Deconvolution of Wellbore

Pressure and Flow Rate

Fikrl J. Kuchuk, SPE, Schlumberger-Doll Research Center, Richard G. Carter, NASA Langley
Research Center, and LWS Ayestaran, SPE, Schlumberger Technical Services, Dubai

5 F’E 1<
Summary. Determination of the inffuence function of a welllresewoir system from ihe deconvolution of weUbore flow rate and pre.s-
sare is prasented. Deconvolution is fimdamental and is pa&aiady applicable to system identification. A variety of different deconvolu-
tion algorithms are presented. The simplest algoritlrn is a dmect method that works we!J for data without measurement noise but that
I%& in the me.sence of even small amounts of noise. We show. however. that a modified algorithm that inwoses constraints on the
solution set works very welf, even with significant measurementenors.

introduction
h reservoir testing, we ge”eratly know the characteristic features tion integral in connection with amfp”s of simukam.mrsly mea8-
of the sywtem tlom its mnstmt-flow-rate and constant-prsssure be- ured wellbore pressure and flow rate. Although we restrict our
havior. ‘hrs it is important to determine the mnstaqt:rate or discussion mostly to determining influence functions for the
-pressure behavior of the system for the identification of IIS char- constant-rate case, we do trsat the convolution integral in a gener-
acteristic feature?.. For instance, identification of a one-half slope al manner. In other words, the influence function can also be the
on a log-log plot of the pressure data may indicate a vertically frac- solution of the constant-pressure case.
tured well, as two parallel straight limes on a Homer graph may k a linear causal system (reservoir), tie relationship behvssn
indicate a fractured reservoir. The presence of either wellbore input (the Iime-depndent boundary condition that can be either the
storage or flow-rate variations, however, usually masks character- flow rate or pressure) and output (the system response meamred
istic system behavior, pardcufady at early tines. For many sys- as either the flow rate or pressure) at the welfbore can be described
tems, it is desirable to have a wellbore pressure that is free of as a convolution operation. 10We let the quantities measured at the
wellbom-stmage and/or variable-flow-rate effects to obtain infor- wellbore, above the sandface, be pti=wellbore pressure,
mation about the welflreservoir geometry and its parameters. For Q~=mmdative wellbore production, and g~=wellbore flow
example, the effects of partiaJ penetration, hydraulic bctures, sa- rate.
lution gas within the vicinity of the weltbore, gas cap, etc., on the The convolution integral is
wellbore pressure can k. masked entirely by wdfbore storage, flow-
rate vwiations, or both.
Although deconvolution of pressure and flow rate has not been
g(t) = f’(r)K(t-r)dr
J’
commonly UWAfor reservoir engineering problems, one can still t
fmd a few works on deconvolution (computing intluence function) =K(0)f(t)-f@f(0)+ j fC(7)f(t-r)d~, . (1)
in the petroleum engineering fiteraturs. Ffruchinson and SikOm, 1
Jones et al.,2 and Coats et al. 3 presented methcds for determin- where K(O)=&,. For th~ constant-flow-rate case, g(t) =&#(t)=
ing the influence function direcOy from field data. h,.f(r=O)-PM(Ol> K’(t) =APL(t), and jW=AqZJ(O=[q@(r=O)
Jargon and van PooUen4 were perhaps fxst to we tie dec&vo- –%@kJ,, while for the constant-pressure case, sO)=AQ@ =
lution of welfbore-flow-rate and pressure data to compute the lQ@(t=O)-Q@(f)l, ~(t)=AQj (z), f(t)=~n(t)= ~ (z=o)-
constant-rate behavior (the influence function) of the formation in PW(Ol/P, or 8(~)=Aq~(t)=lq~(t=o) –q~(t)[, aII~ K’(I)=
well testing. Bostic et al. 5 used a deconvolution technique to ob- ~j;~ #@)&:,tie t.~ K(OY(O-KW(0) can be replaced by
taia a constant-rate solution &om a variable-rate and -pressure fris- ..- .,”.,

