SPE 107265
Classic Models of Calculation of Influx: A Comparative Study
Marques, J.B., SPE, Petrobras S.A., and Trevisan, O.V., SPE, and Suslick S.B., SPE, Unicamp
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 15–18 April 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Reservoir engineers usually work under much uncertainty.
Among the several sources of uncertainty in reservoir
management, calculation of the water influx from adjacent
aquifers is undoubtedly one of the most important. Several
models have been proposed for quantifying the influx of water
accumulated into the reservoir. Among the classic models, the
most used are van Everdingen & Hurst, (1949), Hurst
modified (1958), Fetkovich approximate (1971), Carter &
Tracy (1960), Allard & Chen (1984), and Leung (1986). This
work will deal, in a comparative way, with the total influx of
water by the aquifer performance as a function of time, taking
as the base case the model proposed by van Everdingen &
Hurst (1958), because this is the best in terms of solution of
the diffusive equation. All analyses in this work were done in
computer spreadsheets using the equations proposed by the
authors of each model. In this comparison it is possible to
analyse the water influx into the reservoir as a function of
time, and the relative error of each model against the base
model. Besides the instructional value of summarizing in a
single paper several classic models of aquifers, one additional
purpose of this work is to alert against the inadequate use of
the Fetkovich model, as commonly found in flow simulators
and in material balance programs, when the ratio between the
radius of the aquifer and the radius of the reservoir is below
12. In the conclusions, some corrections of mistakes found in
tables and formulations published in the original papers are
presented, as well as alternative formulations for the
calculation of the aquifer productivity index, specifically with
regard to the original publications of Fetkovich, 1971 and of
Leung, 1986.
Introduction
Classic analytical models of aquifers are relatively easy to
program in computer spreadsheets, provided that equation
discretization is correctly done. With the exception of the van
Everdingen & Hurst, the models do not demand much
computer power. In the van Everdingen & Hurst, calculations
of the previous steps are redone at each time-step added to the
behaviour, which represents a bigger computational effort.
The equation that rules the van Everdingen & Hurst model is
based on the superposition principle (Duhamel principle). Any
numerical calculation method for this model requires more
computing power than other models. Despite this drawback,
this is the ideal model for comparisons, because it faithfully
represents the hydraulic diffusivity equation. Other proposed
models, such as Carter & Tracy, Fetkovich, and Leung, sought
to eliminate the disadvantage of the required computing
power, and thus became more popular in commercial flow
simulators. As will be shown in this study, the Leung model is
a good choice for numerical programming in flow simulators.
The error of this model in computing the accumulated influx is
insignificant when compared to the base model (van
Everdingen & Hurst).
Similarly to all reservoir engineering analytical solutions,
aquifer analytical models need the usual simplifying
assumptions, resulting in equations that portray homogeneous
reservoirs relatively well, but on the other hand do not
represent heterogeneous cases well. Simplifying conditions
adopted in analytical solutions are the reason why an ideal
comparison cannot be done. This work shows three cases of
aquifers, of small, medium and large size. The aquifer flow
model is radial and limited. The models discussed -- van
Everdingen & Hurst, Fetkovich, Carter & Tracy, and Leung --
are all applicable to radial and limited aquifers. Some
inaccuracy is observed when they are applied to extensive
aquifers, and to a brief reservoir production time. Carter &
Tracy (1960) and Leung (1986) presented models taking into
account the effects of the aquifer transient period, making
them the most effective models in terms of speed and
simplicity, compared to that of van Everdingen & Hurst.
This work shows the basic theory of four aquifer models
and their equations for numerical programming. An analysis
of the Fetkovich model is presented, using different equations
for the aquifer productivity index. Tables and equations of
each model can be used by those willing to build a computer
spreadsheet to compare their results.
Theoretical basis
The theoretical foundation used in this work for the
spreadsheet calculations of influxes is the discretization of
equations indicated in the original work of each author. Tables
and graphs use the corrections suggested in the present work.
All analytical solutions used in the four models admitted as
boundary conditions constant pressure in the boundary
aquifer-reservoir. In this theoretical basis section, the four
models will be briefly described.
2 SPE 107265

van Everdingen & Hurst model. The model presented in the or Equation (7):
work of van Everdingen & Hurst (1949) deals with two types
of aquifers: radial and linear. Applying the Laplace tD
We = U ∫ q D (t D − τ D ) Δp(τ D )dτ D (6)
transformation, van Everdingen & Hurst solved the diffusivity 0
equation of the reservoir-aquifer system considering as
boundary condition a constant pressure in the boundary. The
tD
flow supplied by the aquifer at the point of contact with the We = U ∫ W D′ (t D − τ D ) Δp(τ D )dτ D (7)
reservoir is given by the Darcy equation, Equation (1) 0

2πfkh ⎛ ∂p ⎞ Use of the Duhamel equation, Equation (7), presupposes

q= ⎜r ⎟ (1) the knowledge of the boundary pressure drop over time,
μ ⎝ ∂r ⎠ ro
Δp(t) = pi − p(t), and of the derivative of the classical solution
where f=θ /2π, π in radians, represents a factor describing a of the model under study W D′ . van Everdingen & Hurst
radial sector. Using the definitions of dimensionless variables, proposed an approximate way of treating the problem by
Equation (1) can be rewritten as: discretizing the inner boundary condition, i.e., the boundary
pressure, p(t). The continuous pressure curve is divided into
⎛ ∂p ⎞ qμ
− ⎜⎜ rD D ⎟⎟ = ≡ q D (t D ) (2) constant pressure intervals, as show, in Fig. 1.
⎝ ∂rD ⎠ r =1 2 πfkhΔp 0
D

where qD(tD) is the dimensionless flow supplied by the

aquifer, calculated at the boundary reservoir-aquifer (point
rD=1). The accumulated influx is the integral of the flow over
time, as expressed by Equation (3):

2πfkhΔp 0 ⌠ D
t
t dt
We ≡ ∫ qdt = ⎮ qD dt D (3)
0 μ ⌡0 dt D
Calling WD(tD) the integral of qD with regard to tD , Equation
(3) gains a simplified form.

