SPE-187639-MS

Uncertainty Analysis and Design Optimization of Gas-Condensate Fields

Benson Lamidi Abdul-Latif, Saint Petersburg Mining University; Ahmed Mohammed Fathi Elsharkawi, Alexandria
University; Tsikplornu Daniel Edem, Saint Petersburg Mining University

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kuwait Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 15-18 October 2017.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Unlike conventional reservoir development, uncertainty analysis and design optimization of unconventional
reservoirs have caught less attention because of a general notion that oil field production data analysis and
computational methodologies and techniques can be applicable to unconventional reservoir developments.
In order to predict production profiles in unconventional reservoirs, it is essential to understand the
uncertainties and performance of unconventional reservoirs. In this paper, the most relevant factors
influencing the production of gas-condensate in a domain of real data from gas condensate fields is
investigated and reviewed.
To identify the major factors affecting the production of condensates from heterogeneous and ultra-low
permeability reservoirs, third and fourth order factorial design (Box Behnken technique) were used on a
domain of gas-condensate field data to perform the uncertainty analysis. A semi-analytical surrogate model
for Monte Carlo analysis was also proposed in this paper.
Condensate blockage radius, reservoir permeability, well spacing, reservoir thickness; compressibility,
initial pressure; fracture spacing and initial condensate saturation were noted to be the most substantial
parameters influencing condensate production. Validation of the results proved that the proposed surrogate
models for gas-condensate reservoirs could reliably be used to forecast condensate values in heterogeneous
and ultra-low permeability reservoirs.
This paper also presents a semi-analytical model applicable to unconventional reservoirs to incorporate
the effect of condensate banking in the design optimization of hydraulic fracturing. Analytical models
for Darcy flow above and below the dew point pressures were considered whilst estimating the optimum
fracture design in gas condensate reservoirs using Schechter's approach incorporating the effects of the
condensate blockage radius.

Relevance
Until the beginning of the 1930's, gas-condensate reservoirs did not get much recognition. Since then,
gas-condensate reservoirs have been found with expanding recurrence, yet have got less consideration
because of the general assumption that oil field production data analysis and computational methodologies
and techniques can be applicable to gas-condensate fields. In the mid 1990's, the journey for streamlining
2 SPE-187639-MS

condensate production and related reservoirs unpredictability received much consideration utilizing
response-surface methods (RSMs) (Egeland et al. 1992; Elvind et al. 1992; Aanonsen et al. 1995). In
modern times, response-surface methods are being utilized for different engineering purposes, incorporating
sensitivity analyses in initial hydrocarbon reserves (Peng and Gupta 2003); field development plans for gas/
condensate reservoirs (Huerta Quinones et al. 2010) and for the calculation of ideal placements (Guyaguler
and Horne 2001). Several designs of experiments (DOEs) and response-surface methods were analyzed to
enumerate the potency of this method. The conclusion drawn was that, to predict the production performance
and to evaluate uncertainty, the response-surface methods could be utilized as a more effective and fast
model for reservoirs.
Many researchers have applied response-surface methods experimental design by the use of a set of
comprehensive compositional simulation for ultralow permeability condensate reservoirs but the effect
of condensate blockage in the sensitivity analyses of a gas condensate reservoir has not been reported
previously. This paper presents a unique novelty in investigating and optimizing the primary parameters
that affect condensate production from ultralow-permeability reservoirs. Also, by regressing the results of
an experimental designed compositional simulation, second order surrogate models were developed and
optimized as functions of the most essential factors affecting condensate recovery in a gas-condensate
recovery.

Model Description
Using a compositional simulator, a single vertical fracture was placed in the reservoir center with one
horizontal well in the x-direction as shown in Fig. 1. Model description parameters and the field data
considered are shown in Tab. 1 and Tab. 2 respectively.

