Transient Analysis of Acoustically

Derived Pressure and Rate Data

c.s. Kablr*, SPE, Schlumberger Perforating & Testing Center
F.J. Kuchuk, SPE, Schiumberger-Doll Research
A.R. Hasan, SPE, U. of North Dakota

Summary. A pressure-buildup test conducted on a sucker-rod pumping well is often distorted by long-duration wellbore storage.
In fact, this distortion could be so severe that even a week's shut-in period may not allow a semilog analysis. A longer shut-in
period becomes economically discouraging because of lost production.
Low energy and low transmissivity in the reservoir, coupled with increased fluid compressibility, contribute to this long-duration
storage phenomenon. One way of reducing the storage effect clearly lies in the simultaneous analysis of downhole pressure and
flow rate, estimated from casinghead pressure and rising annular liquid-level measurement made by acoustic well sounding (AWS).
Ascertaining the quality of the indirectly measured pressure and rate data constitutes one of the objectives of this study.
Several methods exist to translate the AWS measurement to downhole pressure and rate data for the subsequent transient
analysis. We show that even an empirical hydrodynamic correlation provides satisfactory transient-pressurelflow-rate data for
convolution and deconvolution analyses for moderate pumping-liquid columns. When long annular liquid columns are encountered,
translating the AWS measurement with a mechanistically based hydrodynamic model appears to be a prudent approach.
Interpretation of several transient tests show that automated convolved-type-curve or history matching of field data is a powerful
tool for reservoir-parameter (total mobility, skin, fracture half-length, and storage coefficient) estimation. Use of downhole rate for
the convolved type-curve matching reduces the variable storage coefficient by several orders of magnitude, thereby enhancing the
quality of the estimates. Deconvolution of downhole pressure and rate data and the pressure-derivative approach significantly aided
in well/reservoir flow-model identification.
A simple algorithm for computing the Laplace transform of the wellbore pressure for an infinite-conductivity vertically fractured
well in an infinite reservoir is developed in this work for a rapid, iterative-type computation used in automated convolved-type-
curve analysis.

Introduction
Testing pumping wells presents an interesting challenge because
of the need to deal with indirect measurements of downhole pres-
sure and flow rate. Because of economic considerations, direct pres-
sure measurements, after the tubular hardware is removed, is not
commonly practiced. Thus questions often arise regarding the va-
lidity of indirect measurements and their subsequent interpretation-
leading to estimation of permeability, skin, average pressure, frac-
ture half-length, etc.
There are two approaches for estimating downhole pressure and
flow rate. The first method involves continuous measurement of
casinghead pressure together with tracking the movement of the
gaslliquid interface during a transient test, using an AWS
device. 1-3 Translation of these measurements to downhole pres-
sure and rate is made with a wellbore hydrodynamic model/corre-
lation. 1,4-6 The second approach uses the mass-balance principle 7
to accomplish the same task.
Both methods have certain limitations. For example, the AWS
method is not particularly suitable in a foaming annulus. The major
apparent uncertainty in the AWS method stems from the use of
hydrodynamic model/correlation, however. On the other hand, any
leak in the system (e.g., a wellhead leak) or wellbore crossflow
during well shut-in can cause problems in the second method.
In a typical pumping well, one is confronted with a long test be-
cause of long-duration wellbore-storage distortion period. Partic-
ularly, low reservoir transmissivity and high system compressibility ,
precipitated by high gas saturation in the reservoir and/or in the
wellbore vicinity, contribute to this long-duration storage problem.
The problem is compounded further by low reservoir energy as-
sociated with pumping wells.
In general, if the wellbore-storage coefficient remains constant,
type-curve analysis can be applied to pressure data directly. Un-
fortunately, in pumping wells, the early-time data reflect a chang-
ing storage coefficient because of the changing density in the liquid
• Now with Schlumberger Well Services.
Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1988
column (gas percolation effect) and compression of the gas column
by the liquid column.
The varying wellbore-storage problem can be handled in two
ways. One approach is to analyze the transient-pressure and flow-
rate data 8- IO simultaneously with convolution and deconvolution
approaches. The alternative is to adapt the unconventional test
method II and to perform interpretation with either pressure and
rate data simultaneously or pressure data alone.
The other alternative approaches that we explored are deconvo-
lution with constraints l2 and the automated type-curve analysis.
Recently, the automated type-curve approach was used for
homogeneous reservoirs 13 and naturally fractured reservoirs 14
without considering the downhole-rate data. In other words, down-
hole rate is predicted by the constant-storage model. Subsequent-
ly, a number of studies used the automated convolved-type-curve
matching to interpret tests from homogeneous reservoirs, 15 fault-
ed reservoirs, 16 low-transmissivity reservoirs, II and layered reser-
voirs,17 involving the downhole flow-rate data.
The purpose of this study is two-fold: to search for a suitable
wellbore hydrodynamic model to generate the downhole pressure
data and to search for an appropriate reservoir flow model (p D
model) for interpreting the test data. In addition, we wanted to ex-
plore the quality of indirectly measured flow-rate data through
deconvolution analysis because the technology for direct measure-
ment oflow flow rates (less than 100 RB/D [16 m 3 /dD, prevalent
in pumping wells, is not readily available.
Mathematical Models
Continuously-Varying-Rate Case. The relationship between in-
directly measured downhole transient-pressure and flow-rate data
in a pumping well can be given by the convolution integra1 18
tD
PwbD=Jr qb(T)[PD(tD-T)+S]dr, ................... (1)
o
provided that q D(O + ) = O.
607
 1000

900
8
...
~
800

.'l 700
fiI
600
•
0
G:
500
_ Rise in gas/o11 interface (At>O) '? 400

........
III
~
-I-f--- - Initial gas 1011 interface 300

~ PUMP i~
a.
200

100

0
10-' 10' 10'
Arbitrary reference Shut-in Time. Hours
-------~----------------
point (Pwb. qwb evaluated)

_ Pwb ' - - -

== '\. ==·Psf
Fig. 2-Pressurelflow-rate history for Well 1.

LJ Fig. 1-Definltions of various pressures In Eq. 2.