We = UΔp0W D (t D ) (4)

Fig 1 - Discretization of boundary pressure

where U is the influx constant of water into the aquifer
represented by Equation (5). Using the pressure discretization as in the model shown in
Fig. 1, the Duhamel equation can be rewritten as:
U = 2πfφct hro2 (5)
[ ]
n −1
We (t D n ) = U ∑ ( pi − p j +1 ) WD (t D n − t D j ) − WD (t D n − t D j +1 ) (8)
j =0
and WD is the accumulated dimensionless influx for a constant
pressure drop at the boundary. The model proposed by van where the mean pressure in each interval is
Everdingen & Hurst is theoretically correct, since it is an exact
solution of the hydraulic diffusivity equations (Matheus & p j + p j +1
Russel, 1967). In their model, van Everdingen & Hurst p j +1 = , j = 0, n − 1 . (9)
2
considered the three classical flow regime conditions, both for
radial and linear aquifers: infinite aquifers (transient regime), Or, replacing the mean pressure in the sum of Equation (8),
aquifers sealed in the outer boundary (pseudosteady-state Equation (10) results
regime), and aquifers with maintenance of pressure in the
n −1
outer boundary (steady state regime). Using the appropriate
We (t D n ) = U ∑ Δp j W D (t D n − t D j ) (10)
boundary conditions for the two classical geometries -- radial j =0
and linear -- the model resulted in the six equations in Table 1.
As the table shows, most solutions for the calculation of where
WD(tD) are in the Laplace space, where inversion can be done
by numerical methods, such as those of Stehfest and Crump. p j −1 − p j +1 ⎧ Δp 0 = ( pi − p1 ) 2
Δp j = p j − p j +1 = e ⎨ (11)
In the present work, inversions were done by the Stehfest 2 ⎩Δp1 = ( pi − p 2 ) 2.
method. The only analytical solution in Table 1 is for the case
of an infinite linear aquifer. For the practical use of this model, With the discretization suggested above as an alternative to
since boundary pressure does not remain constant during the the Duhamel principle, van Everdingen & Hurst could
production of the reservoir, it is necessary to use the principle simplify the use in computer programs. However, it is
of superposition – the Duhamel principle – as in Equation (6) important to notice that the parameter for the calculation of
WD has the term tDn in every programming step; see Equation
SPE 107265 3

(11). This implies recalculating all steps when the value of tDn
⎛ J pi ⎞
is changed. This happens when we wish to evaluate the q = J ( pi − p ) exp⎜⎜ − t ⎟⎟ (17)
accumulated influx at each new step in the behaviour ⎝ Wei ⎠
prediction. Note that the value of We must be evaluated for the
time and regime of the aquifer at that moment. Thus, the Equation (17) is the equation of the flow of water from the
equation that evaluates We changes with the change in flow aquifer into the reservoir as a function of time and the pressure
regime. This is an important point to be taken into account in drop at boundary, (pi − p). This equation is general and does
the numerical programming. not depend on aquifer geometry. By integrating it, the
following results:
Fetkovich approximate model. The Fetkovich model, 1971, t
⌠ ⎛ J pi ⎞
applies to finite aquifers and admits pseudosteady-state regime We ≡ ∫ qdt = J ( pi − p ) ⎮ exp⎜⎜ −
t
t ⎟⎟ dt (18)
flows. This model has a flaw in its mathematical conception, 0
⌡0 ⎝ Wei ⎠
which is why it is called an approximate model. However, it
has the advantage of being practical in terms of programming, Or
as it does not require the application of the superposition ⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤
principle as in the van Everdingen & Hurst model, which We =
Wei
( pi − p ) ⎢1 − exp⎜⎜ − J pi t ⎟⎟⎥ (19)
requires all calculations to be done again at each time-step, pi ⎢⎣ ⎝ Wei ⎠⎦⎥
resulting in long processing times. Although processing
Although the Fetkovich model is not strictly correct in its
technology is very advanced nowadays, it is always desirable
representation of the superposition principle, it became quite
to use methods demanding short processing times. In
popular nonetheless for its ease of numerical programming.
developing the model, Fetkovich assumed a pseudosteady-
By discretizing Equation (19), Fetkovich allowed it to be used
state regime with water flow from the aquifer to the reservoir,
for the case of pressure variation at the boundary, resulting in
as in Equation (12).
Equation (20), by which it is possible to calculate the value of
the influx for any given time interval Δtn.
= J ( pa − p )
dWe
q= (12)
⎡ ⎤
( p a n−1 − pn ) ⎢1 − exp⎛⎜⎜ − J pi Δt n ⎞⎟⎟⎥
dt Wei
ΔWe n = (20)
where J is the aquifer productivity index, p a the aquifer mean pi ⎣⎢ ⎝ Wei ⎠⎥⎦
pressure, and p the pressure in the reservoir-aquifer boundary.
Including the material balance equation into Equation (12), the where:
following results: ⎛ 1 n −1 ⎞ ⎛ We n −1 ⎞
⎛ W ⎞
p a n −1 = pi ⎜1 −
⎜ Wei ∑ ΔWe j ⎟⎟ = pi ⎜⎜1 − Wei ⎟⎠
⎟ (21)
⎝ j =1 ⎠ ⎝
p a = pi ⎜⎜1 − e ⎟⎟ (13)
⎝ Wei ⎠ and
where Wei is the maximum influx that a sealed aquifer can
supply, corresponding to the expansion of water in the aquifer p n−1 + p n
pn = (22)
when the pressure drops from pi to zero, defined by Equation 2
(14).
Table 2 shows the equations for the aquifer productivity
Wei = ct Wi pi index (J), for radial and linear aquifers, and permanent and
(14)
pseudosteady-state flow regimes.