tory. They also extended the deconvolution technique to combine
production and buildup data as a single test. Pasca16 ako used
deconvolution techniques to obtain a constant-rate solution from
variable-rate (measured at the surface) and -pressure measurements
of a drawdown test. Kut”k and Ayestamm7 presented several
deconvolution methods inclding the Laplace transform and curve
tit. Thompson et al. 8 and Thompson and Reynoldsg presented a rate, qti, when it is measured by the flowmeter at some wellbore
stable integration procedure for deconvolution.
Thk paper focuses on deconvolution methcds. Mathematically,
the deconvolution operation can be defined as obtaining solutions
for convolution-type, linear, Volterra integral equations. In resar-
vou testing, it is defined as determining the pressure behavior (ii-
fluence fiction or unit.respmse behavior) of a system from
simultaneously measared downlole pressure and flow rate. In other
words, deconvolution computes the pressure behavior of a
well/resemOir system as if the well were prcducing at a constant
rate. We calf the computed pressure behavior of the system “de-
ccmvolved pressure.”
Convolution Integral
Theconvolution integral, which is a special case of the Volterra
integral equations, is widsly known for providing techniques for
solving time-dependent boundary-value problems. It is also known
as the superposition theorem (i.e., Dubamel’s principle) and has
played an iqmrtant part in transient welf-tmt analysis. Jn recent
years, there ba8 been more interest in the solution of the convolu-
Copwhht19908ccieiyal i%roleumEng[mers
The functions Apw(t) and Qw(t) or qw(t) are the solutions of the
diilkivi~ equation for the ccmstant-tlow-mte or -prsssure case with
or without wellbore-storage and skin effects. Although it is usual-
ly small, the deconvolved pressure will always be affectd by the
wellbore volume between the measurement point and the sandfice
because the sandface flow rate is different from the wellbore flow
location above the perforations.
As shown by Coats et al.,3 the general solutions of the difdrsiv-
ity WMtion with $e T$ and second w of internal IJO- COII-
ditiom and nonpentic tidal and outer-bmmdaty conditions, satisfy
the constraints
K(t)~OfOr 2~0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ...@)
K’(t) >OfOrt> O, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)
K“(t)SOf Orr 20, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)
and K’’’(f) aOforr> O, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(5)
when the real time is >1 sezcmdand if the diffusivity constant,
kl@ct, is not very small. Coats et al. 3 amd linear programming
with the above constmints to compute K(t) from measured g(t) and
f(r). Here we use these constrains to compute the system irdJu-
ence function.
Deconvolutkrn Without Measurement Noise
Deconvolution is the determination of the inffuence function, K,
for the constan-ffow-rate case (or the constant-pressure case with

SPE Formation EvahMiO!l, March 1990 53

 I
1400.0
I ..
.+
, .“
1300.0 ,
~%’+
.
.
1200.0

~/ — exact
i“: :/ + deconvolved
+ demnvolved
1100.0
,..2 ,@ 1[ Tree, t, hr
lime,t,hr
. 2-DeconvoIved pressure for the flow rate with 0.1
Fig. l–Deconvolved pressure for the flow rate without erro 3r.
t

n-1
the appropriate deftions off and g above) by computing the pres-
sure behavior from any arbitmmy pressure and flow-rate. history for org?(t.)= x ] .,
K(r)f(tn
,
-r)d~, ............ . . (9)
a welfhesewoir system as though the well prcduces at a constant ;=1 ~,_l
rate. Unfike the conventional and convolution imapretation
where Kin Eq. 9 includes skin effwt.
methods, deconvolution of welfbore pressure and flow rate does
Substitution of the simple piecetiso functions for the approxi-
not require a prerequisite bMluence funodon. Thus, the computed
mation of K’ and fever the intervals [r+~ ,2J then yield linear sys-
influence function (deconvolve.d pressure) can Lwused directly for
tem3 of tie form
parameter estimation as welf as for system identification.
A direct discretimtion soheme for numerical deconvolu- AX=Z . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (10)
tion5.~8.11 can be written as a lower-triangular linear system,
where F represents an approximation to Kand ~ contains the pres-
LT. b, witbtbe cm~ncnts of ~repmsenting the vafues of Kand
sure measurements g(tn). The form of the A matrix depends on the
the components of b representing the measured values of g at vari-
functions used to approximate Kaodj as well as the scheme used
ous dme points. The solution of this system afso can be written
to represent K(I) in terms of the solution vector Z For example,
dizectly as
approximzdngf(t) by the piwewise linear timtioosf~t) =j +&i+,
-fi)(t-ti)/(ti+l –ti) fOr ti~t~ti+l ad K(t) by tie w=me ~n-
stant functionsK(t) =K(ti) for t;s t= tj+ ~ io Eq. 9 yields a Iower-
*$@r SYSkm eqtivdent to the deconvolution formufa given by
~S. 6 and 7.
–f(tn+, –r,+,)]} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(6I In this work, we chmse,f(r) to be the piecewise. finear functions,
as before, but use more sophisticated approximating functions for
and K(~o)=g(tl)/~(tl), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(7)
K(t). Note that if the weflbore storage and skin are zero, then

‘here ~=’’’’+’-i’=”’)’” ‘=O’’””:N’ ‘dose’s’” K(f)=~ . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(11)

Thompson et al. dmcuss the selechon of smtable Oi WILWSin
terms of a stable and nonosciflato~ deconvolution solution if the k the early-time approximation for the solution of the *ivity
flow-rate data are free. of measurement noise. F@. 6 and 7 reduce eWatiOn for anY ZYztmnthat is intemalfy bounded by a smooth sur-

: .
to Eq. 23 in Ref. 7 if 0;=% and to F@ 8 in Ref. 5 if~i=l. face (sphere, cyfinder, t%cture, etc.) with a constant-flow-rate
A variety of deconvolution schemes can be generated by writing boundary. fftbe wellbore storage is zero with a nonzero skin, then
Eq. 1 as
K(t)=ti+&. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(12)
n-l Zi
ff both the wellbore storage and skin are nonzero, then
g(tn)=@,f(tn)+ z ~ K’(T)f(tn –~)d~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
i-l ,i-l K(t)=ti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(13)

1500.0, 1 1400.0
.-
.- %

‘H
1400.0 . . g .“ .+
$
.
~ i 300.0
.
g 1300,0 :.
% t?
3! +“ .
.+ + ●, .:
= 1200.0
.-c .,. + g 1200.0
●
% g — exact
~ 1100.0 +:
0. + decunwlved
— exact
6 . deconwlved 1100.0 E
, ~2 , ~, Id
1000.0
, “.2 , ~., , ~o
Tree, t, hr
Xme, t, hr
Fig. 4-Deconvolved pressure for the flow rate with 0.1%
error with finite-element sw of 4At.