Figure 1—Reservoir Model geometry (Palash P. et al. 2015)

Table 1—Model description parameters

Fracture height, ft Reservoir height

Fracture length, ft Reservoir length

Reservoir thickness, ft 200

Reservoir length, ft 750

Fracture width 0,05

Fracture orientation held constant parallel to y-z plane

Initial water saturation, % 20

Matrix porosity, % 5

Reservoir top, ft 15000

SPE-187639-MS 3

Table 2—Gas condensate field data (Chipman et al 2011)

Permeability Average GCR(scf/

Field havg (ft) Porosity, % Sw (%) Pore Pressure (psia)
range (md) permeability STB)

X 200 10 0,001 - 0,0018 0,0015 35 6000 400 - 1100

Y 300 10 0,001 - 0,0018 0,0015 35 6000 1100 - 2500

Z 200 10 0,001 - 0,0018 0,0015 35 7200 2500 - 4500

Input factors
For easier analytical treatment during data analysis and computational methodologies applied to
multiphase condensate flow, condensate-banking effect and other essential parameters are usually neglected.
Nevertheless, ignoring the amplified role of these parameters in multiphase flow in gas-condensate
reservoirs may produce inaccurate analytical results and calculations during hydraulic fracture design
and optimization treatment. Hence, from an extensive sensitivity analysis (Deo et al. 2013) the primary
factors influencing the production performance of gas-condensate reservoirs were chosen. The impact of
condensate blockage within each grid block of the reservoir geometry was incorporated. The ten parameters
considered in this paper are presented below in Tab. 3.

Table 3—Input parameters considered in this study

Factors Denotion Minimum (-1) Medium (0) Maximum (+1)

Initial Pressure (psia) F1 5000 6000 8500

Fracture Spacing, (ft) F2 60/60 180/180 300/300

Fracture Permeability, (md) F3 15 170 300

Rock Compressibility, log(Cf) F4 -5 -4 -3

Bottomhole Pressure, (psia) F5 500 1000 1500

Matrix Permeability, (nd) F6 10 500 5000

Initial Condensate/Gas Ratio, (STB/MMScf) F7 75 150 250

Critical Condensate Saturation F8 0,1 0,25 0,35

Gas Relative Permeability exponent F9 1 2 3

Condensate blockage radius ratio,(%) F10 3 7 10

Relative Permeability data

The Corey model was used for relative permeability curves. The equations are as follows:
For Gas/Oil Permeability data:
4 SPE-187639-MS

For Water/Oil Permeability data:

Compositional Simulation Model for design optimization using Schechter

approach
A homogeneous reservoir with reservoir dimensions of 6000 ft *6000ft*60ft with a uniform porosity of
20% and a fracture permeability of 5000 md was used for this section. Different reservoir fluids (as shown in
Table 4) with hydrocarbon properties ranging from lean to rich fluids were used in this study. The respective
PVT diagrams of these fluids are shown in Fig.2 to Fig.4.

Table 4—Reservoir fluid composition with CGR at 75,150 and 250 STB/MMscf (Whitson and Sunjerga, 2012)

Condensate/ Condensate/
Components Condensate/Gas Ratio at 75
Gas Ratio at 150 Gas Ratio at 250

H2S 0,001 0,0001 0,0001

N2 0,0019 0,0019 0,0019

CO2 0,0286 0,0286 0,0286

C1 0,7173 0,6805 0,6555

C2 0,0919 0,0887 0,0837

C3 0,0513 0,0493 0,047

i-C4 0,0118 0,0119 0,0109

n-C4 0,0201 0,019 0,0189

i-C5 0,0092 0,0089 0,0085

n-C5 0,0099 0,0135 0,0091

C6 0,0141 0,0135 0,013

C7+ 0,0441 0,0841 0,1228

C7+ (molecular weight) 132 148 152

°API 49,8 47,1 45,5

Tc (°F) 3,2 157 293

Pc (psia) 2,422 4,448 4,611

SPE-187639-MS 5

Figure 2—PVT diagram for reservoir fluid (CGR=75 STB/MMscf)

Figure 3—PVT diagram for reservoir fluid (CGR=125 STB/MMscf)

Figure 4—PVT diagram for reservoir fluid (CGR=250 STB/MMscf)

Properties of Reservoir Fluids

The three different reservoir fluids with initial condensate/gas ratios of 75, 125 and 250 STB/MMscf used
in this study are presented in Table 4 as below. The PVT diagrams for the above fluids are shown in Fig.
2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.