Eq. I implicitly assumes that no storage volume exists beneath
the point of rate and pressure measurement. This assumption, how-
ever, is not valid because of dead wellbore volume below the per-
forations, storage volume below the point of measurement, and
storage in the fracture if the well intercepts an infinite-conductivity
fracture. 10,19 Even though the measurement reference point could
be made at the perforations in a pumping well, strictly speaking,
the flow measurement is required within the perforation tunnels to
eliminate the storage effect in a nonfractured well. Thus we can
largely reduce the effects of storage on transient-pressure behavior
by either measuring or deducing downhole rate. Fig. I illustrates
this point schematically.
Assuming the system to be linear, one can write Eq. I to incor-
porate the storage below the point of measurement as follows:
tlpsj=f:..Pwb+flpwj, ................................ (2)
where
flpsj = pressure drop at true sandface, within reservoir,
f:..pwb = pressure drop at point of measurement, and
f:..Pwj = pressure drop between point of measurement and
sandface.
The formation parameters of permeability and skin can be estimat-
ed by convolving a PD model, reflecting the wellireservoir flow
geometry, with measured rate, qD' Although we convolve indirect-
ly measured pressure with rate, search for the storage coefficient
is made nonetheless in the automated or computerized type-curve
matching, along with permeability and skin. Typically, the value
of the storage coefficient is orders of magnitude smaller than the
values normally obtained without using the rate. In this respect,
we observe that the automated type-curve matching with downhole
rate l5 ,16 is superior to logarithmic convolution8 and other
methods 9 because the storage effect below the point of measure-
ment is considered in the automated convolved-type-curve approach.
Unlike logarithmic convolution, where generally only a segment
of the data can be used, use of the entire data set is made in
convolved-type-curve matching.
Alternatively, one could search for a PD model and then its pa-
rameters, such as permeability and skin, by using the deconvolu-
tion method. 1O Thus, deconvolution aids identification of weIll
reservoir flow geometry. For the reasons discussed above, how-
ever, deconvolution does not yield completely storage-free data for
conventional interpretation; the storage effects are only reduced to
a large degree.
Constant-Wellbore-Storage Case. One can approximate down-
hole flow rate, assuming constant wellbore fluid density, as 18,20
dPwD
qD(tD)=I-CD--, ............................. (3)
dtD
where CD=5.615C/21r4>p.cthr~. The Laplace transform of the
dimensionless wellbore pressure solution for the constant wellbore
storage and skin effect can be written by combining Eqs. I and 3 as
SPD(S)+S
PwD(S) = , ....................... (4)
S+CDS 2 [SP D(s)+s]

1040

-
960

880
Slope = 643 psi/cycle

............ 0
•
0.
80(,
Intercept

"hi" ~
= - 185 psi

44 md-ft/cp
720
i
~
0.
640
5 = - 4.9
"
~ 560
"0

.. slope 0.97 ~ 480

~ 400

320 ",
10' 240 ............ &
"
160
10° 10 1 10- 2 10' 10'
SHUT -IN TIME, HOURS Shut-in Time. Hours

Fig. 3-Log-log analysis of buildup data, Well 1. Fig. 4-MDH graph shows late-time pseudoradlal period,
Well 1.

608 SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1988

 B80~------------------------------------~,
BOO
Slope = 582 pSI Vi
720 a.
640
Intercept = - 200 psi
~
oj
kh/IL = 51 md-ft/cp
560 ~ 102
4BO
S = - 4.3 ~ t slope = 0.36

~ 400
'"
0.
;;
w
~ 320 "~
Z
o
z 240 U

160 10' HASAN ET Al DATA

.a. OBSERVE:O
BO o OECONVOlVEO
o 0

O+----r--~----r_--~--~--~----r_--~--~ 100 10'

-1.6 -1.2 -O.B -0.4 0.0 0.4 O.B 1.2 1.6 2.0 SHUT-IN TIME. HOURS
RATE-CONVOLVED TIME FUNCTION

Fig. 6-Deconvolved pressure shows fractured-well response,

Fig. 5-Sandface-rate convolution analysis, Well 1. Well 1.

where s=Laplace transform variable. One can solve Eq. 4 using rate data simultaneously. The logarithmic-convolution approach 8
the Stehfest algorithm,21 provided that the Laplace transform so- presents a problem because a different wellbore geometry (hydrau-
lution, PD, for the constant-rate case is available for the well/reser- lically induced fracture) was encountered in the field examples con-
voir system of our interest. sidered. Only the late-time data conforming to the pseudoradial flow
Solutions for PwD, as given in Eq. I, can also be obtained with period could be straightened on the logarithmic-convolution plot.
Eq. 3 and a PD model, discussed in the Appendix, from the fol- In automated type-curve matching, we consider matching model
lowing algorithm I9 ,22: responses with field pressure data with and without the downhole
rate. We call the latter case convolved-type-curve matching to in-
PwD(tDn+ 1) = [PD(tDn+ 1)+S+CDX +tsPwD(tDn)]!(l +ts ), dicate convolution of the model with rate data.
The objective of automated type-curve matching is to minimize
..................................... (5a)
the sum of squares between a model (radial, fractured, etc.) response
where and the observed field data. Thus, the reservoir parameters are deter-
mined by minimizing the objective function, J({f):
n-1
X= E fpwD(tm+1)-PwD(tm)]
=> 1 N =>
;=0 tDi+ 1 -tm J«(3 )=- E [ilp~b«(3 ,t;)-ilp'i:,b(ti)]2 . .............. (8)
2 ;=1

The Marquardt 25 algorithm is used to minimize Eq. 8.

and
Field Examples
Two field examples are discussed in detail to provide an insight
into data interpretation, particularly involving downhole pressure
Exponential-Wellbore-Rate-DecIine Case. For certain cases, the and flow rate. A third example is also presented to give an idea
wellbore flow rate can also be modeled by the following of using the deconvolution method as a tool to identify the com-
relationship 23 ,24 : patibility between pressure and rate data.

