Use of Artificial
Intelligence in Well-Test
Summary. This paper describes
techniques for the identification of
well-test interpretation models from
pressure-derivative data. Artificial in-
telligence (AI) techniques are used to
separate the derivative response
from signal and differentiation noise,
and a rule-based recognition system
characterizes the response using a
symbolic representation.
342
Interpretation
Olivier F. Allain, * SPE, and Roland N. Horne, SPE, Stanford U.
Introduction
The use of computers for well-test analysis
has played an important role in the devel-
opment and application of new interpretation
techniques. 1 With nonlinear regression, al-
gorithms have been developed that can per-
form automated type-curve matching when
given a specific model and a first estima-
tion of its parameters. 2-8 Such algorithms
not only speed the interpretation procedure
but also increase the confidence in the re-
sults by allowing quantification of the qual-
ity of the match obtained. Correct
application of these methods, however, de-
pends on the choice of the interpretation
model.
An interpretation procedure that uses the
pressure derivative 9 - 11 is regarded as the
most appropriate tool for the diagnosis of
an interpretation model for well-test data.
The derivative is not only more sensitive to
the different flow regimes and flow-regime
transitions but also is more generally ap-
plicable and therefore provides a substitute
for all the specialized analyses. In traditional
graphical analysis, the choice of an interpre-
tation model is essentially a visual process.
Based on a log-log plot of the pressure
derivative, an expert can perform model
identification by recognizing features that
are specific to particular analytical models.
The combination of the various models then
gives an interpretation model. 12
Although the human visual perception
process is not fully understood, significant
work in AI has been conducted to develop
machine vision systems. B - 15 These sys-
tems operate not on the image itself but on
a symbolic representation containing the in-
formation needed for the task under consid-
eration.
This paper describes the development of
techniques to automate the model-
identification step of well-test interpretation
by use of AI. The computer's choice of a
model is based on the pressure-derivative
curve and simulates the visual diagnosis per-
formed by a human expert. The reasoning
involved in such a diagnosis uses a symbolic
representation of the derivative curve, which
'Now at Schlumberger Wireline & Testing. Gabon.
Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers
in the case of a human expert is built almost
unconsciously. Techniques were developed
to replicate this viSUal-perception step.
A major difficulty in the analysis of real
data, particularly when the pressure deriva-
tive is used, is the separation of the true
reservoir response from signal or differen-
tiation noise. Again, this is relatively simple
for a human observer, but difficult to im-
plement in a computer program. This paper
describes an algorithm developed to over-
come this problem. The algorithm was able
to distinguish response from noise correctly,
thereby allowing for correct model identifi-
cation.
In a manner analogous to a human expert,
the technique constructs an interpretation
model for the duration of the data by com-
bining the features of the different flow peri-
ods of the response. The adequacy of a
model is determined by qualitative and quan-
titative information. Once a model is chosen
its parameters are estimated with a correla~
tion or an appropriate table.
The system developed in this work can
perform model identification on real or
hypothetical data. Because the method also
provides parameter estimation, it can be
used with an automated type-curve-matching
analysis, allowing full automation of well-
test interpretation.
The task of identifying an interpretation
model by use of the derivative of well-test
data can be separated into three components:
(1) observation-extraction of the features
present on the data derivative and represen-
tation of these features, (2) knowledge of the
models-methods for the construction and
description of interpretation models, and (3)
matching-criteria for choosing appropriate
interpretation models for given data.
The development of the specialized rule
base and logical approach for these three
components took considerable work before
the algorithms were able to interpret real
data reliably. The purpose of this paper is
to describe this development as an aid to
others who may wish to attempt a similar
approach.
Observation
To build a useful representation of the data
derivative, the first stage of the observation
March 1990 • JPT