After separating the variables, the equation can be Carter&Tracy model. The Carter&Tracy model (1960),
integrated from t = 0 (quando We = 0 e p a = pi ) a t, similarly to Fetkovich, does not require the application of
Equation (15) effect superposition for the calculation of the influx. It is a
p comprehensive model, as it covers any flow geometry, as long
J pi t ⌠ a dp a as the solution for the dimensionless pressure as a function of
−
Wei ∫0 dt =⎮⌡ p p a − p (15)
time is known for the geometry of the given aquifer. This
i
comprehensiveness made it one of the most popular models,
The solution proposed by Fetkovich results in Equation (16). and it is easy to program numerically. In the Carter&Tracy
model, the value of the accumulated influx We is approximated
⎛ J pi ⎞
p a − p = ( pi − p ) exp⎜⎜ − t ⎟⎟ (16) by Equation (23).
⎝ Wei ⎠
At this step of development, the Fetkovich model does not We (t D j ) = We (t D j −1 ) + a j −1 (t D j − t D j −1 ) (23)
retain the precision of mathematical principles, as the pressure
p at the boundary is not constant, but depends on time.
where aj-1 is a constant. This equation assumes that in the
Replacing Equation (16) into Equation (12), the following
interval between tDj-1 e tDj the influx varies linearly with time.
results:
4 SPE 107265

The accumulated water influx can be expressed by the where δ∞ is the constant drainage radius under the
convolution integral, as in Equation (24): pseudosteady-state regime, and A is the area open to water
influx (cross section of the porous medium in the reservoir-
tD j
dW D (t D − τ)
We (t D j ) = U ⌠
⎮ Δp (τ) dτ (24) aquifer boundary) According to Leung in his original article,
⌡0 dτ the pseudosteady-state drainage radius, δ∞, depends on how
the boundary pressure varies with time: step variation “Step
where tD is the dimensionless time defined for each aquifer Interpolation Boundary Pressure”, SIBP, or linear variation
geometry, U is the influx constant, Δp(tD) = pi − p(tD) the “Linear Interpolation Boundary Pressure”, LIBP. For a linear
pressure drop at the boundary, WD (tD) the dimensionless aquifer, the dimensionless drainage radius (δ∞/L) has values of
accumulated water influx, τ a dummy integration variable, and 0,4053 and 0,3333 for SIBP and LIBP variation.
j refers to time discretization. Solving by the Laplace For a radial aquifer, in addition to the pressure condition in
transformation, the expression for the constant aj-1 is found, as the inner boundary (at contact), the drainage radius also depends
in Equation (25). on the aquifer size given by the parameter reD . Table 4 presents
U Δp(t D j ) − We (t D j −1 ) p ′D (t D j ) the drainage radii for values of reD between 1,1 and 240, both for
a j −1 = (25) step pressure variation (SIBP) and for linear pressure variation
p D (t D j ) − t D j −1 p ′D (t D j ) (LIBP). This table is similar to that published by Leung, 1986
with a few differences in accuracy.
Replacing constant aj-1 in Equation (23) results in: Starting from the material balance equation, Leung
U Δp(t D j ) −We (t D j −1 ) p′D (t D j ) established that the water influx flow is given by the derivative of
We (t D j ) = We (t D j −1 ) + (t D j − t D j −1 ) (26) the accumulated influx with respect to time, as shown in
p D (t D j ) − t D j −1 p′D (t D j )
Equation (29)

Function pD (tD) represents the dimensionless pressure in dp a (t )

the producing boundary of an aquifer producing under q = −ct Wi (29)
dt
constant flow. Note that this model is easy to apply in
numerical programs, as long as the expression pD(tD) is known Combining Equations (27) and (29), the following results:
for the geometry of the given aquifer. The same remark done
for the van Everdingen & Hurst holds for this model. Note dp a (t )
also that here the value of We should be evaluated at the time = α[ p(t ) − p a (t )] (30)
dt
and for the regime in force in the aquifer at the given moment.
Thus, the equation that evaluates We changes with flow regime where constant α is defined by:
changes.
J A k
α≡ = (31)
Leung model. The Leung models (1986) are: pseudosteady- ct Wi ct Wi μ δ ∞
state “PSS” and modified pseudosteady-state “MPSS”. These
models are applicable to finite aquifers under pseudosteady- valid after the pseudosteady-state regime is reached. For the
state regimes. The MPSS model is a better representation mean aquifer pressure, Leung adopted the expression of
because it corrects the effects of transient time, as will be Equation (32).
shown further ahead. The Leung models also have the
dp(τ) −α (t −τ )
t
advantage, as compared to the van Everdingen & Hurst p a (t ) = p(t ) − ⌠
⎮ e dτ (32)
model, of dispensing with the computational effort associated ⌡0 dτ
to the superposition of effects when the pressure at the
aquifer-reservoir boundary varies with time. Equation (32) is known as convolution (or superposition)
In a pseudosteady-state regime, the equation ruling the integral. Because the integrand is expressed as a product of
water influx of an aquifer has the form of Equation (27). two functions, one evaluated at time τ and the other at t − τ,,
with τ in the range from 0 to t, the integral in tn+1 is not equal
to the integral in tn plus an increment of the integral in the
q = J [ p a (t ) − p(t )] (27)
interval Δt = t n +1 − t n . Consequently, at each time of interest
the integral must be evaluated from t = 0 to the time t under
where J is the aquifer productivity index, p a the mean aquifer consideration, which makes the process more and more
pressure, and p the pressure at the reservoir-aquifer boundary. inefficient as time increases. In view of this difficulty, Leung
Leung used the definition given by Equation (28) for the presented a more efficient scheme, called FCM or “fast
productivity index. convolution method”. The development of this solution
scheme resulted in the alternative expression of Equation (33).
J = kA μδ ∞ (28) dp(τ) −α(tn+1−τ)
pa n+1 = pn+1 + ( pa n − pn )e −αΔt − ⌠
tn+1
⎮ e dτ (33)
⌡tn dτ
SPE 107265 5