34 SPE Formation Evahradon, March 19S0

 1500.01
1400.0 .-

F“

1100.0
‘~
+
E/
F
Ig

v
$100.0 -.

t 000.0I
,@ ,IJ.*
—

,@
.
exact
deconvolved

j 0.1 1(
1U* 1[
Tree, t, hr
Tree, t, hr
Fig. 6—DeconvoIved pressure for the flowrate with 2% nor-
?g. 5–Deoonvolved pressure for the flow rate with 0.19 mallydistributed emorwith the monotone-increasing,seoond-
?rrorwith finite-element size of 8At ierlvafive option.

is the early-time approximation of the ftite welfbore solution with the mesh forf(r) from the tial regions must match with the mesh
the wellbore-storage and skin effects. This solution afso approxi- for K(r) for the initiaf regions when we are integrating
mate.! the case where the wellbore storage is tinite with a zero skin. K’(T)f(tn –r). To simpfify the computation, we will increase the
An appropriate general approximation at early times is thus mesh size only for K(t). llds is equivalentto simply detinirig groups
of adjacmt swondderivative values on the original mesh to be equal
K(f)= at+~+AP, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(14)
to each other. Such equal K“(t) values can be represented by a sin-
for @O,tl]. For afl other time intervals, K is approbated by gle variable in Z and the corresponding columns of A can be re-
smcoth piecewise quadratic functions: The solution vector for K, placed by a siogle column that is the sum of alf the others in the
X is given in terms of the unknowns Ap,, K’(tI), K“(tI), group. BecauseEq. 10 is now overdetennird, we solve the linear
K“(t2). .K’’(tN-l). It is then straightforward, i~somewhat tedi- least-squares problem by minimizing
ous, to express Eq. 9 in the discrete form A 7= b, where A is an
1%(~–AY)T(~-A7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
NxN+ 1 matrix. Appendix A presents the details of the deriva-
tion, along with the procedure for reconstmcting K(t) from the so- Deconvolution With NOISY
hmion vector X Flow.Rate Measurements
Fig. 1 demomtrates what happens when we use this discretiza-
All measurements, no matter how carefufly obtained, are subject
tion on synthetic test data with 100 points and no error in f(t) or
to errors. At the wellbore, errors in pressure measurements usual-
g(t). Note that the discretization gives a soIution that is abnost in-
distinguishable from the qmfytical solution. The wellbore pressure Iy are smaller than errors in ffowmeter measurements. Sometimes
and flow rate used for deconvolution plots (Pigs. 1 thro.gb 8) are errors can be verj large in flowmeter measurements, depending
computed from a fully penetrated, finite radkd-resen’oti model on wellbore geometries and fluid twe.
Kuchuk12 ;howed that tbe deco;;olution algorithm, given by
with the reservoir and fluid properties given in Table 1 in Ref. 7.
RI. 6 or any other direct deconvolution method, does not work if
This is a buifduu test case with C. = l,COO, s=1O, and .P.. =4,4W
the downbole flow rate contains measurement noises. Let us as-
psi [30 MPa]. -
Note afso that as it stands, Eq. 10 is underdetennined. One way sume that the dovmhole flowrate with noises can approximated by
to make the solution uniaue is by defnim K;- ,=0. This mild con- ~(r)=f(t) +,(t). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(16)
dition allows us to elii;ate th; last coiti oiA qd the last ele-
For an evenly spaced partition, consider the Riemann SUMfor@.
ment of z giving us an NxN finear system that we can solve with
standard algorithms. Another approach is to create an overdeter- 1 without the skin term:
mined system by increasing the size of the tinite elements, with
a fine mesh for early-time values and a progr.ewively coarser mesh K;=—gn–
‘( Ef”-i+lKi
‘-’ ‘) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(17)
for later-time values. Doing this is somewhat complicated because fl \ i=, /

1500.0 1500.0
.- .-
2 :
$ 1400.0-
:1400,0

s : , ~oo,o
: . .
: .
z 1300.0- S!
k
.-c .
.a
m 1200.0-
&
~ 51100.0 ;
— exact .“. — exact
6 + dewnvolved - demnvclved
1100.0 ‘ I t 000.0
1u? , ~, I& 10’ 10“2 10“’ .10” 10’
Ime, t, hr Tree, t, hr

Fig. 7—Deconvolved pressure for the f low rate with 2% nor- Fig. S-Deconvolved pressure for the flow rate with 2% nor-
mally dlstribtied error with the reduced-monotone option. mally distributed error with the nonposiuve secondderivative
option.