qD=l-e-{3tD, .................................... (6)
where (3 is a constant and is given as (3=acpp,c t r;/0.OO02637k.
The Laplace transform of the dimensionless wellbore pressure
for the exponential-rate case may be obtained by combining Eqs. 1
and 610:
_ (3(sji D + S)
PwD(s)= .............................. (7)
s«(3 +s)
Thus, solution of Eq. 1 depends on availability of the PD function
in the real space, while either Eq. 4 or 7 is solved when the PD
function is available in the Laplace space. In other words, one can
compute the wellbore pressure, PwD' either from Eq. 1 using Eq.
6 or from Eq. 7. In the Appendix, we present the PD models used
in this study.
Interpretation Methodology
In this study, several interpretation methods are applied to obtain
reservoir parameters of transmissivity, skin, fracture half-length,
and storage coefficient in some cases.
Conventional type-curve and semilog analyses do not easily lead
to unique estimations of reservoir parameters because of dominat-
ing influence of the storage or afterflow effect. This storage dis-
tortion can be largely minimized by convolving the pressure and
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1988
Weill. This example was first reported by Fetkovich and Vienot. 9
The test data come from a hydraulically induced fractured well
where production of all three phases occurs. Fig. 2 compares the
two sources of pressure and flow-rate data derived from the
Gilbert 5 correlation and from the model of Hasan et al. 6 A rela-
tively minor difference in the pressure response can be observed
with virtually no difference in the rate computation.
The log-log graph of pressure-buildup data, obtained from the
Hasan et al. hydrodynamic model, 6 indicates masking of the early-
time period (up to 2 hours) by the wellbore-storage effect even in
the presence of a fracture (Fig. 3). Only the very-late-time data
(> 30 hours) are modeled by the pseudoradial flow period, as evi-
denced by the flat derivative signature (Fig. 3), the Miller-Dyes-
Hutchinson (MDH) plot (Fig. 4), and the logarithmic-convolution
plot (Fig. 5). As earlier noted by Fetkovich and Vienot, 9 convolv-
ing with logarithmic approximation of the exponential integral func-
tion (known as logarithmic-convolution) does not provide the
expected straight-line relationship for the entire data band. Simply
stated, we need to convolve measured data with the correct PD
model to perform a total rather than a partial data set analysis.
To gain insight into the PD function, reflecting the near-wellbore
flow behavior, we generated the deconvolved pressure from the
AWS-derived pressure and flow-rate data. Fig. 6 compares the de-
convolved pressure with those of measured response. Here, we
clearly observe the storage-free behavior with a maximum slope
of 0.36, instead of the half-slope reported earlier in Ref. 9. Calcu-
609
 o OECONVOLVEO
• cor .. 0
•• COr .. 0003
_cor ..
_cor ..
•. cor ..
0'
001
003
..
•• ~!! ,t
_COF '" 03

Vi
0..
10'

..'.'
<i
<1
W
PPESSUPE '"v>::>
~
'"
0..
10'
PRESSURE DERIVATivE ~
UJ

"<
Z
I
U

10' • 00S<lM0
o DECON-GIt..8ERT
II OECQN-HKR
10' 10'
10'
SHUT -IN TIME. HOURS

Fig. 7-Matchlng deconvolved pressure with Inflnlte-

conductivity-fracture type curves, Well 1. Fig. 8-Comparlson of deconvolved data, Well 1.

lations indicate that the linear flow period, characterized by a slope
of 0.5 on the log-log plot, had ended at 0.22 hours. This observa-
tion implies that most of the early-time data are in transition from
linear to radial flow regime. Thus, the well response may perhaps
be modeled better by the infinite-conductivity vertical fracture rather
than by a uniform-flux fracture. The rationale for this contention
is that the half-slope period ends a cycle earlier for the infinite-
conductivity model than the uniform-flux fracture solution.
When the deconvolved pressure data are superposed on the type
curves generated for infinite-conductivity vertical fracture with
storage, Fig. 7 shows that the storage effects are largely reduced.
Furthermore, the corresponding flat derivative response (not per-
formed on data) is indicative of a fractured well's characteristic
behavior in the pseudoradial flow period.
A similar fractured-well response is obtained when we decon-
volve pressure with the rate data, obtained from Gilbert's
hydrodynamic correlation, 5 as Fig. 8 indicates. These deconvolved
data can be matched with either the infinite-conductivity vertical
fracture type curve or the Gringarten et al. 26 type curve for aci-
dized well, or may be used for MDH analysis. As expected, only
the late-time data are straightened on the deconvolved MDH plot,
Fig. 9.
An automated history-matching algorithm was used for interpre-
tation with a radial model. Two approaches with respect to the in-
ner boundary condition are taken for interpretation. In the first
method, history matching of pressure data is achieved by using the
predicted bottomhole flow rate (BHF), while in the second method
the BHF is predicted by the constant-storage model.
Fig. 10 shows the history match of pressure and its derivative,
convolved with BHF, for the Gilbert data set. The derivative
response is obtained by taking the derivative of pressure, !J.p, with
respect to the logarithm of the superposition time function. Clear-
ly, the derivative signature corroborates the fractured-well behavior,
inferred earlier from deconvolution analysis.
Although an early-time mismatch is noted, the quality of the over-
all fit is quite good. When the downhole rate is estimated by the
constant-storage model, the quality of the fit suffers both at early-
and middle-time regions even though the results are essentially the
same (Fig. 11). Note that the results from the two approaches are
not expected to be equal because the storage coefficient, C, is not
the same in two cases. Indeed, by convolving with BHF, we es-
sentially obtain a zero value for C. In contrast, when the rates are
estimated from the constant-storage model, a much higher value
of C (0.063 bbl/psi [1.45 x 10- 3 m3 /kPa]) is noted. This optimized
C value is largely substantiated by Fig. 12.
The C values in Fig. 12 are computed from the constant-storage
model; i.e., C=qs/(24 dpldt). This figure also helps explain the
history mismatch obtained (Fig. 11) until about 1.5 hours of shut-
in is reached. Before this time, C varied by as much as a factor
of 2. For all practical purposes, a constant C value of 0.053 bbl/psi
[1.22 x 10- 3 m 3 /kPa] is attained beyond 1.5 hours: the data scat-
ter reflects the lack of desired-quality computed bottomhole pres-
sure (BHP), necessary for a derivative operation. Obviously, by
incorporating BHF into the transient analysis we could improve our
parameter estimation. Thus, in principle, one should attempt to in-
corporate BHF into transient analysis whenever the quality of such
data permits.
By repeating exactly the same procedure as described earlier, we
generated Figs. 13 and 14 for the Hasan et al. data. In Fig. 13,
we observe an improved match at early times compared with the
Gilbert data (Fig. 10); however, the middle-time period lacks the
desired quality of match. As Fig. 14 suggests, a similar trend per-
sists when the history match is sought with the constant-storage
model. .