process is to distinguish between the true
reservoir response and the noise present on
the curve. This distinction is almost uncon-
scious for the human observer, but needs to
be made explicit in a computerized proce-
dure. This step corresponds to the produc-
tion of a sketch, as described by Hom, 15
and consists of simplifying the original data,
keeping only the significant trends.
The algorithm developed here to produce
the sketch is based on the method presented
by Lowe. 16
Derivative Sketch. The algorithm described
is applied to a presentation of the pressure
derivative on log-log coordinates. The
derivative is obtained with the central
scheme described by Bourdet et al. 11 This
scheme uses a point somewhere before (left)
and one somewhere after (right) the point
of interest, computes the two correspond-
ing slopes, and takes their weighted mean.
The noise can be reduced by imposing a
minimum distance, called the differential in-
terval, between the point where the deriva-
tive is calculated and the left and right
points. Thus, the three points-central, left,
and right-are not necessarily adjacent to
each other. The proximity of the late-time
data points on a log-log scale and the small
relative change between them may cause
scatter on the derivative if the differentia-
tion interval is taken to be zero (adjacent
points). For this reason, and because of ex-
perience with the examples considered dur-
ing this study, a value of 0.2 log cycles was
used in all cases.
To produce the sketch, we approximate
successive sections of the derivative by
straight-line segments. These segments are
obtained by least-squares fit. The number
of segments required to represent the main
trends of the curve is based on a notion of
quality, explained below. If we consider a
subset of points and the straight-line segment
obtained by least-squares fit to them, we can
assign to it a quality as follows:
Q=L/a . ....................... (1)
With this measure of quality, we define
the notion of best segment at Point M as
follows.
1. Constitute Set So with enough points
around Point M that the distance between
JPT • March 1990
"In a manner
analogous to a human
expert, the technique
constructs an
interpretation model
for the duration of the
data by combining the
features of the
different flow periods
of the response."
the leftmost and rightmost points is at least
0.2. Compute the segment corresponding to
So' and determine its quality, Qo.
2. Constitute a new set SI by including
in So the first point on its left. Compute the
corresponding segment and determine its
quality, Q\.
3. Constitute a new set S2 by including
in So the first point on its right. Compute
the corresponding segment and determine its
quality, Q2.
4. Take the maximum among Qo, Q1,
and Q2. If this maximum is Qo, then the
best segment is the one corresponding to
So. Otherwise, take SI or S2 to be the set
with the maximum value and Q 1 or Q2 to
be the corresponding qUality. This length-
ens the chosen set in one direction. Final-
ly, go to Step 2 to seek a still longer
segment.
Rather than stopping the extension of a
segment as soon as the quality decreases, the
algorithm actually checks further, skipping
at most three points, to see whether the qual-
ity would still increase. This enables the
removal of sharp peaks in regions that are
not very noisy, which can be created by iso-
lated erroneous data points.
The overall description of the algorithm
producing the sketch can now be given as
follows.
1. i=1.
2. Find the best segment at point of
Index i.
If the last point in the corresponding set
is the last data point, then go to Step 3.
Otherwise, take i to be the last point in the
set. Go to Step 2.
3. Consecutive segments are intersected.
Because we start from the first point on
the curve, segments are preferentially ex-
tended to the right, except for the eventual
last points.
When large scatter is avoided by taking
the derivative with a high enough differen-
tiation interval, this algorithm successfully
removes the noise from the derivative, keep-
ing only the main trends present on the
curve. These main trends correspond to the
true reservoir response and constitute the ba-
sis for model identification.
Symbolic Representation. From the sketch
obtained with this method, we substitute the
data derivative with a symbolic representa-
tion in terms of the following shapes: up,
down, rruvcimum, minimum, plateau, and
valley.
A plateau is a flat segment preceded by
an up; a valley is a flat segment preceded
by a down. A flat segment has a slope that
is smaller than 0.1 in absolute value. This
convention is similar to that of Startzman
and Kuo,16 who looked at symbolic
representation of log data. Consecutive iden-
tical symbols (e.g., up, up) are not allowed
in the representation; therefore, a single