SPE Formation Bvatuadon, March 19S0 55

 squares problem that can be solved with an active-set, quadratic-
TABLE l–CPU TIME AND STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
prograrmoiog method. 13.14
dumber of Much care was needed to formulate the probIem so that it was
Memory CPU Time”
Points Method Requirement, NM (seconds) numerically tractable for large data sets (N> 1,033). The elements
of 7 were specifically defined as Ap., K’(tI), K“(rI), K“(12).
1,000 Monotone 39,255 45
Reduced monotone 5,811 20
K“(!N-l) so that constraints given by Eqs. 2 through 4 could be
K“SO 39,255 ‘Press~ a shpk bounds 011the elements of ~
4,400 Monotone 317,300 570 x~20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(2o)
Reduced monotone 23,200 50
K“SO 317,300 850 for iS2,
11,250 Monotone 1,263,800 ..
Reduoed monotone 56,248 122 Xiso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(21)
for i> 3, plus the single linear constraint
“hememoryrequirements(NM) for each methcd(i.e., the amount
,fcomputermemoryrequiredto storethe Matrix,4 and associated N-1
mrk arrays) are defined as follows. K’(zN)=K’(tl)+At ~ K“(ti)zO. . . ..(23)
NM >(M+ 1 P+3(N+ 1)+6P for K’rs O and monotoneoptions i=I
lnd Nu >2P J +3(N+ 1) +6P for the reduced-monotoneoption, h general, when Eqs. 20 and 21 are satisfied, Eq. 22 also tends
/here M is any integer such that M(M+ I)>N and P-M+4, and
to be satisfied in practice. Consequently, we needed only mild
/here NM is the number of floating point words required for
torage. safeguards in the program to prevent it from being violated. @.
22 was handled by adding a penal~ term that increased the objec-
.Ttmlng
resuils
arefora vu 111780
Withflmtlng point amlerew. tive function if the constraint was violati. The penalty comtant
.WaJld not CM@!, m VAX VMS bmause of @xcessivemmm.rj ,equlrmenls. was chosen heuristically on tie basis of the element size of A, and
provisions were included for automatically increa.siogit ifit proved
too smafl. Treating Eq. 22 io this manner allowed us to we spe-
Substituting Q. 16 into Eq. 17 yields
cialized, bigMy efftcient algorithms for quadratic programming
problems subject only to simple constraints. The monotonically in-
creasing seconddexivative option MD be meated similarly if the com-
ponents of Y are deiimxl as Ap,, K’(tI), K“(tI), K“(t2)
n-1
.–K”(tl).. K“(tN)-K’’(tN_I). Appendix B presents the details
I Oi tills tomulation.
E en-i+lKj. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . ..(18)
The use of progressively larger linite elements for larger time.
(fl+q) i=l values was also highly signiikmt in making our pmbiem computa-
Each term in Eq. 18 is divided by (ql +C1), which includes the fmt tionafly tractable. We used a mesh that kept the ncdes approximately
flow-rate measurement and the associated error. ff the error, El, equally spaced on a logarithmic scale and reduced the size of Eq.
is small, we may have reasonable results from deconvolution. The 15 fiOm NxN tO NxP, where p is rOugMY fi (tie Precise
real problem, however, is the last summation term in Eq. 18, definition of P is given io TabIe 1). Solving this problem thus in-
n-l volves a singfe or orthogonal factorization of Matrix A (A =QR,
with Q being NxNor an ortbonormal matrix and R being an upyr
– x 6n-i+lK;.
i=, tigular matrix) and the solution of a .PXP quadratic program.
For very targe N, solving this problem is still fairly time-
ThiSterm isa summation of the solution, K’, times the error, t. conmming even tier the savings given from larger titdte elements.
It grows as time increases, which makes deconvolution an unsta- For that reason, a third scheme was considered as a modification
ble process. to the monotone-increasing swondderivative option. This scheme
Algorithms for approximating the solution of F.q. 1 woufdb rela- is called “reduced monotone. ” It simply ignores many of the rows
tively trivial except for the violent effects small amounts of flow- of A for large t where things may not change significantly. Table
rate noise. have on the solution. Figs. 1 through 3 show us what 1 presents CPU time and storage requirements for three different
happens when we use Eq. 10 with equally spaced time points on numbers of data points. It ah shows thattbe reduced-monotone
test data with 100 points and errors in f @ of O, 0.1, and 1%, re- @ion reduces the storage requirements considerably.
spectively. Wit3 no error, the discretization gives a solution that The last technique for deafing with measurement noise is a slight
is almost indistinguishable from the analytical solution. With only modification of the previous approaches and can be motivated by
0.1 % noise, though, our solution starts to oscillate wildly. With a detailed e xandnation of our least-squares fomudation. Eq. 15 is
1 % noise, the solution is obviously useless. Several other dmcreti- mOst aPPrOPMte if the m=SUrement nOise is ~ g(t) (~ P~ss~
za.tion schemes were tied, including Eqs. 6 and 7, but all exhibit UImmIementS). More precisely, the sOIutiOn of Eq. 15 is ~e exWt
the same phenomenon. solution to the overdetermined system AZ =b, whero b @ the
We considered three techniques for ~g the effects of smafkst wssible perturbation in the least-squares sense of b (the
measurement noise. The first was to increase the size of our tinite vector of pressure measurements). It would, of course, be better
elements as previously discussed so that noise will tend to average to tind the srnallost ~rturbation to f(t) (the flow-rate measurements)
itself out. Typical resuks of such smoothing are showo h Figs. for which we cao s?lve the problem exactly. This can be fOrumfat-
4 and 5. We found that the use of larger elements signitlantly helps ed as fOllows. L&f be defined as in Eq. 16 and find K(t) and e(t)
our solutions when they are compared with the solutions given in that minimize I]@) II subject to
Fig. 2. Unfortumtely, for larger errors and large N, there is usual-
ly still some oscillation. g(t)=@~f(t)+@K’(r-r)dr . .. ... . . ..(23)
The second technique was to restrict the solution space by bo- 0
posing some or all constmimts given by Eqs. 2 through 5. We =fer and the constraints given by Eqs. 20 through 22. Such a reformu-
to our dgoritbm that folfows constraints given by Eqs. 2 through Iation of he dwonvol”tion ~ ~ ~on~~~~-~ation problem
4 as the ‘‘ncmpa$itive secondderivative” option. Because our ap- shoufd give the best result we can expxt Unfortunately, h minimi-
proximation to K is only twice continuously differ~tile, if &. z,aticm problem givem by Eq. 23 is compwationafly intractable if
5 is used also, it should be replaced by Nis Large because it is nonlinear. We have therefore made the fol-
K“(!) is monotone increasing for t>O, .. .. ... .(19) lowing simpfitication. Combining Eqs. 16 and 23 for t=tn gives