Experimental Design
One hundred and seventy simulation runs were performed for the experimental design considering the ten
factors named previously. Determining an accurate experimental design is usually the key to building a
competent response-surface model. To generate the second-order response surface as shown in equation
1, the Box-Bohnken technique (Box and Behnken 1960) was used in this study. The algorithm used to
develop the response surface model is shown on a later page (Fig. 7). This partial factorial design method
6 SPE-187639-MS

is incomparable and hence, played an important role in the development of the regression model. For the
experimental design, the regression model for building response surfaces (Palash et al, 2015) was used. The
nine parameters Palash et al. used in their previous study and our results as shown below in Fig. 5 and Fig.
6 were taken into consideration. However, in their research work, the impact of condensate blockage was
not considered and in incorporating the effect of condensate banking 170 experimental simulations for the
ten factors we considered (Fig. 8 and Fig. 9) were performed.

Figure 5—Sensitivity analyses with the nine initially proposed parameters (Palash et al, 2015)

Figure 6—Pareto chart of sensitivity analyses with the nine initially proposed parameters (Palash et al, 2015)
SPE-187639-MS 7

Figure 7—Response surface model development algorithm

8 SPE-187639-MS

Figure 8—Sensitivity analyses with ten factors

Figure 9—Pareto chart of sensitivity analyses with ten factors

(1)

where, Fn - the ten input factors, a0 - the intercepts, ak, aij - the searched coefficients and ξ - the error term
to be minimized.

Description of experimental Algorithms

The algorithms shown below (Fig. 7) elaborates the steps from input files generation to creating final
response surface models. Using a reservoir simulator and the Box Bohnken technique, 170 input data
were used for the simulations with the 10 factors. The range of values of the ten most essential reservoir
parameters are shown in Tab. 3. Mathematical programs were then introduced to perform multivariate
regression to obtain coefficients from the collected results as proposed by Palash et al, 2015.

Reviews, Discussion and Results

To validate the proposed surrogate models, simulations results were compared with results of the surrogate
models by plotting both results together (Fig. 10 and Fig. 11) to estimate the R2 (coefficient of determination)
SPE-187639-MS 9

and the NRMSE (computation methods can be checked in SPE archives) values. NRMSE values were
obtained as small percentages with R2 values approximately approaching unity, hence indications of good
coincidence and thus, surrogate models to be used to forecast production performance.

Figure 10—Condensate recovery using regressional model

Figure 11—Condensate recovery using simulation model

Condensate Blockage effect in reservoir simulator

In Fig. 12, simulation diagrams show how fluctuating reservoir properties affect condensate formation near a
fracture below the dew point whilst the well is kept on production - (Li Fan et al. 2015 – Understanding Gas-
Condensate reservoirs). Within a period of 15-60 days, the effect of changing reservoir pressure, condensate
saturation and gas relative permeability within a hydraulic fracture is shown. Reservoir pressure rapidly
decreases within 15 days, with an increment in condensate saturation after 60 days of production and hence,
a significant reduction in the gas relative permeability.
10 SPE-187639-MS

Figure 12—Condensate banking formation effect relative to reservoir properties

(reservoir pressure, condensate saturation and gas relative permeability)
SPE-187639-MS 11

Semi-analytical model for design optimization of hydraulic fracturing in gas-

condensate reservoirs using Schechter approach
With a known fluid injection history, we can predict the fracture dimensions and wellbore pressure in well
using models such Penny-shaped, PKN (Fig. 13) and KGD. It is though very difficult to predict fracture
dimensions in a gas-condensate reservoir due to the effects of condensate banking in the near wellbore area.
The gas-condensate reservoir behavior is divided into 3 regions once the bottomhole pressure falls below
the dew point pressure - the near wellbore region in which both phases flow towards the well; the region
between the dew point pressure and the condensate radius with a two phase flow but with only gas flowing
towards the well and the far end region, with a single gas phase.