The expression of Equation (33) is better than that of Equation relative size of the aquifer-reservoir, disregarding this ratio
(32) because it is more convenient to evaluate an integral may result in an error in the productivity index calculation, as
involving pressures than pressure derivatives. The pressure will be seen in the results. Users of commercial flow
data at the boundary as a function of time, needed to calculate simulators that use Fetkovich's simplified formula are warned
the convolution integral, are usually expressed as discrete against the error incurred in the calculation of J. It is suggested
values in time. Thus, in order to calculate the integral, some that, for future revisions of the source code of these
form of data interpolation is necessary. Two simple simulators, the equation presented in this work be used, since
interpolation schemes have been suggested by Leung: it represents the derivation of the pseudosteady-state regime
equation without neglecting the ratio rD2/2reD2.
Table 5 shows the results of the calculation of J using
A – Linear Interpolation of Boundary Pressure, or LIBP.
equation (38) by Fetkovich, and Equation (39) suggested in
In this case, the discrete pressure data are linearly interpolated:
the present work.
⎛ p − pn ⎞ 2 π f kh
p LI (t ) = ⎜ n +1 ⎟ (t − t n ) + p n , t n ≤ t ≤ t n +1 (34) J =
⎝ Δt ⎠ ⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ 3 ⎤ (38)
μ ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − ⎥
⎣ ⎝ o ⎠r 4 ⎦
B – Step Interpolation of Boundary Pressure, or SIBP. In
this case, pressures interpolated between t n and t n +1 are 2π f kh
J=
given by: ⎡⎛ r 2 ⎞ 2 1 ⎛ 3r 2 − 1 ⎞⎤ (39)
μ ⎢⎜⎜ 2 eD ⎟⎟ ln(reD ) − ⎜⎜ 2eD ⎟⎟⎥
⎢⎣⎝ reD − 1 ⎠ 4 ⎝ reD − 1 ⎠⎥
⎦
⎛ p + p n +1 ⎞
p SI (t ) = ⎜ n ⎟ , t n < t ≤ t n +1 (35)
⎝ 2 ⎠ Figure 2 shows the relative difference {Eq (38) - Eq (39)}/Eq
(39) versus reD.
By combining Equations (33) and (34) the expression for the 70,0%
calculation of the aquifer mean pressure in time t n +1 is
60,0%
obtained for the LIPB scheme:
difference relative (%)

50,0%

pa n+1 = pn+1 + ( pa n − pn )e −αΔt p − pn −αΔt

+ n+1
α Δt
e −1 ( ) (36) 40,0%

30,0%
And for the SIBP scheme, Equations (32) e (35) are combined,
resulting in: 20,0%

( )
10,0%
p n + p n +1
p a n +1 = p a n e −αΔt + 1 − e −αΔt (37)
2 0,0%
1,0 10,0 r e /r o 100,0

In his original work, Leung presented a table with model
parameters for application in radial and linear aquifers. Table
3 is similar to the original Leung table, with the addition of an
equation for the case of a SIBP circular aquifer. A remark may
be made here about Leung's original work. In order to
reproduce the values of δ∞/ro presented in Table 4 for the case
of a circular SIBP aquifer, the equation suggested by this work
was used. The equation suggested by Leung in the original
work does not reflect accurately the published data, probably
due to data input mistakes. Table 3 shows the equation that
reproduces the data published by Leung (1986). This may be
of interest to those willing to reproduce the data in the table
for use in numerical programming.
Comparative study of models.
Before presenting comparative results for the influx from each
model, it is important to note that in the equation for the
productivity index J of the aquifer, Fetkovich disregarded the
ratio rD2/2reD2 that normally appears in solutions for the
pressure drop in pseudosteady-state regime. When the solution
is applied to the pressure drop in the well, it is reasonable to
disregard the ratio rD2/2reD2 in the equation of the
pseudosteady-state regime. However, depending on the
Fig. 2 - Relative difference of J for a finite radial aquifer using Equation
(38) e Equation (39)
As shown in the graph of Fig. 2, for an aquifer smaller
than 10 times the reservoir, the difference in value is not
negligible.
Furthermore, Table 4 shows that for values of reD where
ln(reD) < 0.75reD the value of J is inconsistent when
calculated by Equation (38). In spite of that, the accumulated
influx volume calculated by the equation originally proposed
by Fetkovich is a good approximation compared to the van
Everdingen & Hurst model. In the cases presented below,
values and errors with regard to the base model (van
Everdingen & Hurst) using both equations will be shown.
Three cases were considered for comparing results of the
accumulated influx calculation. At the end of this work, results
of Case 1 (Tables 7 to 12) are shown. The aim of showing
these tables is to offer a source of reference to readers willing
to reproduce the classical models in a discretized way. The
values of WD for the van Everdingen & Hurst model were
obtained by numerical inversion using the Stehfest algorithm
(1970).
6 SPE 107265