880.---------------------------------------~
GILBERT DATA
A Y(A,SUREO 6p
800 ~ 10} o Y[ASURED ll.p'
•• CQlJPUT[O top
o
=
_CQlJPUTEOll.p
4.'II11.I..·~""III."'''~
"'">
Slope 585 psi/cycle
720
w kh!!" = 52 md-ft/cp ~ ..... ",

kh/!" ~ 51 md-ft/cp co
~ 640 :; 5 = - 4 35
s ~ - 4.3
.' [5
~ 560 o c ~ 0 063 bbl/ps, dJ 00°
o w
~ 480 '" :::J J = 1 195 PSI
2 .' 0

~
6u400
~ 10'
g: ••
UJ
0320 '"
o .'
........
240

160
......
10" 10' 10° 10' 10'
SHUT -IN TIME, HOURS SHUT -IN TIME. HOURS

Fig. 9-Semllog analysis of deconvolved pressure, Well 1. Fig. 10-Automated type-curve matching with storage model,
Well 1.

610 SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1988

 HASAN ET AL. DATA
.. I,I(ASVRED lop
o t.ltASUREO .6p'
._CO!oIPUfEO IIp
_COMPUTED !:>p'

kh/ll = 48 md-ft/cp

- 4.48
10'
C = ° o·••
o
J = 1200 pS;2 kh/ll = 50 md-ft/cp
10'
o• s = - 4.4

C = 0

o . J = 3069 psi 2
10'

10° 10' 10' laC to' 10'

SHUT -IN TIME. HOURS SHUT -IN TIME. HOURS

Fig. 11-Automated convolved-type-curve matching, Well 1. Fig. 13-Automated convolve~-tvpe-curve matching, Well 1.

-10 -2

10.2

Q.
9.6
v; '"
o
Q.

'J
9.0 '"w
'-'
<D >
<D
8.4
"'l'
~0 7.8 ffi
u ~ 10
2

w <r
7.2
~
g 6.6
~
a:
kh/ll = 45 md-ft/cp
Q.
<J> s=-4.55
w
a: 6.0 '"ow
0

~ .. _.'" '"~
C = 0.052 bbl/ps;

'"
5.4

4.8
- - - - '- 6 ... _ ..

' ...
......
~
g: 10'
J = 1 140 PSl2

4.2
10-' 10C 10' 10° 10'
SHUT -!N TIME. HOURS SHUT -IN TIME. HOURS

Fig. 12-Behavlor of storage coefficient during buildup, Fig. 14-Automated type-curve matching with storage model,
Well 1. We!11.

A match was also sought with an infinite-conductivity-fracture

model by using the automated history-match algorithm. Fig. 15 dis- INFINITE-CONDUCTIVITY MODEL

plays the match: rel~tively large residuals suggest an inferior match

kh/ll = 41 md-ft/cp
rather than a radial model. Earlier, we explored the question sur-
rounding this match by simulating the fracture with a composite ~ x, = 66 ft
c>
model. 27 Results indicated that a radial model gives a better match <l - 4.67
w'
than the fracture model. ~ 10' 7160 psi 2
Reservoir parameters obtained from these interpretations are es-
sentially the same, suggesting that any hydrmlynamic correlation
oit
;;
will yield valid results for this specific example. In other words, w
co
this example is not too demanding to test the robustness of any ?i
I
hydrodynamic correlation. We caution, however, that certain well U

conditions may severely test the limits of a hydrodynamic correla-

tion. These conditions include wells with a long initial liquid column,
contributing more than 95% of the BHP and/or experiencing a high
GOR production. Even in relatively short liquid columns (less than
1,000 ft [300 m]), a high gas rate can conceivably lead to a situa-
tion comparable to the long columns.
Table 1 summarizes the results obtained from various analyses.
Although good agreement in the skin values is obtained when com-
pared with those of Fetkovich and Vienot, 9 reservoir transmissivity
values differ because initial flow rates are quite different. This dis-
crepancy in flow rates is probably explained by the way the raw
data are handled in the two studies.
Well 2. Test data from this well, initially reported by Browns-
combe, 2 were subsequently considered by others. 3 ,9,28 Interpre-
tation efforts made by Fetkovich and Vienot9 and Thompson and
Reynolds 28 indicate that the data are from a fractured well. Here,
we re-examine the test to shed more light through other interpreta-
tion methods.
SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1988
10'
10" 10° 10'
SHUT -IN T!ME. HOURS
Fig. 15-"utomated convolved-type-curve matchlrg, Hasan-
Kaplr data, Well 1.
The liquid-level data are first translated to BHP and BHF using
both the Gilbert correlation and the Hasan et al. hydrodynamic
model. Fig. 16 compares the results. The log-log graph of pres-
sure and its derivative are shown in Fig. 17. Tl).e c:arly-time data
are masked by storage as the unit-slope period suggests. However,
the derivative signature indicates the presence of a frac~re. MDH
analysis indicates (Fig. 18) that only the very-late-time period may
have a pseudoradial flow regime, mpch like the previous example.
Deconvolution of pressure and rate data produces a slope of 0.40
on the log-log graph (Fig. 19), suggesting a fractured well response.
611
 TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS RESULTS, WELL 1

Parameter
khlp,
Analysis Method _ _R_e_s_e_rv_o_ir_M_od_e_I_ _ Model for BHP/BHF (md-ft/cp) Sk.in
MDH (measured pressure) Radial HKR*/storage 44 -4.9
MDH (deconvolved pressure) Radial HKR/HKR 51 -4.3
Sandface-rate convolution Radial HKR/HKR 51 -4.3
Automated type curve Radial HKRlstorage 45 - 4.6
Automated type curve Radial HKR/HKR 50 -4.4
Automated type curve Radial Gilbert/Gilbert 48 - 4.5
Automated type curve Radial Gilbert/storage 52 - 4.4
Automated type curve Infinite-conductivity fracture HKR/HKR 41 -5.3

'Hasan et a/. 6 hydrodynamic model.