which we refer to as the’ ‘monotone-increasing secondderivative” 8(tn)=&s~(~n)+~(tn)]+~ *”V(7)+e(~)]K’(t”-r)d~, . . ..(24)

option. fn either case, Eq. 15 becomes a constrained finear least- 0

56 SPE Fommtion Evaluation,March 1990

 we
4350
if
“ “ ““””””””””%..
..
:. .:
.. . . .... .. . ... . 10000
11000

9000
1.20

1.oo-

L
.. . 8000 -.
: 7200 s
;+”% @a 0.80-
“. 6000 $
:%
5000 * 8
“%
, +... 4000 E
.: % 0,60-
. Pressure . .. 3000
. Flow Rate “ ..OO
; - exact
2000
.2 o dernn.olved
““k,
1000
. ..”’ . o.40-r
0 # I 1
3750 , ~2 , ;.1
,V2 10+ 100 1Ot
1d 100 10’ 10’ 10$
Xme, hr to

Fig. 9–Downhole pressure and flow rate of a drawdown test ‘lg. 10-Derivative of deconvolved pressure for the presmm
for a horizontal well. md flow rate given In Ffg. 9.

which can be rewritten
2s reduced-monotone option. It can be seen from these figures that
the deconvohmion with the monotoneXncreasing K“ constraints gives
the best resuft starting from a very early time. The reduced-
monotoneoption, wbife not as accurate, may stUf be acceptable if
computational spfed is a factor.