Figure 13—Basic notation for Perkins-Kern fracture geometry model for a vertical well (Economides, 2000)

In this section an alternate semi-analytical procedure is considered using stimulation ratio optimization
technique to evaluate optimum fracture geometry in gas-condensate reservoirs when the fracture is
nonuniform (i.e., fracture conductivity varies along the fracture length).

Semi-analytical Model for Darcy flow, above the Dew Point

When a fractured well is put on production, the flow is linear into the fracture. If the well flowing pressure
is constant, the production rate will initially be large and flow approaches the semi-steady state production.
But, if the production rate is held constant, the well flowing pressure will decline. The initial linear flow
period is not often of great importance when optimizing fracture design in gas-condensate reservoirs. In this
section we present the top view of a fractured well with varying fracture conductivities in which the effect of
condensate banking was not considered (Fig. 14). An analytical expression for the optimum fracture length
for gas-condensate reservoirs was derived as shown in equation 2.
12 SPE-187639-MS

Figure 14—Top view of vertically fractured well with variable fracture conductivity without the effect of condensate banking

The analytical procedure starts by assuming that the flow is radial and the radial permeability is a function
of position. It was assumed that a single-phase gas is flowing, though relaxed for the flow below the
dewpoint to include condensage blockage.
Flow is governed by Darcy's law and the radial flux given by Darcy's law is as shown below

Multiplying both sides -2πrh by gives us

Where q is the production rate ((q = -2πrhur)

The productivity index for liquids and gases are defined as,
for liquids

for gas
Assuming a constant pressure Pe at the drainage radius re and a constant gas viscosity, μ

ρw is the density at the wellbore

From Schechter sketch of top view of vertically fractured well with variable fracture conductivity in Fig.
14
SPE-187639-MS 13

This equation is derived by noting that over an arc of length (2πr - 2wf), the permeability is the formation
permeability and over the very small length 2wf the permeability is the fracture permeability, kf. Hence
assuming a constant gas viscosity, the productivity index for a fractured well can be derived as:

By integrating whilst assuming, re ≅ we get,

Note that for the integral constant term, a value of was used knowing that it's numerical value

approaches 0 as the ratio approaches 1.

For unfractured wells productivity is obtained as:

By using the stimulation ratio for variable fracture conductivities as proposed by Schechter at al (1992),
we get:

Assuming and k ≪ kf we get

Thus, the optimization problem reduces to:

14 SPE-187639-MS

A necessary condition for the existence of an optimum is:

The relationship below the variables L and wf is:

Rewriting in to the form:

where,

ϕf - fracture porosity, h – fracture thickness and Vp – proppant volume

Thus, the differential equation reduces to:

On solving, we get

Using Blake-Kozeny fracture permeability equation

, and the proppant volume relation

Vp = 2wfLh(1-ϕf), where dD – effective sand grain size

We find the optimal fracture length as;

(2)

Semi-analytical Model for Darcy Flow Below the Dew Point

In this section we present the top view of a fractured well with variable fracture conductivities in which the
effect of condensate banking was considered (Fig. 16). An analytical expression for the optimum fracture
length for gas-condensate reservoirs was derived as shown in equation 2.
SPE-187639-MS 15

The productivity index for liquids and gases are defined as,

By integrating whilst assuming, re → L, we get:

Note that for the integral constant term a value of was used knowing that it's numerical value

approaches 0 as the ratio approaches 1.