symbol may represent several segments. Be-
cause choosing an interpretation model in-
volves not only qualitative but also
quantitative considerations, it is necessary
to record which segment(s), or which
point(s) of the sketch, correspond(s) to a par-
ticular symbol. This information is used in
the matching process as a complement to the
symbolic representation.
The representation chosen may seem sim-
plistic at first in that it does not generally
allow us to distinguish changes in slope. Be-
cause real systems seldom behave exactly
like analytical models, however, the data
may include significant shapes that we do
not want to consider for model identifica-
tion. If we chose a more faithful represen-
tation, we would have to deal with all the
anomalies from the beginning of the iden-
tification procedure. On the other hand, a
simpler representation allows for a top-down
procedure, basing a first diagnosis on an
overall, not-too-detailed behavior and even-
tually augmenting this diagnosis by con-
sidering left-behind features on the different
sections.
From the original pressure-derivative
curve for a given test, we extracted two
different characterizations. One is purely
symbolic and gives a qualitative description
of the response in terms of shapes; the other
is in terms of segments and gives quantita-
tive information about these shapes.
Knowledge of Models
An interpretation model is usually obtained
by combining several components that
produce the observed shapes on the differ-
ent parts of the derivative. 12 For a com-
puterized procedure to exhibit an identical
behavior, it needs to be provided with some
343
 basic models (or parts of models) along with
a representation of their derivative and with
rules describing what combinations are pos-
sible and their effects.
Models. The flow regimes that can occur
during a well test usually have been divided
into three main categories \8: early time
(representative of the well and its surround-
ings), middle time (the average reservoir
response), and late time (boundary effects).
In this study, we consider the most common
cases for these categories.
1. Early time-well with wellbore storage
and skin, vertically fractured well.
2. Middle time-infinite-acting radial
flow, pseudosteady state, and transient dou-
ble porosity.
3. Late time-single sealing fault, inter-
secting sealing faults, constant-pressure
fault, closed reservoir.
The characteristic derivative shapes as-
sociated with the models in those three
categories and.their combinations have been
presented by several authors, 10,11,\9-2\ and
we can represent them symbolically with the
vocabulary introduced earlier. (For the first
category, instead of an early-time effect
alone, we append the infinite-acting radial
flow regime, which therefore will not occur
in the middle-time effects.)
1. Wellbore storage and skin, infinite
homogeneous medium (up, 1TU1Ximum,
down, valley) or (down, valley) or (up,
plateau).
2. Vertically fractured well, infinite
homogeneous medium (up, plateau).
3. Pseudosteady-state double-porosity
transition (down, minimum, up, plateau).
4. Transient double-porosity transition
(up, plateau).
5. Sealing fault (up, plateau).
6. Constant-pressure fault (down ).
7. Pseudosteady state (up).
It is necessary to extend the representa-
tions containing extrema because the sketch
may flatten the corresponding shape.
Influence of Combinations. Because an in-
terpretation model is defined as a combina-
tion of the basic models listed earlier, we
can construct its representation by combin-
. ing the representations of its components.
To do so, we must define the influence of
combining a shape with another.
Given Models M \ and M2 and the re-
spective representations, (Sl, Si . . . S\) and
(Sr, Si· ..Sp, the representation f~r the
model obtained by combining M2 with M\
on the shape Sf is given as
[Sl·· .Sl_\, comb(Sl,Sf)' Sr· .S~],
................. (2)
where comb(S} ,Sf)represents the shape(s)
obtained by combining Sf with Sf. The
different possibilities for those combinations
are expressed by the following rules.
1. Destructive combinations:
valley +down - nothing
valley +up - minimum + up
plateau + down -1TU1Ximum + down.
344
2. Nondestructive combinations:
shape 1+shape 2-shape 1+ shape 2.
Combination Constraints. Not all arbitrary
combinations of the models listed earlier are
physically possible, and we need to restrict
the search for interpretation models by ex-
pressing certain constraints. In this work,
the following constraints were found nec-
essary.
1. No heterogeneous or boundary effects
can occur before an early-time regime.
2. The wellbore-storage and vertically
fractured well models are mutually ex-
clusive.
3. Only one double-porosity transition can
be present.
4. Nothing can occur after pseudosteady
state.
5. No more than two sealing-fault effects.
