A New Approximate Analytic

Solution for Finite-Conductivity

Vertical Fractures
Sheng-Tai Lee, * SPE, Gulf Research & Development Co.
John R. Brockenbrough, * * Gulf Research & Development Co.

Summary. A new analytic solution, based on an approximate trilinear flow model, is developed to study the
transient behavior of a well intercepted by a finite-conductivity vertical fracture. The solution accounts for the
effects of skin, wellbore storage, and fracture storage. Both constant-pressure and constant-rate cases are consid-
ered. The solution is simple and reliable for short-time analysis. Combining this solution with a semilog
asymptotic solution provides a reliable tool for analysis and formation evaluation of fractured wells. We also
demonstrate that the optimization technique is a convenient means of formation parameter estimation. A set of
early-time asymptotic solutions is also presented. These solutions provide qualitative and quantitative relations of
the simultaneous influences of wellbore storage, fracture storage, and skin damage on early-time wellbore
pressure behavior.

Introduction
The increased activities in exploiting tight reservoirs by
means of hydraulic fracturing techniques 1 have gener-
ated considerable interest in the development of pressure-
testing procedures for evaluating fracture performance.
Pressure or production analyses of fractured wells have
been investigated with numerical as well as analytic
methods. Cinco-Ley 2 surveyed published numerical and
analytic reservoir flow models for fractured wells. A nu-
merical approach with a reservoir simulator 3 ,4 can
rigorously treat nonlinear fluid/rock properties, as well
as formation heterogeneity and geometry. From the stand-
point of ease of analysis, however, we prefer analytic
models, if applicable, over numerical models.
For pressure testing of wells, analytic models can be
grouped into two types according to their solution
methods: semianalytic and asymptotic analytic models.
The semi analytic model was first developed by Gringar-
ten et at. 5 for infinite-conductivity fractured wells and
was later extended to finite-conductivity fractured wells
by Cinco-Ley et ai. 6 In these approaches, the govern-
ing linear partial differential equations were transformed
first to a set of integral equations. Then, these integral
equations were discretized in time and space to find the
unknown variables of pressure and flow in the fracture.
Adapting this algorithm for routine well testing purposes
would require considerable computer coding and
storage-comparable to the requirement of a purely nu-
merical approach. In asym~totic analytic solutions, a
square-root-of-time solution ,8 and recently developed
asymptotic bilinear solutions 9 ,10 are used for formation
evaluation of fractured wells. The square-root-of-time so-
lution is applicable only to short and high-conductivity
'Now with Sohio Petroleum Co.
"Now with Alcoa Research Center, PittSburgh, PA.
Copyright 1986 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986
fractures. The bilinear model is applied when the influ-
ence of the flow from fracture tip is not felt within the
fracture. Also, while the slope of pressure vs. the fourth
root of time will provide an estimate of fracture conduc-
tivity, the fracture length cannot be obtained directly.
Therefore, we conclude that no simple, suitable analytic
model for formation evaluation of fractured wells, capa-
ble of providing both fracture length and conductivity,
has been developed.
We present a new analytic mathematical model for flow
to a fractured well. On the basis of physical and mathe-
matical reasoning, we approximate the flow between the
formation and the fracture as having a trilinear behavior.
This model, called the trilinear model, considers the ef-
fects of skin, wellbore storage, fracture storage, and
constant-pressure and constant-rate cases. The solutions
are simple and reliable for short-time analysis (the time
before semilog straight-line behavior is reached) of a well
intercepted by a vertical fracture. Combining our short-
time solution with semilog asymptotic solutions S,8 pro-
vides a reliable tool for pressure testing of fractured wells.
We also present a method of formation parameter esti-
mation by means of an optimization technique. This proce-
dure requires an optimization (or error minimization)
subroutine. We demonstrate that the fracture parameters
can be determined conveniently with the optimization
technique and the trilinear model.
Finally, we present early-time asymptotic solutions for
both constant-pressure and constant-rate cases to illustrate
the simultaneous influences of skin, wellbore storage, and
fracture storage at early testing times.
Development of the Trilinear Fracture
Formation Flow Model
Following Cinco-Ley et al., 6 we consider a single ver-
tical fracture of finite conductivity intercepting the well-
75
 In Region 2 (formation flow), O:O;XD :0;1, and
O:O;YD<oo.

FRACTURE FACE

T
h
~
..1-- . ~.
• _________________ • ~
. y
where
WELLBORE I--Xf X_a:> P2D=0 at tD=O .......................... (6)
Fig. 1A-lnfinite reservoir with a vertical fracture.
and
OP2D
PID=P2D-S-- at YD=O, ............... (7)
y 1 (2)
,I
I,
°YD
where
(1). (2). (3) FLOW REGIONS
CONSTRUCTED I
i
~'.::
:. (3)
P2D=0 at YD-+ oo . ........................ (8)
. t-
FRACTURE
J ,. In Region 3 (formation flow), 1 :O;XD < 00 and
(JL"'=(1 - ~-_x
--Xf- O:O;YD<oo.
Fig. 1B-A quadrant of the top view of the fractured well
system and trilinear flow approximation.
. ......................... (9)

bore (Fig. IA). The formation is assumed to be

homogeneous with constant properties and is initially at
hydrostatic equilibrium.
Because of symmetry, only a quadrant of the flow do-
main will be considered. In Fig. IB, we further divide
the flow domain into Regions 1,2, and 3. The boundary
separating Regions 2 and 3 is identified on the basis of
symmetry and the convenience of the mathematical bound-
ary conditions required by the governing differential equa-
tions. Region 1 represents the fracture. The flow is
dominated by the x-direction flow. This is reasonable be-
cause of the high fracture half-length to width ratio, no-
flow condition at the fracture tip, and drawdown at the
wellbore. If we consider the fracture as a line sink, the
flow in Region 2 will be controlled by the y-direction flow.
With similar reasoning, the flow in Region 3 is approxi-
mated by the x-direction flow for a short time period. This
visualization of the flow behavior is reasonable for fluid
flow before the pseudoradial flow period.
The problem is now formulated in terms of dimension-
less variables in Region 1 (fracture flow), O:O;XD:O;1.
o2PlD +a OP2D I _=C! OPID , .......... (1)
OX5 0YD Yv-° OlD
where
PID=O at tD=O . .......................... (2)
where
P3D=0 at tD=O, ......................... (10)
P2D=P3D at xD=I, ...................... (11)
and
P3D=0 at xD-+oo . ....................... (12)
The partial differential equation system, Eqs. 1 through
12, is governed by five independent dimensionless param-
eters: (1) dimensionless time, tD, which includes the frac-
ture length; (2) dimensionless fracture conductivity, F D;
(3) skin factor, S, assumed to be infinitesimally thin and,
consequently, always at a pseudosteady state!!; (4) well-
bore storage factor based on fracture length, C Df; and (5)
the inverse of the fracture diffusivity, C!. (This last fac-
tor, C! , is related directly to a fracture storage factor in-
troduced later.) These dimensionless parameters and the
dimensionless dependent variables-p ID , P 2D , and
P3D-are defined for oil in Region I * as
kh(Pi-pd
PID=
Cl. o q{3p.