1200
1200
_8HP, HASAN ET At
1100
1100 _814'. HASAN ET AL.
A 81-!P, GILBERT
o 8HF. GILBERT 1000
Slope = 772 psi/cycle
'" 1000 Intercept = - 356 psi
"-
."a.
0 9(0

.
CD
900
"'- Kh I,u. = 127 md-ft/cp

~
80"
800
&I = - 4.9
•
0
0:
700
.~
a.
700

600
s

.
.
?
600
500 "E 500
.9
.
'"
~ 400 '0 400
.
CD

i 300 300
.
. . . .. . . .. .
~ 200
a. ~. 200
"-Q
100 "-'Q,.
"'0 100
0 10- 2 10" 10' 10'
10- 2
10" 10' 10' Shut-in Time, Hours
Shut-in rime, Hours

Fig. 18-MDH graph shows late-time pseudoradlal period,

Fig. 16-Pressure/flow-rate history, Well 2. Well 2.

an empirical correlation is used to translate the liquid-level data

10'lrr====~~------------'----'
10'~--~~~r-~~~-r--~~~r-~~~-r--~
10-2 10'
Shut-In Time, Hours
Fig. 17-Log-log analysis of buildup data, Well 2.
As expected, the deconvolved MDH graph, Fig. 20, produces a
trace very similar to the logarithmic-convolution plot; thus con-
firming the presence of a fracture.
We attempted convolution or automated type-curve matching with
fracture as well as radial models. Figs. 21 and 22 show the match
quality obtained with infinite-conductivity and radial models, re-
spectively. Except for the early-time data, the superior match with
the radial model is quite obvious. Similar results are obtained when
Gilbert's pressure data are used with flow rate, as displayed in Figs.
23 and 24. All results are summarized in Table 2.
Well 3. This well test, exhibiting wellbore-phase redistribution,
was first reported by Brownscombe 2 and subsequently considered
by Hasan and Kabir 3 and Hasan et at. 6 The purpose of reconsider-
ing this example is to demonstrate problems that may surface when
to BHP and BHF.
To attain compatibility between pressure and rate data, we de-
convolved different pressures with the rate. Fig. 25 shows that both
the Gilbert and the Podio et at. pressures indicate a failure (horizon-
tal line) in deconvolution, meaning incompatibility in pressure and
rate data. In contrast, pressure data derived from the mechanistic
Godbey-Dimon! and Hasan et at. 6 models show successful decon-
volution; i.e., positive slopes are indicated. Only the data points
up to the beginning of the phase-redistribution phenomenon are con-
sidered; thus, no attempt is made to interpret seven data points to
evaluate formation parameters.
We point out, however, that this well had some 5,300 ft [1615
m] of liquid level at the beginning of the test, which is very demand-
ing on the hydrodynamic model/correlation for pressure computa-
10' 10'
tion. In other words, any error in the gas void-fraction estimation
seriously affects pressure prediction. This point was discussed in
detail in Refs. 3 and 6.
The purpose of this example is just to highlight the potential prob-
lem that may exist when an empirical hydrodynamic correlation
is used for estimating BHP.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to analyze pressure and flow-rate
data gathered from pumping wells. The underlying thought was to
seek the consistent hydrodynamic model/correlation used to trans-
late the liquid-level measurements to downhole pressure and rate.
Interpretation of simultaneous downhole pressure and rate datil
gives better estimates of reservoir parameters when convolution,
history matching, or automated type-curve matching is used. This
contention is borne out by the fact that wellbore-storage coefficient,
along with other reservoir parameters, is sought during the course
of nonlinear least-squares analysis. Field examples show that the
storage coefficient is reduced to a large degree when the downhole
rate is incorporated into the analysis; nonetheless, it is seldom re-

612 SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1988

 10'<r----------------------------------~,.----_,
10'
HlIMflel.a1. Data RADIAL MODEL
.&. I,IEASUREO
_CALCULATEO

'm
G.
0.
g <J

I
10'
£ Slope 0.40"
kh/I" ~
102 md-ft/cp
a:
.'"
c

c
a
s

C
~

~
- 6

0.0097 bbl/psi
"
u

10' J ~
595 pSil

Shut-in Time, Hours 10-' 10' 10' 10'

Shut-in Time, Hours

Fig. 19-Deconvolved pressure shows fractured-well re-

sponse, Well 2. Fig. 22-Automated convolved-type-curve matching, Well 2.

1000
GILBERT DATA INFINITE-CONDUCTIVITY MODEL
.!. UEASURED
900 10' _CALCULATED

800
Slope = 762 psi/cycle

Intercept = - 448 psi

700
'm
0-
kh/I" ~ 129 md-ft/cp
0. 600
<I kh/I" ~ 203 md-ft/cp
s ~ - 5.0
'"~ 500
5 = - 6
~
~
0
400

300
.'"
c
a
C ~ 0.076 bbl/psi
J = 5031 psi 2
"
U la'
200

100 ..
0
10" 10' 10' 10' 10 2 10'
Shut-in Time, Hours Shut-in Time, Hours

Fig. 20-Semllog analysis of deconvolved data, Well 2. Fig. 23-Automated convolved-type-curve matching,
GilbertS data, Well 2.

GILBERT Dl'TA
RADIAL MODEL
10' -r;:::::::::::::::::::::;-~IN:;;:F:;;:IN;;";IT7E=-C;:;O;7,N~DU:;-;C::;'-T;;;IV;7-1Ty~---::7-----' 10'
6 I,lEASURED
_CAlCULATED

MODEL

'm
0-
0.
<110 2

i kh/I" ~ 120 md-ft/cp

G.
~
kh/I" ~ 152 md-ft/cp

x, = 131 ft
. c
o'"
s = - 6

C ~ 0.016 bbl/psi
C ~ 0.054 bbl/psi
"
U

J = 538 psi l
J = 8244 psi" 10'

10' 10' 10'

Shut-in Time, Hours
10' 10' 10'
Shut-in Time. Hours

Fig. 24-Automatic convolved-type-curve matching, GilbertS

Fig. 21-Automated convolved-type-curve matching, Well 2. data, Well 2.

moved completely. This observation is consistent with the physi-
cal system in place-Le., the presence of dead volume below
perforations and volume of the fracture, if applicable.
Thus, automated type-curve matching generally leads to a better
reservoir-parameter estimation compared with a convolution scheme
that does not consider the storage effect. Logarithmic convolution
of Meunier et al. 8 and convolution with other PD models, such as
that given by Fetkovich and Vienot,9 fall into the latter category.
For the same reason, deconvolved pressure data are also not com-
pletely free from storage. In most cases, however, the deconvolved
data significantly aid reservoir-model identification, leading to the
use of an appropriate model for automated type-curve analysis, for
example. In this respect, the first two examples stress the value
of pressure~derivative analysis as a model-identification tool. Thus,
use of both pressure-derivative and deconvolution methods provides
powerful tools for reservoir-model identification.
We point out that deconvolution may be used as a diagnostic tool
for checking the consistency between the pressure and flow-rate
data. Lack of a perfect harmony between the two measured/inferred
entities is a reflection of unreliability of a data set. In this respect,