The variable for the comparison of the accumulated influx Case 2 - Aquifer radius 16 times larger than reservoir radius.
volume calculation is the relative aquifer-reservoir size, reD.
The choice of this variable is justified by its importance as a Aquifer radius 40000 ft
parameter for the configuration of commercial flow Reservoir radius 2500 Ft
simulators.
Keeping the same reservoir properties as in Case 1, the
Case 1 - Aquifer radius 8 times larger than that of reservoir. behaviour of the accumulated influx and the relative error for
all models are shown in Fig. 4.
Aquifer radius 20000 ft
Reservoir radius 2500 ft Accumulated influx (bbl std x 103)
Thickness 60 ft 1600
Fetkovich (J Equation 38)
Porosity 22 % 1400 Carte&Tracy
Permeability 100 md Leung PSS LIBP

Accumulated Influx
1200 Leung PSS SIBP
Water viscosity 0.30 cp Leung MPSS LIBP
1000 Leung MPSS SIBP
Formation compressibility 4x10-6 (psi)-1 Fetkovich (J Equation 39)
800
Water compressibility 3x10-6 (psi)-1
Initial pressure 3501 psia 600

400

Model spreadsheets were done for 500 days of production. 200

days
The history of pressure drop at the boundary is on Table 6.
0
The behaviour of the accumulated influx and the relative 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
errors are in the graph of Fig. 3.
Model We (bbl std) Error (%)
Accumulated influx (bbl std x 103) van Everdinghen&Hurst 1476761 -
1200 Fetkovich (J Equation 38) 1408703 -4.61%
Fetkovich (J Equation 38) Fetkovich (J Equation 39) 1402550 -5.03%
Carte&Tracy Carte&Tracy 1470417 -0.43%
1000 Leung PSS LIBP Leung PSS LIBP 1387053 -6.07%
Accumulated Influx

Leung PSS SIBP

Leung PSS SIBP 1352780 -8.40%
800 Leung MPSS LIBP
Leung MPSS SIBP Leung MPSS LIBP 1460048 -1.13%
Fetkovich (J Equation 39) Leung MPSS SIBP 1478128 0.09%
600

400
Fig. 4 - Results of accumulated influx - Case 2

200
For larger aquifers (16 times the reservoir in radius), both
days the Carter & Tracy and the Leung MPSS models displayed a
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
small error. Thus, the Leung model applies both for medium
and for large aquifers. The result is satisfactory compared to
Model We (bbl std) Error (%) that of van Everdingen & Hurst.
van Everdinghen&Hurst 1079950 -
Fetkovich (J Equation 38) 1122198 3.91%
Fetkovich (J Equation 39) 1101956 2.04% Case 3 - Aquifer radius 20 times larger that reservoir size.
Carte&Tracy 1111224 2.90%
Leung PSS LIBP 1084709 0.44%
Leung PSS SIBP 1065042 -1.33% Aquifer radius 50000 ft
Leung MPSS LIBP 1072863 -0.63% Reservoir radius 2500 ft
Leung MPSS SIBP 1080090 0.01%

Keeping the same properties of the reservoir in Case 1, the

Fig. 3 - Results of accumulated influx - Case 1 behaviour of the accumulated influx and the relative errors for
all models are shown in Fig. 5.
As the data for Case 1 show, error in Leung MPSS model
is smaller than in the other models. It is important to
remember that this model was proposed by Leung (1986) in
order to correct the effects of the transient period. The
Fetkovich model, using Equation (39) as suggested in the
present work, displayed smaller errors than when using the
equation originally proposed by the author -- Equation (38).
SPE 107265 7

Accumulated influx (bbl std x 103) Accumulated influx (bbl std x 103)
1600 400
Fetkovich (J Equation 38)
1400 Carte&Tracy 350
Leung PSS LIBP

Accumulated Influx
Accumulated Influx

1200 Leung PSS SIBP 300

Leung MPSS LIBP
1000 Leung MPSS SIBP 250
Fetkovich (J Equation 39) Fetkovich (J Equation 38)
800 200 Carte&Tracy
Leung PSS LIBP
600 150 Leung PSS SIBP
Leung MPSS LIBP
400 100 Leung MPSS SIBP
Fetkovich (J Equation 39)
200 days 50
days
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Model We (bbl std) Error (%) Model We (bbl std) Error (%)
van Everdinghen&Hurst 1490563 - van Everdinghen&Hurst 325903 -
Fetkovich (J Equation 38) 1351149 -9.35% Fetkovich (J Equation 38) 327048 0.35%
Fetkovich (J Equation 39) 1347405 -9.60% Fetkovich (J Equation 39) 304720 -6.50%
Carte&Tracy 1478500 -0.81% Carte&Tracy 347795 6.72%
Leung PSS LIBP 1337603 -10.26% Leung PSS LIBP 326051 0.05%
Leung PSS SIBP 1306029 -12.38% Leung PSS SIBP 325828 -0.02%
Leung MPSS LIBP 1494593 0.27% Leung MPSS LIBP 325843 -0.02%
Leung MPSS SIBP 1494757 0.28% Leung MPSS SIBP 325903 0.00%

Fig. 5 - Results of the accumulated influx - Case 3 Fig. 6 - Results of accumulated influx for very small aquifers.