Dlscusslo6f
Ducredzatiom other than the ones listed above were also tried. Ver-
sions that did not use the square-root term in the timt interval usually
Now recall hat K’(O)= m for the constant-rate case. Because it were a bit less accurate for a few timesteps. A Iower+rder dis-
is only a slightly cmde approximation, we can discard the term cretization, which bound ordy the first derivative to be >0, pro-
n dnced results that were not 2.ssm.xdb as we desired. A fdgher+rder
E $''K'(r),(tn-~)d~ ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(2Q discredzation, which was based on cubics and which bamdtbe third
t=z ti_* derivative to be =0, turned out to be bigfdy sensitive to heuristic
details (such as the number of .Tcornponents initially “fwed” and
8.s king dominated by the term
how they were chosen).
The direct deconvolution formula, given by Eqs. 6 and 7, is a
~tiKr(r),(tn-r)dr, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ..(27) recursive algoritlun in which K.+* is computed with all previous
computed K values (Kn, K.-~, Kn-2, etc.). h other words, the
computed value of Kn is not affected by Km+,. The constmined-
and can consider e over tie intervaf [In,tn_l] to be constant and
deconvoludon afgoritbm mmputes the deamvolved pressure in a
eqwal to en. With these simplifications Eq. 23 becomes
nonrecursive manner. As in the zolution of a syztem of linear equa-
h , tions, all computed values of K affect each other; i.e., the accura-
g.– [J@sfn+ f(T)K (tn–r)d~ =enKI. . . . . ....(28) cyofKn is affected by Kn+l, Kn+2, K.+3 . and Km.l, Kn_l.
0 1 K,. As a result, we recommend that, in practice, a given data set
should be partitioned and that deconvolution should be carried out
Therefore, we can do the following mani@adon. f-et us fix the
in a sequential mmner. This is particularly necessay for early time.
vahe of K, to be a constant. Then we minimize Z#=lc~, which
In weU testing, the idlue.ce function of real systems Wiwdfy
is equivzfent to minimizing E:= I $., where
can be much more complicated than the Miite did system that
is used for the above deconvolution examples (Tigs. 1 through 8).
an=gn–
[1Ap,fn+
o
‘“f(~)K,(tn–~)dr
1
. .. . . . . . . ..(29) Now let us use the amlyticaf solution for a horizontal welf (Examp-
le 3 in Ref. 15) and the flow-rate data (real measurements) shown
in F]g. 9 to compute wellbore pressure, also shown in Fig. 9. This
ff we include more terms from W. 26, the mathematical analysis
horizontal weU example is used because it has few diferent flow
becomes slightly more complicated. It sdU suggests, however, that
psricd.z, as shown in Fig. 5 in Ref. 15. Fig. 10 compares tbe deriva-
we can replace the ~ “on problem defined by Eq. 23 by the
tive of the deconvolved pressure, computed with the con?.trained-
mucbsimpler Eq. 15 if we “freeze” Omfirstfewvafuezof XTbese
deconvolution method with partition for the pressure and flow-rate
values can be determined by solving our discretization once with
data set (Fig. 9), with the derivadve of tie amlyticaf solution. As
use of an N stroll enough so that ourf(t) data are still essentially
Fig. 10 shows, the derivative of the deconvolved pressure agrees
exact. A large number of test runs were made to determine about
well with the analytical derivative, with the exception of a few points
how much of T to “fieezc before solving the full discretization. The
at early time. Note that ewm at early dine, the mend (shape) of the
best choice seemed to be to fix the fust three elements.
deconvolved-pressure derivative is almost identkaf to that of the
Some typical results for tkse different methods are shown in Figs.
a.nalydcaf derivative.
6 tiuough 8. The weflbore flow-rate &ta,f(t), bad a 2% normally
distributed error induced into it, and 1,~ points were used. Fig.
6 presents cmmputed dewnvolved and actual (analydcafly comput- Conclusions
ed) welbre pressure drop using the monotone-increasing second- fn this paper, new deconvolution techniques that am numerical w-
derivative option, while Fig. 8 presents computed deccmvolved wefl- Iution.s of the convolution integml are prezented to compute the in-
Lmre pressure drop using the nonpaitive secondderivadve option. fluence funcdon (the umst.mt-mto or -pmmure solution) of a system
Fig. 7 presents the computed deconvolved pressure drop using the from the measured wellbore pressure and flow rate. It is shown

