. 14. Though drainage PSSSIBP wo establst the analog baween Eas, D-S and D-6. A similar derivation for the case of linear aquifers ‘Yields the same result as given in Eq. D-7. The 8 coeffi- ‘cleats for both circular and linear aquifers are calculated (using Eq. D-3) in Table 7. Appondix E—Usago of Correlation Function for Infinite Aquifers Jn this appendix, the use of the correlation function in ‘water-influx calculation for infinite aquifers is ustrat- 9a Because Bg, 26 basa form sini w By. B-, to following analogous quantities can be identified. R-1 ED 10 tm 2H ms m=1,2. and fn=@g, m=1,2. With the above and u We "footed -patone2 x cx} -€9 respectively, where Ca= a (0 Ws 6 -taomnas 26 he oui loti oC for bth LBP ad SWBP ate, with LIBP, Cat ecgentadio 4 28 (SRu 2 and with SIBP, catia (ca+apa)e tus. a ‘SI Metric Conversion Factors: bbl x 1.589 873 B-01 = m> boveD-psi) x 2.305 916 B-02 = mii(kPa-d) - x 10° E-03 = Pars degree x 1.745329 E-02 = rad ft x 3.068" E-Ol =m psi X 6.894 757 E+00 = Pa psi! x 1.450377 E-O1 = kPa“!