Assuming kf ⋙ k

Assuming

For L to be maximum:

and hence
16 SPE-187639-MS

By differentiation and simplifying, we obtain:

where x = krd(1-krg)
Solving the quadratic equation:

Using Blake-Kozeny fracture permeability equation

, and the proppant volume relation

We find the optimal fracture length as;

(3)

Note that when rd = 0 or krg = 1, we get back the equation for optimum fracture length for single-phase
gas flow governed by Darcy's law in equation (2).

Conclusion
It is still a great challenge in the industry to predict the production performance in gas-condensate reservoirs.
The proposed second order surrogate model used in this research could be used to forecast production in
heterogeneous and ultra-low permeability reservoirs. Due to condensate blockage effect in gas-condensate
reservoirs, an increment in the number of production wells may even cause a drop in production. Hence,
using the proposed surrogate model, thorough investigations, screening and uncertainty assessments of a
gas condensate reservoir are recommended during the development phase of such reservoir.
SPE-187639-MS 17

Condensate blockage radius, reservoir permeability, well spacing, reservoir thickness and initial
condensate saturation were noted to be the most substantial parameters influencing condensate production.
Also, from equation 2 and 3, the proposed semi-analytical methods were used to evaluate the optimum
fracture length and compared to the optimum fracture length calculated from the simulation runs as shown in
Fig. 15. From Fig. 15, results indicate that the proposed semi-analytical methods reasonably agree with the
simulation procedures. Fig. 17 compares the optimum fracture lengths from the analytical calculations and
simulation runs below dew points. Clearly, with a decreasing condensate banking radius, Fig. 17 reasonably
agrees with the simulation results.

Figure 15—Optimum fracture half-length as a function of proppant mass for single

phase Darcy flow – Comparison of simulation results and analytical calculations

Figure 16—Top view of vertically fractured well with variable fracture conductivity with the effect of condensate banking
18 SPE-187639-MS

Figure 17—Optimum fracture half-length as a function of proppant mass for two

phase Darcy flow – Comparison of simulation results and analytical calculations

References
1. Benson Lamidi A-L., Dziwornu C.K. and Adaze E. Optimizing of spacing of horizontal wells in
gas and gas-condensate reservoirs, SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, 2015, pp.
1–10
2. Chipman, J., Heikkinen, D. and Lively, B. 2011. The Niobrara: A Look into the Weird Science of
Tight, Light Oil Plays. DJ Basin Niobrara Primer, research report, Tudor Pickering Holt & Co.,
August 2011.
3. Benson Lamidi A-L., Lykov Y.V. and Alemam A. Reservoir pressure management and strategic
modeling of fracture geometry in Gas-condensate wells, The Journal of Mongolian University of
Science and Technology (JMUST) 2016 Volume 09/192
4. Whitson, C. H. and Sunjerga, S. 2012. PVT in Liquid-Rich Shale Reservoirs. Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–10 October.
SPE-155499-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/155499-MS.
5. Yeten, B., Castellini, A., Guyaguler, B. et al. 2005. A Comparison Study on Experimental Design
and Response Surface Methodologies. Presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium,
The Woodlands, Texas, 31 January–2 Feburary. SPE-93347-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/93347-
MS.
6. Economides M., and Martin A.N.: How to Decide between Horizontal Transverse, Horizontal
Longitudinal, and Vertical Fractured Completions, paper SPE 134424 presented at the Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, September 19-22, 2010.
7. Meyer B.R., Bazan L.W., Jacot R.H., and Lattibeaudiere M.G.: Optimization of Multiple
Transverse Hydraulic Fractures in Horizontal Wellbores, paper SPE 131732 presented at the SPE
Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, February 23-25, 2010.
8. Al-Anazi H., Al-Kanaan A., Pacheco E., and Rahim Z.: Evaluation and Selection of Stimulation
Methods in Horizontal Gas Wells for Production Optimization Using Numerical Modeling
of Well Performances, paper SPE 167090 presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources
Conference and Exhibition – Asia Pacific, Brisbane, Australia; November 11-13, 2013.
SPE-187639-MS 19