Also, and for gas in Region 1* as

OPID
OXD
I _=b(I-CDj OPWD)
xD-O otD
............ (3)
kh[m(Pi)-m(p!)]
Cl.gqT

and
{3kt
tD=----
Op ID
OXD
I x D =!
=0.. ........................ (4)
¢p.ctx/ '

• Similar expressions hold for Regions 2 and 3.

76 SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986

 XD=x1xf' YD=y1xf'

FD =kfbtfk.xf ,
C
C Df = ,
27rc/>c t hx/
1 kc/>jCft 0_ ro - O.2IoEPJ, TRILINEAR
o-fa - O.2"P!, CINCO
C I =-=---, l> - ro - PI, TRILINEAR
.. - fO - PI, CINCO
Tlf ktcf>c t )( - fO -
0_ ro -
lO"PI, TRILINEAR
!Ol,PI, CINCO

2
a=-,
FD
o~~~~~~~~
l~ ,if Id 1~' l~' l~ 1~
and D! MENS I DNLESS T JME

7r Fig. 2-Comparison of the trilinear model to the numeri-

b=--. cal solution of Cinco-Ley et al. 6
FD

Notice that C Df is the dimensionless wellbore storage
based on fracture half-length, xf'
Applying Laplace transforms to Eqs. 1 through 12 and
solving the resulting ordinary differential equations, we
obtain the complete solution to the initial boundary value
problem in Laplace space. The derivation is outlined in
Appendix A.
For constant flow rate at the wellbore, the wellbore
pressure in Laplace space is
b conductivities (Fig. 2). The trilinear model matches
PwD(S) = ............. (13a)
s(sbCDf-1/; tanh 1/;)
Similarly, for the constant-pressure case, the wellbore
flow rate, qD(S), is obtained from
1 I/;
qD(S)=-2-_-- tanh 1/; •.......... (13b)
S P wD(S) sb
Note that with a constant wellbore pressure, the wellbore
storage effect no longer exists in Eq. 13b; that is, the first
equality of Eq. 13b, i.e.,
1 lutions were matched at t D = 1 because this point marks
q(s)= 2- , roughly the end of applicability of the trilinear model. This
(s P wD)
holds only for cases without the wellbore storage effect.
In Eqs. 13a and 13b, the parameter I/; is defined as
.......... (14)
When C I =S=CDf=O, PwD(S) and qD(S) can be in-
verted analytically to real-time space. Details of the ana-
lytical inversion and the expression of PwD(t D) in terms
of a triple integral because of the coupled trilinear model
are given in Appendix B. The integrands in the integral
are well-behaved functions. The triple integral can be
computed numerically with a Gaussian quadrature
method. The results from the analytical solution agree with
those from Eq. 13a and Stehfest's inverting algorithm. 12
SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986
Evaluation of the Trilinear Solution
Cinco-Ley et al. 6 presented a numerical solution to our
fracture flow problem with tabular results for constant-
rate drawdown tests for dimensionless pressure vs. dimen-
sionless time for various fracture conductivities. The
dimensionless time varied from 1 X 10 - 3 to 1 x 10 3 and
included bilinear flow, linear flow, and pseudoradial flow.
Our solution was inverted with the Stehfest algorithm 12
and compared to Cinco-Ley et al. 's data for a range of
Cinco-Ley et al.'s solution until about tD=l.O. After
t D = 1.0 the deviation becomes appreciable. The applica-
bility of the trilinear model, however, is not limited to
well testing, for two reasons. First, running a well test
until pseudoradial flow often is not practical. This fixes
t D < 1.0 and makes the trilinear model applicable
throughout the entire test. Second, however, because the
trilinear flow solution is valid until about tD = 1.0, it can
be matched to the pseudoradial flow solution to provide
a solution valid for all times. This was done by matching
of the trilinear model to pseudoradial flow at the point
where the slope ofpwD vs.log(tD) is 1.151 or where the
slope of 11q D vs. log(t D) is 1. 151 for the constant-
pressure case. If this did not occur before t D = 1, the so-
method of asymptotically matching our trilinear solution
to the pseudoradial solution gave satisfactory results. Fig.
3 shows graphically the trilinear solution with asymptot- .
ic matching. In accordance with a conventional type-curve
plot,9 Fig. 3 plots 10g(PwDFD) vs. log(tDF2 D) with F D
serving as a parameter. Cinco-Ley et al. 's semianalytic
solutions,6 plotted in dots, is also compared with our so-
lution. Fig. 3 shows that for practical purposes our
trilinear model with asymptotic matching to the pseu-
doradial flow solution gives a sufficiently accurate
representation of a converged numerical solution for the
problem of interest. In addition, similar plots can be
generated easily from the trilinear model for cases con-
taining skin, wellbore storage, and fracture storage. In
Table 1, the trilinear solution with asymptotic matching
is further compared with Cinco-Ley et al. 's numerical so-
lution. For the range of data compared, the deviation is
largest for F D = 0.2 7r at around t D = O. 1 where the rela-
77
 10

10'~---
I
- THISWORK
~~

10 .- -- -f--
••• CINCO ET AL
....- k:::::;~
~
~ ~

~..--
10-0

-
~
~ ..IlL
t---
.
10 -.-~ ~-

~ -.IL

~
~~
r;.--
.a.
10' ..!!Lll
~
....oL.lJL
~
0 ____ I"""

~
10-" 10-3 10-' 10-1 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10· 10' 10'

Fig. 3-Comparison of the type curves generated by the trilinear model (with asymptotic match)
to the numerical solution of Cinco-Ley et al. 9

tive deviation is about 5.5 %. For most of the data com-
pared, however, the deviations are within about 2 %.
Other analytic models have been proposed. The one that
most closely matches the numerical solutions is a bilinear
flow model of Cinco-Ley et al. 9 They superimpose two
linear flows-a linear incompressible flow in the fracture
and a linear compressible flow in the formation. It also
yields a simple expression in Laplace space without skin,
wellbore storage, and fracture storage:
1r
ji wD(S) =
(2F D) 'h S 1.25 tanh
Under the same condition, Eq. 15 is identical to the
bilinear solution derived previously in Ref. 13.
The asymptotic limit of this expression for small times
yields an asymptotic bilinear solution 9 where PwD is
proportional to t D 'A • The conventional bilinear solution
that exhibits the above-mentioned behavior will be labeled
the asymptotic bilinear solution. From Eq. 15, the limit
for large time yields the linear flow regime where PwD
is proportional to t D Ih •
Eq. 15 was inverted and compared to the trilinear so-
lution in Fig. 4. They are practically identical until about
t D = 1 X 10 - 2 . Because the bilinear model does not match
the trilinear solution after t D = 1 X 10 - 2 , it cannot be
matched asymptotically to a pseudoradial solution; that
is, the bilinear model is two log cycles short of matching
the entire short-time regime, while the trilinear model is
accurate over the entire short-time regime.
The solution for constant-pressure testing can be gener-
ated with the trilinear model by exploitation of the sim-
. . .. (15) ple relation q(s) = 1.0/[s2ji(s)] (see Eq. 13b and/or Ref.
( 2 ) V2
14). Type curves for constant-pressure testing were gener-
FD S 'A
ated by Agarwal et al. 3 with a numerical simulator that
plotted the reciprocal dimensionless rate vs. dimension-
less time for a range of conductivities. Dimensionless time
varied from 10 -5 to 1.0. A comparison of our results
with these curves shows good agreement over the range
of dimensionless time considered by Agarwal et al. To
extend the solution beyond the transient regime, an asymp-
totic match for flow rate can be made the same as for pres-
sure. Fig. 5 shows an example type curve generated with
the trilinear model. Laplace inversion with Stehfest's
algorithm 12 is convenient and accurate for this problem.