The graph in Fig. 5 shows that it is indifferent whether The following figures record the error curves versus reD.
Equation (38) or (39) is used for the calculation of J in the Fig. 7 presents the error curves of the Fetkovich model using
Fetkovich model for large aquifers. Another point reported in Equations (38) and (39).
the original Leung work is the error increase in the PSS
model, which led the author to develop a simplified model, the Relative Error %
modified pseudosteady-state regime model, or MPSS. Note (base model - van Everdinghen&Hurst)
that the MPSS model error is practically the same as the van 12,0%
Everdingen & Hurst model. The graphs of Cases 1, 2 and 3 Fetkovich - Equation 38
show that as the aquifer size increases, two groups of models Fetkovich - Equation 39
10,0%
display distinct behaviours. The first group, composed of the
models Fetkovich (Equation 38 and 39) and Leung PSS, LIBP,
and SIBP, shows practically identical results, while the other
Relative Error %

8,0%
group, comprising the models MPSS, LIBP and SIBP, and
Carter & Tracy, also exhibits nearly identical behaviour, but
with results better than the first group compared to the base 6,0%
model (van Everdingen & Hurst).
For very small aquifers, such as those 4 times larger than 4,0%
the reservoir in radius, the models of Fetkovich (Equation 39)
and Carter & Tracy are less precise than those of Leung and
2,0%
Fetkovich (Equation 38), as shown in Fig. 6.

0,0%
0 5 10 r eD 15 20 25

Fig 7 - Error curves - Fetkovich model (Equations 38 and Equation 39).

For aquifers which are not so small -- with a radius above

5 times the reservoir radius -- the error of the Fetkovich model
using Equations (39), as suggested in the present work, is
smaller than using Equations (38), originally proposed by
Fetkovich. The model is not appropriate for large reservoirs,
because it does not correct for the effect of the transient
8 SPE 107265
period. In Fig. 8 the error curves of the Carter&Tracy and
Leung MPSS models are shown.
Relative Error %
(base model - van Everdinghen&Hurst)
8,0%
Carte&Tracy
7,0%
Leung MPSS LIBP
Leung MPSS SIBP
6,0%
Relative Error %
5,0%
4,0%
3,0%
2,0%
1,0%
0,0%
0 5 10 r eD 15 20 25
Fig. 8 - Error curves - Models of Carter & Tracy, and Leung MPSS,
LIBP, and SIBP
The Carter & Tracy model only exhibits significant errors
for small aquifers. the Leung MPSS model, especially when
using the Step Interpolation Boundary Pressure method, or
SIBP, displayed negligible error. The behaviour of this model
is practically the same as that of van Everdingen & Hurst.
Conclusions
1. The Carter & Tracy model has a good accuracy in the
cases studied, except for very small aquifers -- 5 times
smaller than the reservoir in radius, or less -- for which
the error was 6.72% with reference to the base model (van
Everdingen & Hurst).
2. The Fetkovich model, using Equation (38) for calculating
the productivity index J, achieved a good approximation
for very small aquifers. For larger aquifers, the error
increases. Using Equation (39), it gave a good
approximation for medium-sized aquifers -- better than
with Equation (38). Thus, Equation (39) is preferred for
flow simulators, since the aquifer is usually more than 5
times larger than the reservoir.
3. The Leung modified pseudosteady-state regime model, or
MPSS, and especially the SIBP, displayed the best results
in this study. It is stable enough for any reservoir size, and
is recommended for flow simulators. The tables given in
the present study, which are similar to the original Leung
(1986) tables with a few corrections added, can easily be
programmed into flow simulators.
4. Tables reported in this work for Case 1 can be a reference
for reservoir engineering students willing to replicate the
classical models of water influx into reservoirs.
5. The analytical models presented here are useful for a
follow-up of simulation results for homogeneous
reservoirs.
6. This work also has an instructional purpose, as it brings
together four classical models of water influx calculation.
Other behaviour analyses of aquifer models can be done
to complement the present work.
7. It is important to point out that the conclusions and results
reported in the present work are applicable to aquifers
with radial flow in limited reservoirs (pseudosteady-state
regime).
Nomenclature
D Subscript - dimensionless variable
h Formation height
J Aquifer productivity index
k Formation absolute permeability
p Pressure at reservoir-aquifer boundary
pwf Well pressure
pa Aquifer mean pressure
q Well flow
re Aquifer radius
ro Reservoir radius
rw Well radius
U Aquifer water influx constant
We Accumulated influx
µ Fluid viscosity
δ∞ Constant drainage radius under pseudosteady regime
Drainage
τ Dummy integration variable
References
1. Allard, D. R. & Chen, S. M.: Calculation of Water Influx
for Bottom-Water Drive Reservoirs. In: SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 59. Houston, TX,
Sept. 16-19, 1984. Proceedings. Richardson, TX, SPE,
1984. (SPE 13170.)
2. Carter, R. D. & Tracy, G. W.: An Improved Method for
Calculating Water Influx. J. Pet. Tech., 58-60, Dec. 1960.
3. Dake, L. P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company, 1978.
4. Fetkovich, M. J.: A Simplified Approach to Water Influx
Calculations − Finite Aquifer Systems. J. Pet. Tech., 814-
828, July 1971.
5. Leung, W. F.: A Fast Convolution Method for
Implementing Single-Porosity Finite/Infinite Aquifer
Models for Water-Influx Calculations. SPE Res. Eng., 490-
510, Sept. 1986.
6. Rosa, A. J. & Carvalho, R. S.: Previsão de Comportamento
de Reservatórios de Petróleo – Modelos Analíticos. Rio de
Janeiro, Editora Interciência, 2001.
7. Stehfest, H.: Algorithm 386, Numerical Inversion of
Laplace Transforms - D5. Communications of the ACM,
13 (1): 47, Jan. 1970.
8. van Everdingen, A. F. & Hurst, W.: The Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs.
Trans. AIME, 186: 305-324, 1949.
SPE 107265 9