9. Huerta Quinones, V. A. and Lanchimba, A. F. 2012. A Holistic Analysis Approach for

Reservoir Modeling. Presented at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Mexico City, 16–18 April 2012. SPE-153387-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/153387-
MS.
10. Huerta Quinones, V. A., Lanchimba, A. F. and Colonomos, P. 2010. Gas/Condensate Field
Development Plan by Means of Numerical Compositional Simulation. Presented at the SPE
Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Lima, Peru, 1–3 December.
SPE-138886-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/138886-MS.
11. Kalantari Dahaghi, A., Esmaili, S. and Mohaghegh, S. D. 2012. Fast Track Analysis of Shale
Numerical Models. Presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference,
Calgary, 30 October–1 November. SPE-162699-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/162699-MS.
12. Khosravi, M., Fatemi, S. and Rostami, B. 2011. Assessing Structured Uncertainty in a Mature
Fractured Reservoir, Using Combination of Response Surface Method and Reservoir Simulation.
Presented at the SPE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference and Exhibition, Abu
Dhabi, 9–11 October. SPE-148003-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/148003-MS.
13. Landa, J. L. and Guyaguler, B. 2003. A Methodology for History Matching and the
Assessment of Uncertainties Associated with Flow Prediction. Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 5–8 October. SPE-84465-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/84465-MS.
14. Manceau, E., Mezghani, M., Zabalza-Mezghani, I. et al. 2001. Combination of Experimental
Design and Joint Modeling Methods for Quantifying the Risk Associated With Deterministic
and Stochastic Uncertainties - An Integrated Test Study. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September–3 October. SPE-71620-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/71620-MS.
15. Manceau, E., Roggero, F. and Zabalza-Mezghani, I. 2002. Use Of Experimental Design
Methodology To Make Decisions In An Uncertain Reservoir Environment From Reservoir
Uncertainties To Economic Risk Analysis. Presented at the 17th World Petroleum Congress, Rio
de Janeiro, 1–5 September. WPC-32161.
16. Matlab. 2013. MathWorks Inc., www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/. Mohaghegh, S. D. 2006.
Quantifying Uncertainties Associated With Reservoir Simulation Studies Using a Surrogate
Reservoir Model. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 24–27 September. SPE-102492-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/102492-MS.
17. Orangi, A., Nagarajan, N. R., Honarpour, M. M. et al. 2011. Unconventional Shale Oil and Gas-
Condensate Reservoir Production, Impact of Rock, Fluid, and Hydraulic Fractures. Presented at
the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 24–26 January.
SPE-140536-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/140536-MS.
18. Panja, P., Conner, T. and Deo, M. 2013. Grid Sensitivity Studies in Hydraulically Fractured Low
Permeability Reservoirs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 112 (December): 78–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.petrol.2013.10.009.
19. Panja, P. 2014. Understanding Liquids Production From Shales. PhD dissertation, University of
Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (December 2014).
20. Peng, C. Y. and Gupta, R. 2003. Experimental Design in Deterministic Modelling: Assessing
Significant Uncertainties. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Jakarta, 9–11 September. SPE-80537-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/80537-MS.
21. Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics with Special
Reference to the Biological Sciences. McGraw Hill.
22. Texas Railroad Commission. 2015. Texas, United States, www.rrc.state.tx.us.
20 SPE-187639-MS

23. Venkataraman, R. 2000. Application of the Method of Experimental Design to Quantify

Uncertainty in Production Profiles. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated
Modelling for Asset Management, Yokohama, Japan, 25–26 April. SPE-59422-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/59422-MS.
24. Weibull, W. 1951. A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. J. Appl. Mech.-Trans.
ASME 18 (3): 293–297.