"r---------------

o· fO .. O.2J11Pl, TRILlNE:AR
~s 0- fa .. D.2".PI, BILINEAR
::>..: 6'" F"D .. PI, TRILINEAR
~
"-
+ .. fO .. PI, BJLIN[AR
_ x .. fO .. lOMPI, TRILJNERR
... fa .. lOMPI, BILINEAR
E~ 0" ro ... O.2,..PJ
o-rD .. PI
~ lo" ro .. lOIlP!

~~
~ci

8L----~­
°lt~~~~~~~10~·--~~~~~107·,--~~~~~I~
DIMENSIONLESS TlME

Fig. 5-Constant-pressure type curves for finite-conduc-

Fig. 4-Comparison of the trilinear to the bilinear model. tivity vertical fractures.

78 SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986

 TABLE 1-DIMENSIONLESS WELLBORE PRESSURE
PREDICTED BY TRILINEAR MODEL WITH ASYMPTOTIC MATCHING
Fo =0.21l" Fo =1l" Fo =21l"
Pwo Pwo Pwo
to ~ (From Ref. 9) to (From Ref. 9) (From Ref. 9)
~ to ~
0.001 0.5456 0.5449 0.001 0.2440 0.2443 0.001 0.1728 0.1732
0.002 0.6468 0.6380 0.002 0.2893 0.2881 0.002 0.2057 0.2056
0.003 0.7141 0.7024 0.003 0.3196 0.3190 0.003 0.2282 0.2289
0.004 0.7658 0.7520 0.004 0.3430 0.3432 0.004 0.2460 0.2475
0.005 0.8083 0.7926 0.005 0.3623 0.3633 0.005 0.2611 0.2632
0.006 0.8447 0.8273 0.006 0.3790 0.3806 0.006 0.2743 0.2770
0.007 0.8766 0.8576 0.007 0.3937 0.3959 0.007 0.2861 0.2893
0.008 0.9051 0.8846 0.008 0.4070 0.4098 0.008 0.2969 0.3006
0.009 0.9310 0.9090 0.009 0.4191 0.4224 0.009 0.3068 0.3110
0.01 0.9547 0.9313 0.01 0.4303 0.4341 0.01 0.3161 0.3207
0.02 1.1249 1.0837 0.02 0.5133 0.5181 0.02 0.3876 0.3939
0.03 1.2363 1.1861 0.03 0.5709 0.5788 0.03 0.4395 0.4480
0.04 1.3209 1.2638 0.04 0.6168 0.6272 0.04 0.4816 0.4920
0.05 1.3899 1.3269 0.05 0.6556 0.6682 0.05 0.5178 0.5297
0.06 1.4485 1.3802 0.06 0.6896 0.7040 0.06 0.5499 0.5630
0.07 1.4996 1.4266 0.07 0.7201 0.7361 0.07 0.5788 0.5929
0.08 1.5451 1.4678 0.08 0.7479 0.7653 0.08 0.6053 0.6203
0.09 1.5862 1.5079 0.09 0.7735 0.7921 0.09 0.6299 0.6456
0.1 . 1.6237 1.5387 0.1 0.7973 0.8170 0.1 0.6528 0.6691
0.2 1.8890 1.7728 0.2 0.9776 1.0010 0.2 0.8280 0.8453
0.3 2.0606 1.9263 0.3 1.1044 1.1289 0.3 0.9524 0.9686
0.4 2.1905 2.0414 0.4 1.2050 1.2282 0.4 1.0516 1.0648
0.5 2.2962 2.1340 0.5 1.2895 1.3099 0.5 1.1351 1.1442
0.6 2.3842 2.2115 0.6 1.3629 1.3794 0.6 1.2078 1.2121
0.7 2.4317 2.2784 0.7 1.4281 1.4401 0.7 1.2725 1.2715
0.8 2.4750 2.3372 0.8 1.4870 1.4939 0.8 1.3309 1.3243
0.9 2.5148 2.3897 0.9 1.5409 1.5424 0.9 1.3843 1.3719
1.0 2.5517 2.4371 1.0 1.5906 1.5865 1.0 1.4335 1.4153
2.0 2.8204 2.7579 2.0 1.9368 1.8906 2.0 1.7797 1.7156
3.0 2.9942 2.9520 3.0 2.1394 2.0783 3.0 1.9823 1.9018
4.0 3.1229 3.0914 4.0 2.2832 2.2144 4.0 2.1261 2.0371
5.0 3.2252 3.2002 5.0 2.3947 2.3212 5.0 2.2376 2.1435
6.0 3.3101 3.2896 6.0 2.4858 2.4092 6.0 2.3287 2.2311
7.0 3.3826 3.3654 7.0 2.5629 2.4839 7.0 2.4058 2.3056
8.0 3.4459 3.4312 8.0 2.6296 2.5490 8.0 2.4725 2.3705
9.0 3.5021 3.4893 9.0 2.6885 2.6065 9.0 2.5314 2.4279
10.0 3.5526 3.5414 10.0 2.7411 2.6581 10.0 2.5841 2.4794
20.0 3.8893 3.8852 20.0 3.0876 2.9998 20.0 2.9305 2.8205
30.0 4.0886 4.0870 30.0 3.2903 3.2008 30.0 3.1332 3.0214
40.0 4.2308 4.2304 40.0 3.4341 3.3439 40.0 3.2770 3.1643
50.0 4.3413 4.3417 50.0 3.5456 3.4549 50.0 3.3885 3.2753
60.0 4.4318 4.4327 60.0 3.6368 3.5458 60.0 3.4797 3.3661
70.0 4.5083 4.5097 70.0 3.7138 3.6226 70.0 3.5567 3.4430
80.0 4.5747 4.5763 80.0 3.7806 3.6892 80.0 3.6235 3.5095
90.0 4.6333 4.6351 90.0 3.8394 3.7480 90.0 3.6823 3.5683
100.0 4.6858 4.6878 100.0 3.8921 3.8005 100.0 3.7350 3.6208
200.0 5.0312 5.0341 200.0 4.2386 4.1466 200.0 4.0815 3.9668
300.0 5.2336 5.2367 300.0 4.4413 4.3492 300.0 4.2842 4.1694
400.0 5.3772 5.3805 400.0 4.5851 4.4929 400.0 4.4280 4.3131
500.0 5.4887 5.4920 500.0 4.6966 4.6045 500.0 4.5395 4.4247
600.0 5.5797 5.5832 600.0 4.7877 4.6956 600.0 4.6307 4.5158
700.0 5.6567 5.6602 700.0 4.8648 4.7726 700.0 4.7077 4.5928
800.0 5.7235 5.7270 800.0 4.9315 4.8394 800.0 4.7745 4.6596
900.0 5.7823 5.7859 900.0 4.9904 4.8983 900.0 4.8333 4.7185
1000.0 5.8349 5.8383 1000.0 5.0431 4.9509 1000.0 4.8860 4.7711