This is not necessarily an exhaustive list;
other constraints may be required depend-
ing on the implementation of this approach.
Regime Description. Much more is in-
volved in the description of analytical
models than is given in the previous section.
The different shapes that the derivative of
these models exhibits correspond to partic~
ular regimes that have quantitative charac-
teristics; e.g., fixed slope values. To account
for this information, we first associate a re-
gime description with the representation of
each model. Both lists have the same num-
ber of elements and correspond to each other
pairwise. For instance, to the representation
of wellbore storage and skin in an infinite
homogeneous medium (with a high enough
value of CD e2s ) we could associate the list
(wellbore storage, maximum of the hump
after wellbore storage, transition after well-
bore storage, infinite-acting radial flow) to
the list (up, 1TU1Ximum, down, valley).
When an interpretation model is built by
combining the representations of several
models, their regime descnptions must also
be combined to characterize the global
response. This is done by adding rules for
shapes and consequences for regimes to the
combination. The two main consequences
with the corresponding rules are the fol-
lowing:
valley +up- minimum +up
and r\ +r2-gt(r\)+r2,
where gt(r\) means that the level corre-
sponding to the minimum is higher than the
level that would have corresponded to the
valley.
plateau +down -1TU1Ximum +down
and r\ +r2-lt(r\)+r2,
where It(r\) means that the level corre-
sponding to the 1TU1Ximum is lower than the
level that would have corresponded to the
plateau. An interpretation model is charac-
terized by two different attributes. The first
one is in terms of shapes and qualitatively
describes the derivative curve; the other is
in terms of regimes and can be used to
describe the shapes present on this curve
quantitatively.
Matching
A particular model (or combination of
models) qualitatively matches part of the
data if the data representation on this part
is equal to a sub-sequence of the model
representation. The part of the data that is
considered ~ two attributes: a list of shapes
and a list of segments. The corresponding
part of the model also has two attributes: a
list of shapes and a list of regimes. The
equality of the two shape representations es-
tablishes a correspondence between the seg-
ments. on the data and the regimes of the
model. This correspondence can be used to
determine whether the model is quantitative-
ly acceptable. To do so, a new series of facts
describing certain regimes and regime com-
binations is included.
Quantitative Constraints. Earlier, we em-
phasized that a single symbol in the data
representation may correspond to several
segments in the sketch of the derivative.
Therefore, when a regime corresponds to
a particular symbol in the matching proc-
ess, it may actually correspond to several
segments. Keeping this in mind, we can now
express the quantitative characteristics that
must be observed. The thresholds added
around the theoretical values are based on
the experience with the examples considered
in this study. They may require further
tuning.
1. Among the segments corresponding to
wellbore storage, the one with slope closest
to one should have a slope at least equal to
0.7.
2. For wellbore storage and skin with low
value of CD e 2s (no hump on the deriva-
tive), all the segments corresponding to the
initial up should have a slope smaller than
0.7.
3. For a vertically fractured well, all the
segments corresponding to the initial up
should have a slope smaller than 0.7.
4. In case of transient double porosity, the
dimensionless value of the derivative at the
bottom of the heterogeneous transition
should not be lower than 0.2.
5. The upward trend caused by a no-flow
effect should not contain segments with
slopes greater than 0.7.
6. The segments corresponding to pseu-
dosteady state for a closed reservoir should
increase in slope to a value greater than 0.7.
7. There must be consistency between the
different stabilization levels observed on the
curve-radial flow, less than radial flow,
greater than radial flow, stabilization caused
by a no-flow boundary, etc.
Matching Procedure. We consider for the
moment that the data representation includes
only features representative of the true reser-
voir response that can be matched with the
analytical models available to the program
or their combinations. The aim is to find all
interpretation models that qualitatively and
March 1990 • JPT
 " .. . the first stage of the observation process
Is to distinguish between the true reservoir
response ~nd the noise present on the curve.
This distinction Is almost unconscious for the
human observer, but needs to be made explicit
In a computerized procedure."