Table 1: Classical equations of the van Everdingen & Hurst model for aquifers with radial and linear geometries
Aquifer Geometry
flow regime Radial Linear
Transient
K1 ( u ) tD
WD (u ) = WD (t D ) = 2
32
u K0 ( u ) π
Pseudosteady-state
I1 (reD u ) K1 ( u ) − I1 ( u ) K1 (reD u ) 1 − exp(−2 u )
WD (u ) = WD (u ) =
[
u 3 2 I 0 ( u ) K1 (reD u ) + I1 (reD u ) K 0 ( u ) ] [
u 3 2 1 + exp(−2 u ) ]
Steady state
I 0 ( reD u ) K1 ( u ) + I1 ( u ) K 0 ( reD u ) 1 + exp(−2 u )
W D (u ) = WD (u ) =
[
u 3 2 I 0 ( reD u ) K 0 ( u ) − I 0 ( u ) K 0 ( reD u ) ] [
u 3 2 1 − exp(−2 u ) ]
Table 2: Aquifer productivity index for radial and linear flow.
Aquifer Geometry
flow regime Radial aquifer Linear aquifer
Pseudosteady-state 2π f kh
J=
⎡⎛ r 2 ⎞ 2
1 ⎛ 3reD2 − 1 ⎞⎤
μ ⎢⎜⎜ eD
⎟
⎟ ln (r ) − ⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎣⎝ reD − 1 ⎠
2
4 ⎜⎝ reD2 − 1 ⎟⎠⎥
eD
⎦
3khw
(Equation proposed by the present work) J=
2π f kh μL
J =
⎡ ⎛r ⎞ 3⎤
μ ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ro ⎠ 4 ⎦
(Equation of original Fetkovich work)
Steadystate 2π f kh
J= khw
⎛r ⎞ J=
μ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ μL
⎝ ro ⎠

Table 3: Parameters for Leung's PSS model

Parameter Linear aquifer Circular aquifer

kAL 2π f kh
, where f = θ 2π
μ (δ ∞ L ) μ (δ ∞ ro )
J

c t Wi (c w + c f ) φ A L (c w + c f ) φ π (re2 − ro2 ) h f , where f = θ 2π

k η L2 k 2 η ro2 2
α = =
φμc t δ ∞ L (δ ∞ L ) φμc t δ ∞ ro reD
2
−1 (δ ) 2
∞ o reD − 1
r

⎡⎛ 2 ⎞ 2 ⎤
1 ⎛ 3r 2 − 1 ⎞⎟⎥
ro ⎢⎜ 2 eD ⎟ ln (reD ) − ⎜ 2eD
L r
LIBP, δ ∞
3 ⎢⎜⎝ reD − 1 ⎟⎠ 4 ⎜⎝ reD − 1 ⎟⎠⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ 2 1 ⎤
ro ⎢ 2 2 ⎥
⎣⎢ a1 reD reD − 1 ⎦⎥
4L
SIBP, δ ∞ ⎡2 1 ⎤
π2 Leung's equation ro ⎢ ⎥
⎣ a1 reD −1⎦
2 2

Equation suggested in the present work

10 SPE 107265

kt ηt kt ηt
tD 2
= 2
=
φμc t L L φμc t ro2 ro2

LIBP, (t pss ) D 0.57 0.25 reD2

SIBP, (t pss ) D 0.15 0.25 reD2

Constant a1 is the first root of Bessel's equation: J1 (am reD )Y0 (a m ) − J 0 (a m )Y1 (a m reD ) = 0 , where J0 and J1 are the Bessel first kind functions, and Y0 and Y1
the Bessel second kind functions.

Table 4: Aquifer productivity index for radial and linear flow.

δ ∞ ro
reD
LIBP SIBP Fetkovich
1.10 0.0333 0.0412
1.50 0.1637 0.1917
2.00 0.3156 0.3608
3.00 0.5779 0.6389 03486
4.00 0.7940 0.8614 0.6363
5.00 0.9755 1.0458 0.8594
6.00 1.1313 1.2017 1.0418
7.00 1.2674 1.3380 1.1959
8.00 1.3880 1.4574 1.3294
9.00 1.4962 1.5668 1.4472
10.00 1.5943 1.6622 1.5526
20.00 2.2595 2.3195 2.2457
50.00 3.1650 3.2113 3.1620
60.00 3.465 3.3899 3.3443
70.00 3.5001 3.5440 3.4985
80.00 3.6333 3.6741 3.6320
90.00 3.7509 3.7901 3.7498
100.00 3.8560 3.8985 3.8552
110.00 3.9512 3.9902 3.9505
120.00 4.0381 4.0753 4.0375
150.00 4.2611 4.2957 4.2606
180.00 4.4433 4.4775 4.4430
210.00 4.5973 4.6297 4.5971
240.00 4.7308 4.7663 4.7306