Pressure Testing With the
Optimization Method
The type-curve method for evaluating formation param-
eters is used often in well testing. The method is con-
venient if one or two parameters are to be determined from
a two-dimensional graphical matching of the measured
and the model-predicted data. If more than two param-
eters must be determined simultaneously, the type-curve
method becomes cumbersome.
We will demonstrate the applicability of the trilinear
model to parameter estimation with data from a fractured
SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986
well. Also, we will use the parameter optimization (or
error minimization) method to determine the formation
parameters. The method is equally applicable to other
formation evaluation problems.
In the parameter optimization method, an objective
function is defined that is normally the sum of squares
of the differences between model predictions and meas-
ured data. Then an optimization algorithm minimizes the
objective function and, in the process, determines the
model parameters. This procedure can be performed in
either t D space or Laplace (s) space.
79
 TABLE 1-Continued
Fo = 1011" Fo =2011"
Pwo PwD
to ~ (From Ref. 9) (From Ref. 9)
to ~
0.001 0.0860 0.0866 0.001 0.0713 0.0718
0.002 0.1092 0.1100 0.002 0.0939 0.0946
0.003 0.1266 0.1277 0.003 0.1110 0.1120
0.004 0.1410 0.1424 0.004 0.1254 0.1265
0.005 0.1537 0.1553 0.005 0.1379 0.1392
0.006 0.1650 0.1668 0.006 0.1491 0.1506
0.007 0.1753 0.1773 0.007 0.1594 0.1610
0.008 0.1849 0.1871 0.008 0.1690 0.1706
0.009 0.1938 0.1962 0.009 0.1777 0.1796
0.01 0.2022 0.2047 0.01 0.1863 0.1881
0.02 0.2688 0.2720 0.02 0.2526 0.2549
0.03 0.3183 0.3221 0.03 0.3020 0.3047
0.04 0.3592 0.3633 0.04 0.3428 0.3456
0.05 0.3944 0.3988 0.05 0.3780 0.3809
0.06 0.4257 0.4304 0.06 0.4093 0.4122
0.07 0.4540 0.4588 0.07 0.4376 0.4406
0.08 0.4801 0.4849 0.08 0.4637 0.4665
0.09 0.5043 0.5090 0.09 0.4878 0.4905
0.1 0.5268 0.5316 0.1 0.5104 0.5129
0.2 0.7003 0.7015 0.2 0.6838 0.6820
0.3 0.8240 0.8208 0.3 0.8075 0.8008
0.4 0.9227 0.9143 0.4 0.9062 0.8940
0.5 1.0059 0.9918 0.5 0.9893 0.9712
0.6 1.0783 1.0582 0.6 1.0617 1.0374
(J.7 1.1428 1.1163 0.7 1.1262 1.0955
0.8 1.2010 1.1682 0.8 1.1845 1.1472
0.9 1.2544 1.2150 0.9 1.2378 1.1939
1.0 1.3036 1.2577 1.0 1.2871 1.2365
2.0 1.6499 1.5546 2.0 1.6333 1.5329
3.0 1.8525 1.7394 3.0 1.8359 1.7175
4.0 1.9962 1.8739 4.0 1.9797 1.8519
5.0 2.1077 1.9798 5.0 2.0912 1.9577
6.0 2.1989 2.0671 6.0 2.1823 2.0450
7.0 2.2759 2.1414 7.0 2.2593 2.1193
8.0 2.3427 2.2061 8.0 2.3261 2.1839
9.0 2.4015 2.2634 9.0 2.3850 2.2412
10.0 2.4542 2.3147 10.0 2.4376 2.2925
20.0 2.8006 2.6553 20.0 2.7841 2.6331
30.0 3.0033 2.8561 30.0 2.9868 2.8338
40.0 3.1471 2.9989 40.0 3.1306 2.9766
50.0 3.2587 3.1099 50.0 3.2421 3.0876
60.0 3.3498 3.2007 60.0 3.3332 3.1784
70.0 3.4268 3.2775 70.0 3.4103 3.2551
80.0 3.4936 3.3440 80.0 3.4770 3.3217
90.0 3.5525 3.4027 90.0 3.5359 3.3804
100.0 3.6051 3.4553 100.0 3.5886 3.4330
200.0 3.9516 3.8013 200.0 3.9351 3.7789
300.0 4.1543 4.0038 300.0 4.1377 3.9815
400.0 4.2981 4.1475 400.0 4.2815 4.1252
500.0 4.4096 4.2590 500.0 4.3931 4.2367
600.0 4.5008 4.3502 600.0 4.4842 4.3278
700.0 4.5778 4.4272 700.0 4.5613 4.4049
800.0 4.6446 4.4939 800.0 4.6280 4.4716
900.0 4.7035 4.5528 900.0 4.6869 4.5305
1000.0 4.7561 4.6055 1000.0 4.7396 4.5831

The applicability of the optimization method and the
trilinear model to parameter evaluation may be illustrat-
ed by the drawdown test of a hydraulically fractured gas
well presented by Agarwal et al. 3 The initial pressure and
formation properties were determined through a prefrac-
ture pressure buildup test. In addition, the skin effect was
assumed to be absent. 3 Our goals were to determine both
the fracture length included in t D and the fracture con-
ductivity included in parameter F D. We conducted pa-
rameter evaluation both in the real-time space and in the
La~lace space with the field data given by Agarwal et
al. Using their study, we have found that for our prob-
lem, Laplace-space parameter estimation is more difficult
to perform than real-time parameter estimation. (Details
of the procedures of Laplace-space parameter estimation
are listed in Refs. 15 and 16.) We will outline only the
procedure of real-time space parameter estimation.
1. The unknown parameters, xf and kfbf , are initial-
ized with some reasonable values.
2. Given xf and kfbf , we obtain tD and F D .
3. We convert the given measured data, q and t, to
dimensionless quantities, i.e., q~(i) and tD(i) , where the
superscript m denotes the measured data and i = 1 ... N
is the number of measured data points.