TABLE 1-FLOW PERIOD 4 (BUILDUP)

Elapsed Time Pressure Elapsed Time Pressure Elapsed Time Pressure

(hours) (psi) (hours) (psi) (hours) (psi)
0.0 3,816.99 6.39802 x 10- 2 3,867.10 8.70821 x 10- 1 3,892.10
6.2213 x 10- 4 3,817.96 6.64622 x 10- 2 3,867.74 9.08096 x 10- 1 3,892.43
1.24723 x 10- 3 3,819.73 6.95703 x 10- 2 3,868.41 9.45360 x 10- 1 3,892.60
1.86215 x 10- 3 3,821.64 7.26673 x 10- 2 3,869.12 9.82624 x 10- 1 3,892.91
2.48825 x 10- 3 3,823.40 7.57754 x 10- 2 3,869.91 1.01990 3,892.97
3.10317x10- 3 3,824.92 7.88836 x 10- 2 3,870.32 1.05716 3,892.77
3.72927 x 10- 3 3,826.96 8.19917 x 10- 2 3,871.00 1.11307 3,893.91
4.34419 x 10- 3 3,828.28 8.50998 x 10- 2 3,871.52 1.16897 3,893.57
4.97029 x 10- 3 3,829.52 8.88229 x 10- 2 3,872.07 1.22487 3,893.80
5.58521 x 10- 3 3,830.67 9.13049 x 10- 2 3,872.48 1.28078 3,893.64
6.21130 x 10- 3 3,831.71 9.44131 x 10- 2 3,873.00 1.33668 3,893.97
6.83740 x 10- 3 3,832.61 9.75212 x 10- 2 3,873.54 1.39258 3,894.15
7.45232 x 10- 3 3,833.39 1.00618x10- 1 3,873.84 1.48574 3,894.24
8.07842 x 10- 3 3,834.31 1.03726 x 10- 1 3,874.33 1.57892 3,894.64
8.69334 x 10- 3 3,835.18 1.06834x10- 1 3,874.73 1.67209 3,894.76
9.31944 x 10- 3 3,835.92 1.11798x10- 1 3,875.47 1.76525 3,895.13
9.93436 x 10- 3 3,836.81 1.16148x10- 1 3,875.88 1.85843 3,895.20
1.05605 x 10- 2 3,837.58 1.20810x10- 1 3,876.51 1.95160 3,895.38
1.11754x10- 2 3,838.36 1.25472 x 10- 1 3,876.83 2.13794 3,895.65
1.18015x10- 2 3,839.11 1.30437 x 10- 1 3,877.44 2.32427 3,895.92
1.24276x10- 2 3,839.94 1.34786x10- 1 3,877.89 2.51061 3,896.22
1.30425x10- 2 3,840.68 1.39750x 10- 1 3,878.25 2.69696 3,896.54
1.36686 x 10- 2 3,841.53 1.44099x10- 1 3,878.64 2.88329 3,896.62
1.42836x10- 2 3,842.07 1.53423 x 10- 1 3,879.37 3.06963 3,896.81
1.49097 x 10- 2 3,842.79 1.62737 x 10 -1 3,880.07 3.34914 3,897.18
1.55246x10- 2 3,843.41 1.73291x10- 1 3,880.86 3.62865 3,897.36
1.61507x10- 2 3,843.97 1.81374x10- 1 3,881.45 3.90815 3,897.36
1.67656 x 10- 2 3,844.56 1.90687 x 10- 1 3,881.92 4.18766 3,897.78
1.73917 x 10- 2 3,845.11 2.00001 x 10- 1 3,882.35 4.46717 3,898.08