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1988 613

 TABLE 2-SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS RESULTS, WELL 2

Parameter
khlf-t
Analysis Method ___ Re_s_e_rv_o_ir_M_od_e_I_ _ Model for BHP/BHF (md-ftlcp) Skin
MDH (meaSured pressure) Radial HKR/- 127 -4.9
MDH (deconvolved pressure) Radial HKR/HKR 129 -5.0
Autortlated type curve Radial HKR/HKR 102 -6.0
Automated type curve Infinite-conductivity fracture HKR/HKR 152 -4.4
Automated type curve Radial Gilbert/Gilbert 120 - 6.0
Automated type curve Infinite-conductivity fracture Gilbert/Gilbert 203 - 6.0

not to preserve the reservoir mass balance. Chu et al. 31 and

Raghavan 32 showed that as long as no significant saturation gra-
dient exists in the wellbore vicinity, total mobility adequately ap-
proximates the single-phase flow theory. Thus, all the field

I
~
..: . .
~ 0
.0
interpretation presented here is inherently subject to this approxi-
mation .

10'-
1IiIo1II...ured Preuure
11o..o i)e(!oD",ol"d
DeeoDoroh.4 Padlo .tel.
De<:otlyol~dGII"rt
• ~oayohed
10'
1~" 1~'
SHUT-IN TIME. HRS
Fig. 25-Comparison of deconvolved pressure, Well 3_
deconvolution is a superior tool because convolution (superposi-
tion) is merely a smoothing process; thus, successful convolution
may not necessarily tell tis anything about the data quality.
Our experience indicates that, except for long liquid columns,
successful deconvolution can be performed even when Gilbert's em-
pirical hydrodynamic correlation is used for computing downhole
pressure. Presumably, short liquid columns do not create enough
inconsistency in pressure calculation to present any problem while
deconvolving with the rate data. Thus, it appears that for a vast
majority of the field tests, any of the four correlations/models 1,4-6
available for translating the acoustic liquid-level data for the pur-
pose of transient analysis could be used. We caution that all these
hydrodynamic correlations are designed to handle only the gaslliq-
uidlflow, however, and that no provision is made to account for
oil/water liquid/liquid flow. Thus, further research is needed to
describe the hydrodynamics of liquidlliquid flow and, more appro-
priately, of three-phase mixture in the wellbore.
This study shows that the pressure and flow-rate data derived
from acoustic measurements are useful for· obtaining a reservoir
model and estimating its parameters even though direct validation
of BHP measurement is not provided. Fot example, the results of
the late-time MDH analysis of the pseudoradial period for both Wells
1 and 2 agree very well with those of type-curve matching involv-
ing the entire data set. The implication is that we ought to have
a consistent data set for such an agreement to be possible. We point
out that the late-time data are essentially independent of any
hydrodynamic correlation because the gas percolation has ceased
for all practical purposes. In other words, BHP is directly depend-
ent on the absolute accuracy of the acoustic device gathering the
data at late times. On the other hand, the early-time data are sub-
ject to error in modeling the two-phase flow behavior in the well-
bore, in addition to the tool resolution. Thus, an agreement of results
obtained frorli transient analysis of a segment and the entire data
set provides a clue about the consistency of a data set, especially
when BHF data are incorporated into the analysis.
For transient interpretatiort, we used the total mobility concept
of P!!rrine 29 and Martin 30 to handle the three-phase flow in the
reservoir. The same approach has been used by Fetkovich and Vie-
Conclllsions
1. In the absence of wellbore crossflow or other wellbore anomaly
(e.g., foam), indirect downhole pressure and flow-rate measure-
ments made by AWS provide interpretable data from buildup test-
ing in pumping wells.
2. Automated type-curve matching is a powerful interpretation
tool for estimating reservoir parameters because a variety of reser-
~"DGodN,-DlmOD.1
voir models can be used and the wellbore-storage effect below the
H_D el a1. point of measurement is accounted for .
3. Both deconvolution and pressure-derivative methods signifi-
cantly aid identification of well/reservoir models for subsequent
conventional and other analyses.
4. Long-duration wellbore-storage-distortion period-a typical
scenario in a pumping well-can be minimized significantly by per-
forming simultaneous analysis of pressure and flow-rate data (decon-
volution, automated type-curve matching, etc.).
5. For moderate pumping Jiquid-column height ( < 1,000 ft [ < 305
m]), use of any of the four hydrodynamic correlations/models ap-
pears to be satisfactory for analysis of simultaneous pressure and
flow-rate data. However, hydrodynamic models for oil/water and
gas/oil/water flow are needed to improve pressure and flow-rate
computation for transient testing of pumping wells.
NOinenclature
B = FVF, RB/STB [res m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
c I = total system compressibility, psi -1 [kPa -1 ]
C = wellbore storage coefficient, bbl/psi [m 3 /kPa]
h = formation thickness, ft [m]
J = objective function, Eq. 8
k = permeability, md
kf = fracture permeability, md
Ko = modified Bessel function of second kind and zero
order
K 1 = modified Bessel function of second kind and first
order
N = number of measured data points
PD = dimensionless pressure for constant rate
Pwb = measured wellbore pressure, psi [kPa]
PwbD = dimensionless measured wellbore pressure
Pwf = flowing wellbore pressure, psi [kPa]
q = flow rate. STBID [stock-tank m 3 /d]
qD = qwb/Bqr, normalized bottomhole flow rate
qt = total bottomhole flow rate, BID [m 3 /d]
qwb = downhole flow rate, B/D [m 3 /d] .
r = radial distance, ft [m]
rD = dimensionless radial distance
rw = wellbore radius, ft [m]
s = Laplace transform variable
S = skin factor, dimensionless
t = time, hours