8PE Formation Evaluation, March 1990 57

—
that deconvolution of the welbore flow rate and pressure is sh’aight- 2. Jones, S. C., Katz, D. L., and Tek, M. R.: “A Generalized Mc-M for
forward with direct integration methods if the data afe ffee of meas- Predicdng the Performance of G8sReservoirs Subjectto WateI Drive,”
urement errors. However, the direct techniques fail if even smaJl paper SPE 428 presented a! tbe 1962 SPE .&mwd Mcaing, LO, AQ.
amounts of measurement noise are present. 8eIes, Oct. 7-10.
3. C@at.s,K.H. eraL, ‘s~tion of Aquifer Jatluenct Fumdons Fmm
Because of the stabdity problem associated with measurement
Field Data,’, JPT (Dec. 19&) 1417-2* Tmns., MN@ 231.
errors, comtrained-miniiation methods are used for the d~on- 4. Jarson, J.R. and van P.xdlen, H. K.: Whit Response Function From
volution of measured weJJbore pressure and flow-rate data ifermrs V=Y@-~1. Da~.” JpT (Au8. 1963) 965-6% Tr~., .QME. 234.
are significant in these measurements; particularly in flow rate. The 5. Bosfic, ]. N., Agarwal, R. G., andCarter,R.D.: ‘<CombinedAnalysis
constraints used here satisfy the general solutions of the diffusiviw of Postfrachuin8 Performance and Pressure Buildup Data for Evaluat-
equation. It is shown that deconvolution with the monotom?- ing an MHF Gas Well, ” JPT (Oct. 1980) , -,-. ---
~’fl 1-10
increasing second derivative of the intluence function (deconvolved 6. Pascal. H.: “Advances in Evafuadm Gas W.U Deliverability Using
pressure) yields the best results. Variable RateTests Under Non-Darcyhow,” paper SFE 9841 p“-ti
at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Sympasium, Denver, May
7.7-?Q.
Nomenclature
7. ~u~”, F. and Ayestaran, L.: “Analysisof Simultaneously
Measured
~ = ~1~~~~~
of ~trix pressure
andSandface HOWRateinTmmimtWeUTesfing,” JPT(Feb.
~ = ma~ix 1983) 323-34.
b = vector 8. Thompson, L.G., Jones, J.R., and Reynolds, A.C.: ‘-Analysisof Fres-
sure Buildup Data Influenced by We!JLmrePhase Redishibution, ”
c, = total compressibdity, psi – 1 &Pa-1]
SPEFE (Oct. 1986) 435-52 Tmm., AJME, 2S3.
CD = dimensionless welJbore storage 9. ‘fhcmpson, L.G. and Fqnolds, A.C.: “AMIYSSof VariableJ?a@WeJl-
f = input to system Test Pressure Data UsinS Dubamd’s Principle,” SPEJ?E (Oct. 1986)
g = system output 453-69.
k = permeabdity, md IO. van Everdingem, A.F. and Hurst, W.: “Application of the LapPace
K = influence function Transformationto Flow Fmbkms in R&moirs,” Trans., AIME (1949)
L = lower trianguk mshix 186, 305-24.
11. Hamming, R.W.: Numerical Methods for Sciem”sts.@ Engineers,
N = number of measurements McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York City (1973) 375-77.
NM = number of memory requirement 12. Kuchuk, F.J.: “New Methods for Estimating Parameters of Low-
p = pressufe Permeabiliy Reservoirs,” paper SPE 16394 presented at the 1987
PO = original pfessure, psi KPa] SPEI130E SvmKQsiumon Low Permeabilih’ Resewoirs, Denvm, MaY
AP. = PE5SUE drop Ca.Wd by Skill 18-19. “ ‘
13. GiU, P. E., Murray, W., and Wdght, M.U.: Practical Optitition,
P = defined in Table 1
Academic Press, London (19gl).
q = flow rate 14. .skwart, G.W.: buro.fuctim to Mmix Computations,Academic press,
Q = cumulative flow rate London (1973).
R = upper trisnguk mshix 15. Kuchuk, F.J. et UL: ‘Wessure Transient Behavior for Ho&ontal WelJs
~ = $&* With Gas Cap or Aquifer,’, paper SPE 17413 presented at the 1988
t = time SPE California Regional Meztimg, Jmn8 Beach, March 23-25.
At = timestep
Appendix A—PlecewIse Linear Approximation
F= vector of (xl, X2. . .xN)T
fJ = defined by Eq. B-3 To derive Eq. 8, we MUSTevaluate Wch krm of the summation
W = deiinti by 3?+ A-12 in Eq. 10 in terms of the discredzd forms off(t) and K(t). Now,
f(r) is taken to be piecewise linear, so we have for TE[tj-l,fjl,
a = constant
y = Comtsnt
.f(tn-~)=~n-j+[(~-l -~)/At](~n_j--~n_j-t). . . . . . . . . (A-1)
6 = noise in flow-rate measurement
e = constant where fj denotes f($) and At is the dtiferemce between successive
p = oil viscosity, cp [Pa.s] time points (assumed constant). For each time intewal T@- 1,$1,
u = defined by Eq. 29 j> 1, we afso have
~ = d-y integration vsriabIe
K’(r) =Kj_, +[(r–fi_I)/&](Kj -K}_I) . . .(A-2)
4 = pormi~
and
Subscripts
j–1
D = dimmsionJess
K~=Kj_l+AtK~-l=Kl +At ~ KY. . . .(A-3)
i,j,k,n,m = summation indices i=*
.=
N = normahzed Furthermore,
r = refe*e”ce
w = weJJ, wellmre Kj=Kj-l+(Af/2)(Kj+Kj_ I). ..(A4)
@= weJlbore flowing
In the time intewaJ r.GIO,tl], K is approximated 8.$.xt-!-d +
superscripts Ap,, which can be expressed as
.:
– perturbation to flow rate K(r)=Ap,+r(Ki +2AfK{’)-4A#n~K~’ . (A-5)
‘ = derivative
T = tIWpOSe or
KI(T)=Ki+2NKfJ-2N3/2 T–l~Kfr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
Acknowledgments
We thank SchJumberger for permission to pubJish tfds paper. We Hence, for j> 1, from Eqs. A-1 and A-2,
dso think Jeffrey Joseph of SchJmnberger WeJJ Services for provid-
ing helpful discussions, !~lK(,~(tn-r)d,= 2
~~-l+[(T-V-i)/MI(K}-Kj-l)}
References J J
1. Hutcb!nsnn,T.S. and Sikma, V.I.: “A Gem=dized Water-Drive AmJ-
ysis,,, JPT (July 1959) 169-77; Tnm.s., AJME, 216. X{ Yn-j+[($–l–r)/~l(fn-j–f. -J-1)}dT. . .. . . (A-7)

58 SPE Formation Evaluation, March IWO

 —

For j=l, we have and A is the NxN+ 1 matrix, defined as

all a 12 Q13”OO0... o

.1.
@rY,*n-r)d- ~-~ “ (K~+UtKff-Ut327-I/2K,) a2i a72 a23 o 0 0 0
0. a31 032 a33 034 0 0 ... 0
041 a42 U43 %4 a45 o .
... ... ... ... . . :
x{~n-j[(~–I –T);~l(~.-j–~m-j-l )}dr. .. . ... . ~ (A-Q aNl %2 % aN4 aN5 aN6 GN,N+ 1
[

fntegratig”Eqi. .~-7 and A78 and substiming into Eq. 8 yields where

~ “-l ~ aU =f,; alz=fll% a,~ = –513fl;