1 .80178 x 10 - 2 3,845.72 2.0fj325 x 10- 1 3,882.77 4.74668 3,898.22
1.86327 x 10- 2 3,846.35 2.113638 x 10- 1 3,883.19 5.02619 3,898.45
1.92588 x 10- 2 3,846.78 2.27951 x 10- 1 3,883.63 5.30570 3,898.79
1.98737 x 10- 2 3,847.49 2.37276 x 10- 1 3,884.03 5.58521 3,898.80
2.11147x10- 2 3,848.40 2.46589 x 10- 1 3,884.39 5.86471 3,899.11
2.17408x10- 2 3,848.91 2.55902 x 10 -1 3,884.70 6.14422 3,899.23
2.23558 K 10- 2 3,849.32 2.65227 x 10- 1 3,884.99 6.42373 3,899.48
2.29819 x 10- 2 3,849.99 2.74540 x 10- 1 3,885.34 6.70324 3,899.62
2.42229 x 10- 2 3,850.73 2.93178x10- 1 3,885.90 6.98275 3,899.81
2.54639 x 10- 2 3,851.61 3.11804x10- 1 3,886.12 7.26226 3,900.03
2.67049 x 10- 2 3,852.36 3.30442 x 10 -1 3,886.69 7.54177 3,900.16
2.79459 x 10- 2 3,853.16 3.49079 x 10- 1 3,887.09 7.91441 3,900.37
2.91981 x10- 2 3,853.98 3.58393 x 10- 1 3,887.39 8.28716 3,900.69
3.04391 x10- 2 3,854.57 3.67706 x 10- 1 3,887.52 8.65980 3,900.69
3.16802 x 10- 2 3,855.39 3.86343 x 10- 1 3,887.94 9.03244 3,900.86
3.29212 x 10- 2 3,855.96 4.04981 x 10- 1 3,888.34 9.40519 3,901.08
3.41622 x 10- 2 3,856.67 4.23607 x 10 -1 3,888.58 9.77783 3,901.38
3.54032 x 10- 2 3,857.14 4.42245 x 10- 1 3,888.93 10.1505 3,901.43
3.66442 x 10- 2 3,857.87 4.60883 x 10- 1 3,889.20 10.5232 3,901.75
3.78853 x 10- 2 3,858.42 4.79509 x 10- 1 3,889.41 10.8959 3,901.79
3.91263 x 10- 2 3,858.89 4.98147x10- 1 3,889.31 11.4549 3,902.17
4.03785 x 10- 2 3,859.48 5.16784 x 10- 1 3,889.46 12.0139 3,902.31
4.16195 x 10- 2 3,859.99 5.35411x10- 1 3,889.72 12.5730 3,902.58
4.34754 x 10- 2 3,860.74 5.54048 x 10- 1 3,889.91 13.1320 3,902.77
4.5342(5 ~ 10- 2 3,861.48 5.72686 x 10- 1 3,890.20 13.6910 3,903.09
4.72097 x 10- 2 3,862.03 6.09950 x 10- 1 3,890.69 14.2500 3,903.19
4.90656 x 10- 2 3,862.87 6.47214 x 10- 1 3,891.14 14.8090 3,903.45
5.09327 x 10- 2 3,863.31 6.84489 x 10- 1 3,890.80 15.3680 3,903.45
5.34147 x 10- 2 3,864.30 7.21754 x 10- 1 3,891.38 15.9271 3,903.71
5.58968 x 10- 2 3,864.99 7.59018x10- 1 3,891.75 16.4861 3,903.78
5.90049 x 10- 2 3,865.96 7.96293 x 10- 1 3,892.04 17.0451 3,904.16
6.14870 x 10- 2 3,866.47 8.33557 x 10- 1 3,892.31 17.6059 3,904.22