80 SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986

 4. Use ofthe trilinear model (Eq. 13b) and the initial- TABLE 2-DETERMINATION OF
ized parametric values obtains qljy(l) for each t D(I) , where FRACTURE PARAMETERS BY
the superscript p denotes the predicted value. OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE
5. For a given set of parametric values, the sum of
squared errors, Parameters
x, k,b,
N
~ (md-ft)
~
2
Et = 1 qE(tDi)-q'F>(tDi) 1 , . . . . . . . . . . (16) Real-time estimation 830.1 297.8
1=1 Laplace-space estimation 821.9 295.1

is calculated.
6. The minimization of E t is accomplished with a
modified Levenberg-Marquadt algorithm.17 New esti-
mates of xf and kfbf are made, and Steps 2 through 5
are repeated until a minimum sum of squared errors is
obtained.
With the above procedure, a set of parameters was
determined for our example. The optimized fracture par-
ameters, xf and kfbf , are given in Table 2 for both real-
time- and Laplace-space optimizations. Also, the well-
bore flow rate calculated through the trilinear model with
the optimized parameters is compared to the measured
data in Table 3. Table 3 shows that the optimized param-
eters are satisfactory in terms of error deviations of the
predicted data.
For the same set of field data, Agarwal et ai. 3 obtained
xf=727 ft [222 m] and k~f=294 md-ft [0.9 md 'm] with
a type-curve-matching method and their numerical frac-
ture model. The xf value obtained by Agarwal et ai. is
different from our results. The difference could be at-
tributed to (1) the possibility of numerical convergence
problems associated with the timestep and grid sizes in
Agarwal et ai. 's numerical approach, (2) the slight differ-
ences in results predicted by different models, and/or (3)
different techniques used in determining the parameters.
Regarding the third factor, we feel that the optimization
technique is superior to the type-curve-matching method
in fitting a model to measured data.
The matched results are also compared in Fig. 6 for
time up to 100 days along with the prediction of the
asymptotic bilinear model. Fig. 6 shows that the asymp-
totic bilinear model begins to deviate from the solution
at about 0.8 of one day, much earlier than the first meas-
ured data point. Note that normally the trilinear solution
deviates from the true solution at a dimensionless time
near 1.0. In this example, a dimensionless time of 0.6
is equal to about 10 years of testing time.
In a related example, Hanson 18 applied our trilinear
model in conjunction with a nonlinear regression method
and estimated fracture parameters for a tight-oil and a
discussing the influence of fracture storage. In other work,
Cinco-Ley et ai. 19 examined the effect of wellbore
storage and fracture damage (skin) on the transient pres-
sure behavior of vertically fractured wells. Although a
fracture storage factor was included in their mathemati-
cal model, its influence was not investigated.
Our purposes in this section are to derive early-time
asymptotic solutions containing wellbore storage, frac-
ture storage, and skin damage and to use the asymptotic
solutions to study their simultaneous influences on pres-
sure responses at early testing times. The influence of frac-
ture storage capacity is discussed through a dimensionless
parameter, CfDf' and is defined as
In the following, a set of early-time asymptotic solutions
is summarized for cases of interest with constant-rate
boundary condition at the wellbore. Derivations of these
equations are given in Appendix C.
A Case With WeUbore Storage, Fracture Storage, and
Skin. We begin with
4 CfDf 0.5 FO.5
D t D 15
--'--'--,,----- . + '" ) . . .... (18)
3 7r1.5CDf
As noted in Appendix C, Eq. 18 is derived from the as-
sumption that the fracture storage factor, CfDf' is not
"
-
_ - -
ASVMPTOTIC IILlNEAR MODEL
TAILlNEA" MODEl

tight-gas formation. • ••• FIELD DATA (AEFER TO TAIU 2'

Influences of-Wellbore Storage, Fracture

Storage, and Skin Damage on Early-Time
Pressure Behavior
The subject problem has been studied to certain degrees
in the literature. Cinco-Ley et ai. 6 showed that the early-
time pressure response of a finite-conductivity fracture
is influenced by the fracture storage capacity. Bennett et
ai.13 further discussed the parametric range of a fracture
storage factor and noted that the fracture storage effect
Fig. 6-Comparison of the model prediction with the meas-
could be influential. Refs. 6 and 13, however, did not ac-
ured data.
count for the effects of wellbore storage and skin when
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, February 1986 81
 TABLE 3-COMPARISONS OF PREDICTED RESULTS
,.
PARAMETERS CURVES
WITH MEASURED DATA·
FO
s - '"
- 1.0
I.
2.
TRUE SOLUTION, EON.
ASYMPT SOLUTION, EON.
(13.)
(18)
Measured cor • 0.005 3• RSYMPT SOLUTION, CON. (22)
Time Flow Rate'· Relative Deviation (%)
ernf - 0.00001
(days) (Mef/D) 1t 21= 1t 21=
---- .S
20.0 625.0 620.1 614.6 -0.785 -1.668
35.0 476.0 482.6 478.3 1.395 0.480
"
3
Q.

50.0 408.0 411.1 407.4 0.752 -0.157

100.0 308.0 301.4 298.8 -2.129 -3.002
150.0 250.0 252.1 249.9 0.839 -0.047 .•s
250.0 208.0 202.2 200.4 -2.812 -3.645
300.0 192.0 187.1 185.5 -2.551 -3.378

Average Absolute Deviation: 1.497 1.782 ..,,.... ,...' ,....

Maximum Deviation: -2.812 -3.645 tD

• Measured flow rate data with other field data taken from Agarwal et al.
3 Fig. 8-Comparison of the early-time asymptotic solutions
.. Smoothed data. with the true solutions.
t Real-time parameter estimation.
; Laplace space parameter estimation.

longer linear in a PwD vs. tD plot at such early testing

times. Instead, we can rearrange Eq. 18 to obtain
.,
.85
PARAMETERS
FD
-- ,0 I.
CURVES
TRUE SOLUTION, EON. ( J3.)
PwD _ 1
-----
4 CfD 5F D o.5 0.5 l·
tD ........ (20)
1.0

..
2. ASYHPT SOLUTION. EON. ( 18)
cor • 0.005 RSYHPT SOLUTION. EON. (22)
tD C Df 3 7r1.5CD/
..,
3.
erDf - 0.01 RSYHPT SOLUTION, EON • (19)

Q
3
a..
.-
...,
.....
....,,.... ,.-'
tD
Fig. 7-Comparison of the early-time asymptotic solutions
with the true solution_
vanishingly small. This assumption allows us to approxi-
mate Parameter l/; ofEq. 14 with (aiS +CIs) when tD
is small. Also, although the skin factor was included ini-
tially in the derivation, it does not appear in the early-
time asymptotic solution of Eq _ 18. This is physically true
because at early testing times the wellbore pressure
response is affected first by the wellbore and fracture
storages and then by the skin damages existing between
the fracture and formation. When wellbore and fracture
storages are both present, the skin becomes a secondary
factor in affecting the early-time pressure response.
Eq. 18 shows that at the beginning of the testing, the
pressure response is controlled by the wellbore storage
factor, CDf>O; that is, we can obtain from Eq. 18 this
classic expression of pressure response under the influ-
ence of wellbore storage,
Eq. 20 shows that if wellbore and fracture storages are
both operative, then, with the measured early-time pres-
sure data, a plot of (PwDltD) vs. the square root of time
should yield a straight line. This linear plot will allow the
simultaneous estimation of the wellbore storage factor and
a dimensionless group containing fracture conductivity
and fracture storage.
,....
The early-time regime within which Eq. 18 is valid can
be established for individual well-testing cases by com-
parison of numerical results of the general solution and
the asymptotic solution, i.e., Eqs. 13a and 18, respec-
tively. A necessary condition for the valid-time regime
of Eq. 18, however, can be found by imposing
d(PwD)/dtD >0 for Eq. 18 for a constant-rate drawdown
case. From Eq. 18,
47r 3 C D/
tD< ......................... (21)
CfDfF D
This inequality indicates that a necessary bound of the
early-time regime for which Eq. 18 is valid is directly
proportional to wellbore storage squared and inversely
proportional to the product of fracture storage and con-
ductivity factors. Through numerical testing, we have
found the bound specified by Eq. 21 to be correct qualita-
tively.
As noted earlier, Eq. 18 is derived under the assump-
tion that the fracture storage is not vanishingly small. If,
however, C fDf "," 0, then an appropriate early-time
asymptotic solution,

=~ [exp(~tD) -lJ,
PwD=tDIC D , for tD-+O . .................. (19)
PwD ........... (22)
II C Df
It is only when t D becomes slightly larger that t D 1.5 be-
comes appreciable with respect to t D in Eq. 18 and the where II =FDl/; tanh l/;/7r and l/;=2/(F DS) should be
fracture storage factor appearing in the second term on used. The derivation ofEq. 22 is also given in Appendix
the right side begins to have some influence on the pres- C. Again, as tD approaches zero, Eq. 22 reduces to Eq.
sure response. Therefore, the pressure behavior is no 19.