614 SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1988

 tD = dimensionless time based on wellbore radius
txjD = dimensionless time based on fracture h~f-Iength
w = fracture width, ft [m]
X = summation in Eq. 5b
ex = system constant
(3 = excJ>f.Lctr~/O.OOO2637k
11 = parameter vector
f.L = reservoir fluid viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
T = dummy integration variable
cJ> = formation porosity, fraction
Subscripts
sf = sandface
w = wellbore
wf = flowing wellbore
Superscripts
c = calculated
m = measured
, = derivative with respect to time
- = Laplace transform
Acknowledgments
We are thankful to M. Fetkovich of Philips Petroleum Co. for
providing additional information on Well I and to Schlumberger
management for permission to publish this work.
References
1. Godbey, I.K and Dimon, C.A.: "The Automatic Liquid Level Moni-
tor for Pumping Wells," JPT(Aug. 1977) 1019-24.
2. Brownscombe, E.R.: "Afterflows and Buildup Interpretation on Pump-
ing Wells," JPT (Feb. 1982) 397-412.
3. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: "Determining Bottornhole Pressures in
Pumping Wells," SPEJ (Dec. 1985) 823-38.
4. Podio, A.L., Tarrillion, M.J., and Roberts, E.T.: "Laboratory Work
Improves Calculations," Oil & Gas J. (Aug. 25, 1980) 137-46.
5. Gipson, F.W. and Swaim, H.W.: "Designed Beam Pumping," Proc.,
19th Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, TX (April
1972) 95.
6. Hasan, A.R., Kabir, C.S., and Rahman, R.: "Predicting Liquid Gra-
dient in a Pumping Well Annulus," SPEPE (Feb. 1988) 113-20.
7. Kabir, C.S. and Hasan, A.R.: "Application of Mass Balance in Pumping
Well Analysis," JPT(May 1982) 1002-10.
8. Meunier, D., Wittmann, MJ., and Stewart, G.: "Interpretation of Pres-
sure Buildup Test Using In-Situ Measurement of Afterflow," JPT(Jan.
1985) 143-52.
9. Fetkovich, M.J. and Vienot, M.E.: "Rate Normalization of Buildup
Pressure Using Afterflow Data," JPT (Dec. 1984) 2211-24.
10. Kucuk, F. and Ayestaran, L.: "Analysis of Simultaneously Measured
Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing," JPT(Feb.
1985) 323-34.
11. Kabir, C.S. and Kucuk, F.: "Well Testing in Low-Transmissivity Oil
Reservoirs," paper SPE 13666 presented at the 1985 SPE California
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, March 27-29.
12. Kucuk, F., Carter, R.G., and Ayestaran, L.: "Numerical Deconvolu-
tion of Wellbore Pressure and Flow Rate," paper SPE 13960 available
at SPE, Richardson, TX.
13. Rosa, A.J. and Horne, R.N.: "Automated Type-Curve Matching in
Well Test Analysis by Using Laplace Space Determination of Parame-
ter Gradients," paper SPE 12131 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
14. Barua, 1., Kucuk, F., and Gomez-Angulo, J.: "Application of Com-
puters in the Analysis of Well Tests From Fractured Reservoirs," paper
SPE 13662 presented at the 1985 SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, March 27-29.
15. Guillot, A.Y. and Home, R.N.: "Using Simultaneous Flow Rate and
Pressure Measurements to Improve Analysis of Well Tests," SPEFE
(June 1986) 217-28.
16. Kabir, C.S., Kucuk, F., and Gomez-Angulo, J.: "Well Test Interpre-
tation in Faulted Reservoirs," Proc. sixth SPE Offshore South East
Asia Conference, Singapore (Jan. 28-31, 1986) 152-61.
17. Kucuk, F., Karakas, M., and Ayestaran, L.: "Well Test Analysis of
Commingled Zones Without Crossflow," SPEFE (Aug. 1986) 324-54.
18. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the Laplace
Transfortuation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., AlME (1949)
186, 305-24.
SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1988
19. Kucuk, F.: "Generalized Transient Pressure Solutions With Wellbore
Storage," paper SPE 15671 available at SPE, Richardson, TX.
20. Agarwal, R.G., AI-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H.I. Jr.: "An Investi-
gation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow:
1. Analytical Treatment," SPEJ (Sept. 1970) 279-90; Trans., AIME,
249.
21. Stehfest, H.: "Algorithm 368, Numerical Inversion of Laplace Trans-
forms," D-5 Communications oftheACM (Jan. 1970) 13, No.1, 47-49.
22. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: "Effect of Wellbore Storage and
Damage on the Transient Behavior of Vertically Fractured Wells," paper
SPE 6752 presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12.
23. van Everdingen, A.F.: "The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the Produc-
tive Capacity ofa Well," JPT(June 1953) 171-76; Trans., AlME, 198.
24. Hurst, W.: "Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment to
Fluid Flow into a Wellbore," Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953) B-6-B-16.
25. Marquardt, D.W.: "An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Non-
linear Parameters," J. Soc. Ind. App. Math. (June 1963) 11, No.2.
26. Gringarten A.C. et al.: "A Comparison Between Different Skin and
Storage Type-Curves for Early-Time Transient Analysis," paper SPE
8205 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
hibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
27. Kabir, C.S., Kuchuk, F.J., and Hasan, A.R.: "Transient Analysis of
Acoustically Derived Pressure and Flow Rate Data," paper SPE 15481
presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
28. Thompson, L.G. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Analysis of Variable-Rate Well-
Test Pressure Data Using Duhamel's Principle," SPEFE (Oct. 1986)
453-69.
29. Perrine, R.L.: "Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves," Drill & Prod.
Prac., API (1956) 482-509.
30. Martin, J.C.: "Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs
and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Anal-
yses," JPT (Oct. 1959) 309-11; Trans., AIME, 216.
31. Chu, W.C., Raghavan, R., and Reynolds, A.C.: "Pressure Transient
Analysis of Two-Phase Flow Problems," SPEFE (April 1986) 151-64.
32. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow," paper SPE
14098 presented at the 1986 SPE IntI. Meeting on Petroleum Engineer-
ing, Beijing, March 17-20.
33. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.I. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady-
State Pressure Distributions Created by a Well With a Single Infinite-
Conductivity Vertical Fracture," SPEJ (Aug. 1974) 347-60; Trans.,
AIME,257.
34. Earlougher, R. C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph Ser-
ies, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5.
35. Hale, B.W. and Evers, J.F.: "Elliptical Flow Equations for Vertically
Fractured Gas Wells," JPT (Dec. 1981) 2489-98.
36. Lee, S.T. and Brockenbrough, J.R.: "A New Approximate Analytic
Solution for Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fractures," SPEFE (Feb. 1986)
75-88.
37. Kucuk, F. and Brigham, W.E.: "Transient Flow in Elliptical Systems,"
SPEJ (Dec. 1979) 401-10; Trans., AIME, 267.
Appendix-Reservoir Models (PD functions)
For the interpretation of field data, we consider the radial and
infinite-conductivity vertical-fracture models.
Radial Model. The Laplace transform of PD for a constant flow
rate for radial flow in an infinite-acting reservoir is given as 18
KO(-J;)
PD=-- for rD=1. ................... (A-I)
s-J; KI(-J;)
Infinite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture. The dimensionless pres-
sure for an infinite-conductivity vertically fractured well produc-
ing at a constant rate in an infinite-acting reservoir is given by 33,34
l(
0.134)
PD=1f2..J'lrtXjD erf - - - +erf(0866)]
-'--
..J tXjD ..J txfD
0.018) ( 0.750)
-0.067Ei ( - - - -0.433Ei - - - . .. ..... (A-2)
tXjD tXjD
615
 TABLE A·1-COMPARISON OF APPROXIMATE SOLUTIONS WITH ANALYTICAL
SOLUTION OF GRINGARTEN et al. 33