JPT • March 1990 345

 2
10
''.r-------------,
u
>
."
os
.~
-8 1
10
~
"
, £
1~10.j...
.• --,,~
.• --,,~
•• --,,~.,--,,~,-~-___l". 0
10
4
16
Elapsed time (Ius)
Fig. i-Example data: Flow Period 4 Fig. 2-Example derivative and sketch (differentiation interval =0.2).
(buildup).
quantitatively match the data. This is done
recursively, starting from the first shape in
the data representation, as follows.
I. Find a model allowed at this point such
that its first shape is the same as the one ob-
served and any quantitative checks applica-
ble for the regime corresponding to this
shape are satisfied. Go to Step 2.
2. Stop if there is no shape left on the
data. Otherwise, go to Step 3.
3. Go to next shape. If there is no shape
left in the model, find a new model allowed
TABLE 2-FLOW PERIODS at this point such that its first shape is the
same as the one observed, and any quantita-
Duration Flow Rate tive checks applicable for the regime cor-
Test (hours) (STB/D) responding to this shape are satisfied.
1 3.8 800 Append it to the interpretation model built
2 3.3 2.500 so far. Go to Step 2. If the next shape of
3 16.45 830 the model matches the one observed and ap-
4 18 o plicable quantitative checks are satisfied,
then go to Step 2. Otherwise. find a model
allowed at this point that, when combined
with the current shape, produces the one ob-
TABLE 3-RESERVOIR AND served and for which applicable quantitative
FLUID PROPERTIES
checks are satisfied. Take the combination
as new interpretation model. Go to Step 2.
B 1.5
Ct. psi- 1 2 x 10- 5 With a backtracking procedure that causes
the system to re-evaluate any assumption
h. ft 7
'w. ft 0.29
0.3
made in the satisfaction of the goal, all the
'possible models will be found.
lL.cP
<P 0.05
Nonideality. Although the algorithm
producing the sketch of the derivative has
been shown to be sufficiently powerful in
TABLE 4-PARAMETER ESTIMATES most of the cases considered during this
study (provided that the derivative is taken
(Poltop) match • psi- 1 0.075 with a safe differentiation interval), it would
k. md 566 be too strong an assumption to consider that
[(toICD)/Atlmatch' hours- 1 140 the sketch contains only ideal features. For
(C De 2s ), 83.6 instance, anomalous behaviors can occur
C. bbl/psi 0.028 during buildups, such as the effects of phase
s -3.11 redistribution in the wellbore,22 that should
w 0.217 not be considered for model identification.
Xe -2s 3.9x10- 5
2s
Technical or human errors, like an errone-
(C oe )'+m 18.2 ous estimation of the flowing pressure, may
also result in anomalies. 23
Some of these effects may not affect the
analysis if the representation chosen is very
simple. In a buildup case with wellbore
storage, if the flowing pressure is too low,
the derivative will exhibit an inflexion be-
fore reaching the expected 45 0 line. The
succession of these two trends will be con-
sidered as a single up for the identification
and will be diagnosed as wellbore storage
because one of the trends has a unit slope.
346
+ Original derivative
-0- Sketch
'6 '
In a general case, the identification pro-
gram should not blindly trust the sketch of
the derivative. Rather, it should be able to
recognize anomalies and to modify its
representation of the response accordingly.
To allow for such behavior. the original
representation of the sketch needs to be
searched for the following: (I) hump (up,
maximum, down), (2) trough (down, mini-
mum, up), and (3) late-time trend-up,
down, valley, or plateau-when the last seg-
ment does not belong to a hump or a trough.
Instances of these categories that may
need to be removed are characterized for
humps and troughs, on the basis of width,
depth, and sharpness. The late-time trend
is characterized on the basis of length and
slope.
The matching procedure must then be
modified according to the following rule,
which is applied each time a new shape in
the data representation must be matched. If
the interpretation model built so far must be
augmented to match the shape; the shape be-
longs to an instance of one of the above
categories; the characteristics of this instance
suggest removal; and removing it would al-
low continuation with the same model, then
remove it from the representation, correct
the representation, and continue.
Parameter Estimation
To achieve a full automation of the interpre-
tation procedure once a model is proposed,
it is necessary to find first estimates for its
parameters. These estimates constitute the
starting point for an automated type-curve-
matching analysis. They are not intended to
be the final result of the interpretation.
The correspondence between the regimes
in the model description and the segments
'in the sketch of the derivative is used to es-
timate the parameters. This is done with
very little computation with either correla-
tions or tables built for this purpose from
type curves. All these relations are based on
drawdown responses but can be used for
buildups as well because only a first esti-
mate of the value is required.
Example
A program based on the methods developed
in this study was written in PROLOG (ex-
cept for the algorithm producing the sketch,
which was written in FORTRAN). The use
of this program is illustrated on a buildup
March 1990 • JPT
 10
2

~ Sketch of the derivative

.
" ..-------------,
,
.~ _ Representation ~ 10

>
:g f ,
1
1"
~
J:'"
10

"
. + Flow pmad ...
_ Finl:EIti!mte
au

10
0 "
.,
"
. "
,

16 4 16 1
Elapsed time (hrs)
Fig. 4-Slmulated test with first estimates
for pseudosteady-state double-porosity
Fig. 3-Example sketch and simplified representation (differentiation Interval 0.2). = model.