At 2
g. ‘Apsfn +~ ~fn-1 +~fn_2 Ki +—~ j=2
E ~fn-j-l am ‘fz; an ‘1/2(f2+2fl); a23= 1/3(5f2 +fl) + l/2Wl + l/6f1;
( ) (
a31 ‘f3; U32 ‘]/2(f3 +5/3f2 + l/3f,)+ 1{2WZ+ l/6f1;
4 % = - l/3(5f3 +fd + 1/2 WZ+1/6fl; a34= l/2Wi + l/6fl ;
+ ~fn-j + ;f..j+l Kj+~ yfo+ ~fl ii.+ ~ f. +fn-1
I )IN(2 1),*( ) Q41‘f4; U4Z= 1/2(f4 +5/3f3 + l/3fZ) + 1/2W3+ l/6fl;
a43= - l/3(5f4+f3)+l12 W3+ 1/6fl; a~= 1/2 W2+ 116fI;
Ki +A#(fn +fn-l)K~’ –>12(2fn +fn_l)K{’. . . . . . . . . (A-9) a~~= 112WI + 116f1;
...
Using Eq. A-3, we can then obtain
ON1‘fN; ah2 = l12(fN +5i3ftJ_, + l/3fN-2) + 1/2WN-, + l/6fl ;
At 2 At n-l ~ aim = - l/3(5ffi+fN_,) + 1/2WN_, +1/6f1;
8n=&fn+y ;f._l+:fn_2 rl+— z ~fn-j-l
( ) 2 j=z ( aN4= 1/2
WN-2 + l/6fl; and
aNj=l/2wN-j+z +l/6fl fOr J2’t. .................(A-16)

+:fn_j+:fn-j+, K;+At ~ K;’ +7 ~fo+;fl Appendix B—Monotorre.lncreashrg

)( :; ) ‘*(2 1 )
Sec03rd.0erlw3tlveOption
Thevector Z for the monotone-increasingsecond-derivativeop-
tion is expressed in terms of differences in successivesecond-
X K~+At ~ K~’ +; fn+fn_l Ki+A#(fn+fn_I)K~’
( ::)’7 ) derivaiive values as
Z=[Ap~,AtKi,A&Ki’,A# (Kf-Ki’). . .@Kfi_l

-~@(2fn+fn_1)Ki' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..(A-lO) –K~-2)]T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(B-l)

The first two columos of MatiA are tbe same as Om,sein Matrix
To make Eq. A-10 computationafly tractable, we must do sonic A in Eq. A-9. The remaining elements are defined as
further manipulation. Reversing the order of the double summa- a~~ = -(5/3y1 ;
tion and ccdlecdng terms in Eq. A-10 yields -
a~j ==- l/3(5f2 +f,)+u] ;
At 5 1 n-l ~
a33 = - U3(5f3 +f2)+ UZ; aN=UI;
g“=APsfn+~ fn+yfn-l+;f._2+ E ~fi+;t.-l
[ j=2 ( a43 = - l/3(5 f4+fJ+ U3; a~=U2; a43=Ul;

+:$-z
)21’ (5’) +~fl+~f: KI–A$ ~fn+yfn-1 Ki’ am= - l/3(5fN+fN-,)+ u&~; aN4=uN-~;
a13d0Nj=UN-.j+~ f0rj24, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-2)
n-2 fi+
A$
+—
2 )1~
i=2
K:’ j=2
[(
~ :&+:t-l +:3-2 where Um=
mll
Z -Wj+~fl
j=l 2
..................... (B-3)

+y
“2(2
1):: ~fo+ifl E K:’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ..(A-1I)
and where Wj is given by Eq. A-12. The ~vector is the same as
that given in I@ A-15. The constraints are then xi 20 for i#3,
X3 sO, 33.+ 22, and
We can simpli& the above expression by deftig a function W N-1
30 that K“(tN-l)=K’’(tI)+ E (Ki’–K~-I)=O. . . @4)
i-z
14 1’ Both Eqs. 22and B-4 can be handled by adding a psnalty term to
w.= ; ;fi+;&1+;_&2 > . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. CA-12)
j=2 ( ) the optimization problem; hemce, Eq. 15 can SW be solved by the
zmne spwialized zfgorithmz used previously that treat onfy zimple
where W1=O. Use Eqs. A-12 and A-13 and put everything h constraints on the idvidual mmponents of X
nmtzixnotationin Eq. A-n to reach
S1 Metric Conversion Factors
,4==E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-13)
bbl X 1.589873 E–01 = m3
psi x 6.894757 E+OO = kpa
where. Z’=(Ap,,A2Ki,@Ki’ . .. At2Kl)T.)T, . . . . . . . ..(A-14)
WEFB
~=(g1,g2...gN)T, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..” .. . . ..(A-l5) original SPE nmnuwbt mceiwd far rav(w Feb. 13,1985. Paper (SPE 13330] accepted
la publlc%trcmS@, 19, 1989, Revlsad mamscr[pt wived April 28.1939.

SPEFonnatim.E valuation, March 1990 59