Po
t xfO Gringarten et al. Eq. A·5 Eq. A-7 Eq. A-4 Eq. A-8
0.10000x 10- 2 0.0560 0.0560 0.0554 0.0560 0.0560
0.12500 x 10- 2 0.0627 0.0626 0.0618 0.0627 0.0626
0.15000 x 10- 2 0.0686 0.0686 0.0676 0.0686 0.0686
0.20000 x 10- 2 0.0793 0.0792 0.0778 0.0793 0.0792
0.30000 x 10- 2 0.0971 0.0969 0.0949 0.0971 0.0969
0.40000 x 10- 2 0.1121 0.1119 0.1092 0.1121 0.1119
0.85000 x 10 - 2 0.1629 0.1627 0.1572 0.1634 0.1627
0.90000 x 10- 2 0.1676 0.1674 0.1615 0.1681 0.1674
0.10000 x 10- 1 0.1764 0.1763 0.1699 0.1772 0.1763
0.20000 x 10- 1 0.2455 0.2481 0.2362 0.2507 0.2481
0.30000 x 10- 1 0.2954 0.3024 0.2856 0.3070 0.3024
0.50000 x 10- 1 0.3696 0.3866 0.3616 0.3963 0.3866
0.60000 x 10- 1 0.3995 0.4216 0.3929 0.4342 0.4216
0.70000 x 10- 1 0.4263 0.4533 0.4212 0.4689 0.4533
0.80000 x 10- 1 0.4508 0.4824 0.4473 0.5013 0.4824
0.10000 0.4944 0.5347 0.4940 0.5605 0.5347
0.15000 0.5832 0.6415 0.5899 0.6865 0.6415
0.40000 0.8602 0.9644 0.8897 1.1210 0.9644
0.70000 1.0608 1.1853 1.1097 1.4829 1.1853
0.80000 1.1128 1.2412 1.1680 1.5853 1.2412
0.90000 1.1599 1.2914 1.2213 1.6815 1.2914
c:l.95000 1.1819 1.3147 1.2464 1.7276 1.3147
1.0000 1.2029 1.3370 1.2706 1.7725 1.3310
1.2500 1.2965 1.4354 1.3798 1.9817 1.4354
1.5000 1.3753 1.5175 1.4740 2.1708 1.5175

Because the Laplace transform of Eq. A-2 is not readily available,
we resorted to piecewise approximation for PD functions to obtain
their Laplace transforms for subsequent use in either Eq. 4 or 6
ofthe text. For the sake of convenience, four flow periods are de-
fined here: early-time linear, elliptic, elliptic/pseudoradial transi-
tion, and the pseudoradial flow period. In the following, we present
the approximate solutions for each flow period, which are good
for all values of txJD as demonstrated later.
Linear Flow Period. The linear flow period is represented by 33.34
PD =.J 7rtxJD' ................................... (A-3)
Taking the Laplace transform of PD for the linear flow period
yields
7r
PD= - - , j In 2Is<0.OO8 . .................... (A-4)
2sVs
Elliptic Flow Period. The elliptic flow period is given by 35
PD =In(.J 7rtxJD +.J l+7rtxJD)' ..................... (A-5)
Taking the Laplace transform of Eq. A-5 yields
PD=~e(S/21r)KO(~)' 0.008<j In(2/s) <0.037 ..... (A-6)
2s 27r
a = 2IFD , and
FD = kf·w/k·xf·
Pseudoradial Flow Period. The Laplace transform of PD during
the pseudoradial period is given by 37
0.5772-2 In 2 1 )
PD = - ( + -In s , 1.25 <j In 21s < 00.
s 2s .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-8)
In Eqs. A-4, A-6, A-7, and A-8,j represents the summation index
for function evaluation in the Stehfest algorithm. 21 In our compu-
tations, j= 1,2 ... 12 was used while the time bounds for each of
those equations were computed. Solutions for PwD in Eq. 4 or 7
can be obtained together withpD models given by either Eq. A-I
or Eqs. A-4, A-6, A-7, and A-8 using the Stehfest algorithm. Dur-
ing the course of this investigation, we observed that the piecewise
approach for solving the infinite-conductivity vertical fracture prob-
lem, as outlined here, is a far less computationally demanding op-
eration than the Laplace transform of exact analytical solution in
terms of Mathieu functions. 37
Computations were made with the approximate infinite-
conductivity vertical fracture solutions for each flow period, and
subse~ently compared with the analytical solution of Gringarten
et al. We observed that within the limits of txjD' the approxi-
mate solutions are in good agreement with the analytical solution
of Gringarten et aI., with a maximum error of 6.7 % at late times.
Table A-I presents the results.

Elliptic Pseudoradial Transition Period. The Laplace transform SI Metric Conversion Factors
of the PD function for this transition period 36 is given by bbl x 1.589 873 E-OI m3
cp x 1.0* E-03 Pa's
b ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
PD= , 0.037<j In 2/s<1.25, ............ (A-7) psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
21/; tanh 1/;
* Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
where
b = -7rIFD ,
Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 5. 1986. Paper accepted for publication
June 15. 1987. Revised manuscript received Dec. 11. 1987. Paper (SPE 15481) first present·
1/; = .Ja.Js+£ ed at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans.
Oct. 5-8.

616 SPE Fonnation Evaluation. September 1988