82 SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986

 Figs. 7 and 8 compare the results of different asymp-
totic solutions (Eqs. 18, 19, and 22) with the results of
the true solution (Eq. 13a) CfDf equalling 0.01 and 10 -5,
respectively. Comparing the results of Figs. 7 and 8 for
Curve 2 shows that the asymptotic matching of Eq. 18
is accurate for tD up to 2x 10- 5 with C fDf =O.OI, while
with C fDf = 10 -5 , the valid-time regime for Eq. 18 in-
creases to about t D =2 x 10 - 3 . This trend is qualitative-
ly consistent with the prediction of the inequality in Eq.
21. From Curve 3 in Figs. 7 and 8, we find that, as ex-
pected, Eq. 22 is not accurate for the case with signifi-
cant fracture storage effect. If the fracture storage effect
is small or negligible-for example, C fDf = 10 -5 -then
Eq. 22 matches well with the true solution even beyond
the early-time regime.
A Case With Fracture Storage and Skin Damage. The
early-time pressure behavior is governed by
Eq. 23 shows that when the wellbore storage effect is ab-
sent, the fracture storage effect will dominate the early-
time pressure response. As tD becomes slightly larger,
the second term on the right side of Eq. 23 begins to have
some influence on P wD. Also, the effect of skin damage
between the fracture and the formation is felt at the
wellbore.
Eq. 23 can be rearranged to form
PwD 211"°·5
tDO. 5 (F DCfDf )0.5
According to Eq. 24, a plot of (PwD/tD 0.5) vs. tD with
early-time pressure data must give a straight line. The
y-axis interception and the slope of this straight line will
allow the estimation of the fracture storage and skin fac-
tor simultaneously, provided that the fracture conductivity
factor is determined from late-time data.
As in the preceding example, we can obtain a neces-
sary condition for the early-time regime within which Eq.
23 is applicable; that is, PwD of Eq. 23 must satisfy
- > 0,
dpwD
- parameter and performance evaluations of fractured wells.
dt D
for constant-rate drawdown case. From Eq. 23,
1 this paper, parameter estimation is more easily carried
tD < -SCfDf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
2
This inequality indicates that a necessary condition of the
early-time regime for which Eq. 23 is valid is directly
proportional to the product skin and fracture storage
factor.
If the well is produced at constant pressure, the coun-
terpart of Eq. 23 is
..... (26)
SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986
If the second term on the right side is neglected, Eq. 26
is identical to a short-time solution derived by Bennett et
al. 13
A necessary condition of the early-time regime that vali-
dates Eq. 26 is identical to the inequality in Eq. 25. Note
also that according to E~ 26, a mild singularity of q D-
for example, q D rxt D -0. -is predicted at t D =0 because
of an instantaneous drop of wellbore pressure at t D =0.
A Case With Only Fracture Storage Effect. The dimen-
sionless wellbore pressure response is
211"°·5 t D 0.5 1I"tD
PwD = CfDf 0.5FD 0.5 - - - - ........ (27)
CfDfl.5 FD 0.5
If the second term on the right side is neglected, Eq. 27
is identical to Cinco-Ley et al. 's fracture linear flow so-
lution. 6 With a two-term approximation, Eq. 27 should
provide a better approximation to the general solution of
. Eq. 13a for a longer time range of validity. As in the
preceding case, however, we can obtain a necessary con-
dition of the early-time regime that validates Eq. 27. In
this respect, the necessary condition is
(CfDf ) 2
tD < ........................... (28)
Eq. 28 shows explicitly that the bound for the valid-time
regime is directly proportional to the square of the frac-
ture storage factor. This bound can be prohibitively small.
For example, a medium value of the fracture storage fac-
tor of 10 -3 (Ref. 6) gives
tD<0.3XIO- 6 • .....•.•................• (29)
The bound of Eq. 29 is about less than a minute in real-
time scale for normal cases.
Conclusions
1. The analytic solution of the trilinear flow model ac-
curately predicts the short-time wellbore flow and pres-
sure responses of a hydraulically fractured well.
Combining our solution with the semilog asymptotic late-
time solution provides a convenient and reliable tool for
Our model contains the essential physical features required
of a reservoir flow model.
2. The optimization technique is convenient for estimat-
ing reservoir parameters. For the problem considered in
out in real-time space than in Laplace space.
3. A set of early-time asymptotic solutions is derived
for constant-rate and constant-pressure cases. These so-
lutions show explicitly the simultaneous influence of well-
bore storage, fracture storage, and skin damage on the
responses at the wellbore. In addition, they provide a con-
venient means of estimating the above factors, with early-
time response data.
Nomenclature
a = parameter defined after Eq. 12
b = parameter defined after Eq. 12
83
 bf = fracture width
C t = total compressibility, psi - 1 [Pa - 1 ]
C = wellbore storage coefficient or factor
C1 fracture storage factor, inverse of fracture
diffusivity, dimensionless
Et error-minimization objective function
defined in Eq. 16
11 dimensionless parameter defined in Eq. 23
F D = dimensionless fracture conductivity
h formation height, ft [m]
hf = fracture height, ft [m]
hs = damaged zone thickness, ft [m]
k = permeability, md
kfb f = fracture conductivity, md- ft [md' m]
p = reservoir pressure, psi [kPa]
q = flow rate
s = Laplace space variable
S = skin factor
t = time
T = temperature, absolute unit
u, v = dummy integration variables
x, y = space coordinates; complex coordinates
used in Laplace-space parameter
estimation
xf = fracture half-length, ft [m]
IX = unit conversion factor
{3 = unit conversion factor
{j = mathematical delta function
'T/ = hydraulic diffusivity, dimensionless
p. = fluid viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
c/> = porosity
1/; = a variable defined in Eq. 14
Superscripts
m measured data
p = model-predicted data
Subscripts
D = dimensionless
e = external drainage boundary
1 = fracture, flowing, or parameters based on
fracture half-length
g = gas
i = initial condition
L = length
N = total number of data points
o = oil
pr = pseudoradial flow period
s = Laplace space
w = wellbore
1,2,3 = index of flow region
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the management of the Production Re-
search Div., Gulf Research & Development Co. for sup-
port and permission to publish this paper. We are also
grateful to W.E. Culham and A. M. Wijesinghe for their
helpful discussions and reviews of the manuscript and to
1.1. Rosenzweig for advice in developing the early-time
84
asymptotic solution. We thank M.F. Riley of Gulf Oil
Exploration and Production Co. for generating Fig. 3. Fi-
nally, we thank an anonymous referee whose effort con-
tributed to the revised version of this paper.
References
1. Veatch, R.W. and Baker, 0.: "How Technology and Price Affects
U.S. Tight Gas Potential," Pet. Eng. IntI. (Jan. 1983) 84-96.
2. Cinco-Ley, H.: "Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracturing by Transient
Pressure Analysis Methods," paper SPE 10043 presented at the
1982 SPE IntI. Petroleum Equipment and Technology Exhibition,
Beijing, March 19-22.
3. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D., and Pollack, C.B.: "Evaluation and
Prediction of Performance of Low-Permeability Gas Wells
Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing," J. Pet. Tech.
(March 1979) 347-60; Trans., AIME, 267.
4. Narasinham, T.N. and Palen, W.A.: "A Purely Numerical
Approach for Analyzing Fluid Flow to a Well Intercepting a
Vertical Fracture," paper SPE 7983 presented at the 1979 SPE
California Regional Meeting, Ventura, April 18-20.
5. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady-
State Pressure Distribution Created by a Well with a Single Infinite-
Conductivity Vertical Fracture," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug. 1974)
347-60; Trans., AIME, 257.
6. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V., F., and Dominguez-A., N.:
, "Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well with a Finite-Conductivity
Vertical Fracture," Soc Pet. Eng. J. (Aug. 1978) 254-64.
7. Millheim, K.K. and Cichowicz, L.: "Testing and Analyzing Low-
Permeability Fractured Gas Wells," J. Pet Tech. (Feb. 1968)
193-98; Trans., AIME, 243.
8. Earlougher, R.C.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5.
9. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: "Transient Pressure Anal-
ysis for Fractured Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1981) 1749-66.
10. Guppy, K.H., Cinco-Ley, H., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Transient
Flow Behavior of a Vertically Fractured Well Producing at Con-
stant Pressure," paper SPE 9963 available at SPE. Richardson, TX.
11. Raghavan, R.: "Some Practical Considerations in the Analysis
of Pressure Data," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1976) 1256-68; Trans.,
AIME,261.
12. Stehfest, H.: "Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms,"
Comm., ACM (Jan. 1970) 13,47-49.
13. Bennett, C.O., Reynolds, A.C., and Raghavan, R.: "Analysis of
Finite-Conductivity Fractures Intercepting Multilayer Reservoirs,"
paper SPE 11030 presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
14. Van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," J. Pet.
Tech. (Dec. 1949) 305-24; Trans., AIME, 186.
15. Chaumet, P., Poulle, J., and Seguier, P.: "Application de la Trans-
formation de Laplace a L'Etude des Courbes de Pression en Regime
Transitoire," Revue de L'institut Fram;ais du Petrole (Dec. 1962)
1441-53.
16. Lee, S.T. and Brockenbrough, J.R.: "A New Analytic Solution
for Finite Conductivity Vertical Fractures with Real Time and
Laplace Space Parameter Estimation," paper SPE 12013 presented
at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
17. Broyden, C.G.: "Recent Development in Solving Nonlinear
Algebraic Systems," P. Rabinowitz (ed.), Gordon and Brach,
London (1970) 61-73.
18. Hanson, J.M.: "Nonlinear Inversion of Pressure Transient Data,"
paper SPE 12848, presented at the 1984 SPE/DOE Unconventional
Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, May 13-15.
19. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: "Effect of Wellbore Storage
and Damage on the Transient Pressure Behavior of Vertically
Fractured Wells," paper SPE 6752 presented at the 1977 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12.
20. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C.: Conduction of Heat in Solids,
second edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1959).
21. Sneddon, l.N.: The Use of Integral Transforms, first edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1972).
22. Erdelyi, A. et al.: "Tables of Integral Transforms-Bateman
Manuscript Project," McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City
(1954) 1.
SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986
Appendix A-Derivation of General we find
Solution of the Trilinear Model
The governing differential equations and the associated
dimensionless parameters are given in Eqs. 1 and 12. Note
2
d PlD
D
[a(s+s'h)lh C
dx 2 = 1+(s+s'h)v2S + IS PlD·
J- ..... (A-8)
that with trilinear coupling, P2D and P 3D depend on two
spatial coordinates, x and y. In the derivation to follow, We then solve Eq. A-8 with the associated boundary
however, only the coordinate of the dominating flow conditions, Eqs. 3 and 4, in the Laplace space. If x=O.O,
direction is identified as a spatial variable for P2D and we can obtain the solution of the wellbore pressure for
P 3D, respectively. the trilinear model.
We begin by solving P3D' From Eqs. 9 and 10,
_ b cosh I/;
P wD(S) = , ....... (A-9)
_ d 2p 3D s(sbC D cosh 1/;-1/; sinh 1/;)
sP3D= dx ' ......................... (A-I)
2
D where
where