Table 5: Productivity index of a radial infinite aquifer -- Equation (38) and Equation (39).
reD Equation (39) Equation (38) difference relative
1.1 300.3 -15.3 105.09%
1.5 61.1 -29.0 147.52%
2.0 31.7 -175.9 655.11%
3.0 17.3 28.7 65.78%
4.0 12.6 15.7 24.78%
5.5 9.5 10.5 10.63%
7.0 7.9 8.4 5.98%
7.6 7.5 7.8 4.95%
8.2 7.1 7.4 4.17%
.8.8 6.8 7.0 3.56%
9.4 6.5 6.7 3.08%
10.0 6.3 6.4 2.69%
14.5 5.1 5.2 1.21%
SPE 107265 11

Table 6: Drawdown pressure behavior of the aquifer-reservoir boundary used to Cases 1, 2 and 3.
t (d) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
p (psia) 3501 3485 3474 3464 3455 3448 3442 3438 3435 3434 3434

Table 7: Total influx calculation – Fetkovich model - Caso 1.

J - Equation (38) J - Equation (38)
pn pna
j t (d)
mean
ΔWen Wen
mean
ΔWen Wen
0 0 0 0 3501 0 0
5 50 3487 13809 44400 3499 13540 43599
10 100 3475 21899 139113 3495 21472 136604
15 150 3465 26627 263776 3489 26109 259019
20 200 3456 28807 404133 3482 28247 396844
25 250 3449 29056 549376 3475 28491 539467
30 300 3443 27840 691311 3468 27299 678842
35 350 3438 25514 823727 3462 25018 808871
40 400 3435 22347 941916 3456 21912 924928
45 450 3434 18541 1042308 3451 18180 1023509
50 500 3433 14251 1122196 3446 13974 1101956

Table 8: Total influx calculation – Carter&Tracy model - Caso 1.

J t (d) P(psia) Δpj=pi-pj tDA PD(tDj) p’D(tDj) pD(tDj) pD(tDj) We(tDj)

0 0 3501 0,00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1.329 0.031 0
5 50 3485 15.43 0.06 1.601 0.046 1.672 0.031 58308
10 100 3474 26.88 0.11 1.948 0.023 2.014 0.031 151141
15 150 3464 36.91 0.17 2.151 0.015 2.356 0.031 270235
20 200 3455 45.51 0.22 2.295 0.011 2.699 0.031 404925
25 250 3448 52.70 0.28 2.406 0.009 3.041 0.031 545208
30 300 3442 58.46 0.33 2.497 0.008 3.383 0.031 683306
35 350 3438 62.80 0.39 2.574 0.007 3.726 0.031 813165

Table 9: Total influx calculation -- Leung PSS LIBP model - Case 1.

pan+1
j t (d) p (psia)
mean
Wen+1 ΔWe
0 0 3501 3501 0 0
5 50 3485 3499 41319 12758
10 100 3474 3494 129301 20374
15 150 3464 3489 246147 25018
20 200 3455 3482 379038 27347
25 250 3448 3475 517995 27876
30 300 3442 3469 655249 27003
35 350 3438 3462 784756 25039
40 400 3435 3457 901808 22225
45 450 3434 3452 1002743 18751
50 500 3434 3448 1084709 14761
12 SPE 107265

Table 10: Total influx calculation -- Leung PSS SIBP model - Case 1.
pan+1
j t (d) p (psia) Wen+1 ΔWe
mean
0 0 3501 3501 0 0
5 50 3485 3499 39466 12217
10 100 3474 3495 124049 19629
15 150 3464 3489 237013 24238
20 200 3455 3483 366182 26637
25 250 3448 3476 501962 27297
30 300 3442 3470 636797 26586
35 350 3438 3463 764734 24795
40 400 3435 3458 881086 22154
45 450 3434 3453 982159 18843
50 500 3434 3449 1065042 15004

Table 11: Total influx calculation – Leung MPSS LIBP model- Caso 1.
pa, pss n+1 pa, mpss n+1
j t (d) p (psia) pLI(t) Wen+1 ΔWe
mean mean
0,0 0,0 3501 3501 3501 3501 0 0
5,0 50,0 3485 3484 3499 3498 47122 82849
10,0 100,0 3474 3473 3495 3494 135433 127346
15,0 150,0 3464 3463 3489 3488 250659 154658
20,0 200,0 3455 3455 3483 3482 380934 168432
25,0 250,0 3448 3447 3476 3475 516911 171542
30,0 300,0 3442 3442 3470 3469 651226 166252
35,0 350,0 3438 3438 3463 3463 778079 154345
40,0 400,0 3435 3435 3458 3457 892901 137225
45,0 450,0 3434 3434 3453 3452 992094 116000
50,0 500,0 3434 3434 3449 3448 1072863 91796

Table 12: Total influx calculation -- Leung MPSS SIBP model - Case 1.
pa, pss n+1 pa, mpss n+1
J t (d) p (psia) pSI(t) Wen+1 ΔWe
mean mean
0 0 3501 - 3501 3501 0,0 0
5 50 3485 3487 3499 3498 51719 14105
10 100 3474 3475 3495 3494 143736 20870
15 150 3464 3465 3489 3488 261322 24968
20 200 3455 3456 3483 3486 392897 26965
25 250 3448 3449 3476 3475 529338 27308
30 300 3442 3443 3470 3468 663460 26348
35 350 3438 3438 3463 3462 789602 24361
40 400 3435 3435 3458 3456 903305 21565
45 450 3434 3434 3453 3452 1001056 18132
50 500 3434 3433 3449 3448 1080090 14197