P 3D =p 3D(S,XD) = r
o
exp( -stD)P3(tD,xD)dtD'
.......... (A-IO)

For the constant-pressure case, we use

............................ (A-2)
_ 1
q D(S) =-2"----
The solution of P 3D and the associated boundary con- S P wD(S)
ditions in the Laplace space is .
and determine the dimensionless flow rate at the wellbore
as
P3D=P2D exp[-s'h(xD-l)] . ............. (A-3) _ I/; tanh I/;
q D(S)= - ..................... (A-II)
From Eq. A-3, bs

dji -
- 3D I - - - s 'h-
P2D (S,YD,XD=I) . .... (A-4)
Appendix B-Analytical Laplace Inversion
of Trilinear Solution
dx D xD=1
When S=C D =C I =0.0, then for the constant-rate case,
the wellbore pressure in the Laplace space from Eqs. A-9
We assume in Eq. 5 for the formation flow in Region 2 and A-1O is rewritten as
that the x gradient of P2D is small compared to the Y gra-
dient. This assumption 9 makes the approximation that _ b 1 cosh[alh(s+sI/2)V2]
P2D has a weak x dependence in Eq. A-4. In this case, PwD(S)=--1 - - - 1 - - 1- - - - - - -
h
a s (s+sh)\4 sinh[a'h(s+sv2)IA(
applying Laplace transform to Eq. 5 and using Eq. A-4
yields
............................ (B-1)
d2 -
P2D V2 - Instead of finding an inversion of P lD' we consider the
--2-=(s+s )P2D' ................... (A-5)
dYD inversion of (sp wD)/ ( - bla 'h), and attempt to perform

The solution of P2D, satisfying Eqs. 7 and 8 in the

Laplace space, is

_ PID 'h 'h To determine the inversion of Eq. B-2, we consider first
P2D- 112 IA exp[-(s+s ) YD] .... (A-6)
1+(s+s )2S
-,1 ( cosh aq )
and L sq sinh aq , .................... (B-3)

dji2D (s+s'h)'h _
dYD IYD=O
= - I/;
1+(s+s 2) 2S
I/; P lD· ...... (A-7)
where q=s 112 and a=a 'h. From Ref. 20 we find

-1 ( cosh qa) IA'; [. (2n+ l)a-a

L =2t 2 L.J lerfc-----
sq sinh qa n =0 2t 1/2
Taking the Laplace transform ofEq. 1 and substituting
from Eq. A-7 for

dji lD
dYD
IYD=O'
.
+lerfc
(2n + l)a +a ]
lh . . .................. (B-4)
2t

SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986 85

Because Finally, we use another identity given in Ref. 22. If
Lg(t)=g(s), then
dfit)
L-=sLf(t)-f(O), ................... (B-5a)
dt

we have

L- 1( cosh qa.)
q sinh qa.
= -a
at
~
[ 2t "12 L..J
n=O
00

Xdvv(t-v) -3/2 g(v) exp [- ~J

4(t-v)
....... (B-lO)

.
x [ Ierfc
(2n+ 1)a.-a..
2t I12
+ Ierfc
(2n+ 1)a.+a.
I/;
2t 2
J] Therefore,

00
~ [. (2n+ 1)a.-a.
=t - 1/2 L..J Ierfc V:
I2
n=O 2t 2
=-1 r
1 - tdvv(t-v)-312 exp [ - -v- - ]
21r V2 J 4(t-v)
00 o
+ierfc
(2n+ 1)a.+a. ]
2t~
+ 1/2 t-
1 L:
n=O
[
[a.(2n+ 1) -a.] 2
3 '12 ) 00 duuF(u,a.) exp ( -U- ) ...... (B-ll)
x(411"v)
o 4v
(2n+ 1)a.-a.
xerfc + [a.(2n+ 1)+a.] From Eq. B-ll, we find the Laplace inversion of Eq. B-2
2t I/2
from

(2n+ 1)a.+a.]
xerfc , ................... (B-5b)
2t~

where

r
2

ierfc(x) =
=-1-
1 rtdvv(t-v)-1.5 exp [ --v- ]
oJ
erfc(x ')dx'. . ................. (B-6) 211"12 4(t-0
x

(-U4v2) . .(B-12)
In Eq. B-5b, we determined
X (_1-3) 1/2 )00 duuF(u,a) '12 exp
-1 cosh qa. 411"v 0
L---~
q sinh qa.
Because
We now define

-
f(t,a.)=L - 1[ cosh
. qa. ] . ................ (B-7)
q SInh qa.

Next, we use an identity from Ref. 21. If Lf(t) =f (s), =L- 1( sp wD )

then -b/a'l2 '

we obtain

............................ (B-8)
From Eq. B-8, we obtain
........................... (B-13)

L
-1 ( cosh \4 a. ) \4 3 1,)00
=(411"t)12
S IA sinh s
With the identity
o
rt 1
L v(t')dt'=-L(v), ..................... (B-14)
xduuF(u,a.) exp ( - ::). . ............... (B-9) J
o s

86 SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986

we can determine an expression for the analytical inver- Now, consider 1/; of Eq. C-1,
sion of PwD in Eq. B-1.

PwD(tD)=-V
-b~tD dw-
1 ~w
-, dvv(w-v)-3/2
I12
a l2 27r
o 0

x exp [ - V2] ( -1-) Jroo duuF(u,a V2)

II;
2
"",(CIS) liz (l+~_a
2 CISs
__ ... ). .......... (C-5)
4(w-v) 47rv 3 0

Substituting Eq. C-5 into Eq. C-4, we find

x exp ( - : : ) ........................ (B-15)

_
PwD(S)=--2
1 [ 1 [ (CIS) II;
1+-- 2

CDfs bsC Df
For the same input data, the wellbore pressure calcu-
lated by Eq. B-15 agrees with that by numerical inver-
sion of P wD(S) with Stehfest's algorithm.IO Because
Stehfest's algorithm is convenient and accurate for our
problem, the practical utility of Eq. B-15 diminishes.

Appendix C-Derivation of Early·Time

Asymptotic Solutions
From Eqs. 13a and 14, we will consider constant-rate
=_1_(~+ C I
C Df s
I/

CDfb s .
:5 + ... ) ..... (C-6)

problems. At early time, S> > S V2 , the variable 1/; of Eq.

14 becomes Thus, the early-time pressure solution is

...................... (C-1)

The deviations of solutions are presented according to the 1 [t +C-

I V2 1 ]
three cases discussed in the main text. =-- - - - - t 1.5+
C D CDfb %(7r) 1/2 D ...
Df
Cases With Wellbore Storage, Fracture Storage, and
Skin. We will consider the condition where the fracture
storage factor, CfDf , or equivalently C I , is not trivi- or
ally small. Then, when t D is very small, the Laplace-
space parameter, s, becomes very large and tanh 1/; can _ 1 ( 4 C 2 fDf F D V2 1.5 )
I/

be approximated as PwD(tD)--- tD-- IS tD +... ,

C Df 3 7r' C Df
tanh 1/; "'" 1. ............................. (C-2)
............................ (C-7)
Thus, Eq. 13a becomes

b where b= -7rIFD and CfDf=C I xFD . When the frac-

PwD(S)=------ ture storage effect is vanishingly small or negligible, then
s(sbC D -1/; tanh 1/;) from Eq. C-1,

b
.................. (C-3)
_(a)
1/;- -
1/2
........................... (C-8)
S

Rearranging Eq. C-3 gives and P wD(S) becomes

1
P wD(S) = , ................... (C-9)
S(CDfS-/I )

when

"'" s2~Df (1+ b:DfS + ... ) ........ (C-4) II =

F D 1/; tanh 1/;
....................... (C-10)
7r

SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986 87

The Laplace inversion of Eq. C-9 gives Cases With Only Fracture Storage. The variable ~ ofEq.
14 becomes

Eq. C-ll is valid only when C 1 ,.,0 and at early testing =(C1s) 'h( 1 +-C
a
Yo I)V2 .............. (C-14)
times (when s is very large). It also involves fewer ap- 1 s
proximations than Eq. C-7.
Because tanh ~,., 1,
Cases With Fracture Storage and Skin Damage. If
CDf=O, Eq. 13a becomes -b
PwD(S)=-
-b 1 s~
PwD(S)=- , ................ (C-12)
s ~tanh~

where

.. .).
Here we assume that the fracture storage factor, C 1, is Thus, the inversion of the above equation yields
not vanishingly small, so that at early time, S is large and
tanh ~ ,., 1. Then Eq. C-12 becomes
7rtD

b 1 ( a )-V2
PwD(S)=- (C1)'h s1.5 1+ C1Ss
27r°. 5 t D 0.5 tD
- - - - . .. (C-15)
CfDfo.5FDo.5 C 1.5 F D 0.5
fDf

51 Metric Conversion Factors

The inversion of the above equation gives cu ft x 2.831 685 E-02 m3
ft x 3.048* E-01 m
md-ft x3.008 142 E-04 md'm

it Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE

27r°.5 t D 0.5 Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers office Oct. 5, 1983.
Paper accepted for publication June 22, 1984. Revised manuscript received Dec. 4,
(FD CfDf ) 0.5 1984. Paper (SPE 12013) first presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition held in San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.

88 SPE Formation Evaluation, February 1986