test (Table 1) in which the well flowed at
three different rates before shut-in. 10 The
pressure change is plotted vs. shut-in time
on log-log scale in Fig. 1. Table 2 lists the
flow periods used for the analysis. The
derivative was computed with respect to the
superposition time function with two differ-
ent differentiation intervals: 0.2 and O.
Model identification was performed on both
curves.
Differentiation Interval =0.2. The deriva-
tive obtained in this case as well as the sketch
produced are shown in Fig. 2.
Models. A symbolic representation of the
derivative is produced from the sketch: (up,
plateau, down, minimum, up). A symbol in
this representation may correspond to sever-
al segments on the sketch. A graphical
equivalent is given in Fig. 3 and compared
to the sketch.
In this example, three different interpre-
tation models were proposed by the pro-
gram: (1) well with wellbore storage and
skin iii a reservoir with pseudosteady-state,
double-porosity behavior, (2) well with
wellbore storage and skin in a reservoir with
transient double-porosity behavior, and (3)
well with wellbore storage and skin in a
homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault.
Parameter EstimoJion. We illustrate how "Automated
estimates are obtained in the case of the first Identification.
interpretation model. Table 3 lists the reser-
voir and fluid properties.
provides a
Pressure match-obtained assuming that comprehensive list of
the level of the infinite-acting radial-flow all Interpretations that
period in the data is the average between the
are consistent with
highest and lowest derivative value. This
choice is justified because radial flow is not the data, which Is
present in the response and the model con-
tains regimes that produce shapes below and something even an
above the 0.5 line. expert would rarely
CDe 2s -obtained by table interpolation
from the height of the maximum on the
attempt to do."
early-time hump above the radial-flow level.
Time match-obtained by table interpola-
tion from the value of CD e 2s and the time
at which the maximum of the early-time
hump occurs.

2,-------------------------------------------------------------------~
10

+ Original derivative
-0- Sketch

1
10

+ +
o
10 +
+ +
+
+

-1~---------,----------_r--------~r_--------_r----------r_--------~
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 o 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Elapsed time (hrs)

Fig. 5-Example derivative and sketch (differentiation Interval 0). =

JPT • March 1990 347
 10
2~----------------------------------------------------------------~

-0- Sketch of the derivative

___ Representation

0
10 _4 -3 -2 -1 o 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Elapsed time (hrs)

Fig. 6-Example sketch and simplified representation (differentiation Interval = 0).

w and A-obtained with the relations Conclusions those languages or by using an expert-
presented by Bourdet et al. 10 With an AI approach, it has been possible system shell.
Table 4 gives the values obtained. The to automate the identification step in the in- Parameter estimation is obtained with very
corresponding multirate type curve, taking terpretation of well-test data. This paper de- little computation and can be used to pro-
into account the flow-rate history (Table 2), scribed the logical steps required to separate vide initial estimates for an automated type-
was generated and differentiated with the reservoir response from the signal noise curve-matching analysis.
respect to the superposition time function. and to recognize characteristics of the reser- Automated identification produces allthe
Both type curve and original data are shown voir model from the extracted symbolic interpretation models that, according to the
in Fig. 4. representation. Definition of the rule base knowledge of the program, match the data.
requires considerable care and experimen- The measure of quality given by an auto-
Differentiation Interval=O. In this case, tation. We hope that the experience summar- mated type-curve-matching analysis for the
the derivative was obtained by use of the two ized in the paper can reduce the time different models can constitute the basis for
pressure data points immediately adjacent required for others to apply this kind of ap- automatically deciding which is most appro-
to the point at which the pressure derivative proach. priate.
was required. Using central differences in The identification process was based on Automated identification is important for
this way is known to produce extremely the pressure-derivative curve and separated two major reasons. First, it provides con-
noisy derivative values (as seen in Fig. 5) into three different components. sistency and reduces misinterpretations
and is not recommended-the approach was I. Observation-extraction of the infor- caused by associating flow models with
used in this case as a test of the AI al- mation from the data derivative by produc- inappropriate parts of the data. Second, it
gorithm's ability to handle very noisy data .. tion of the sketch of the derivative and provides a comprehensive list of all interpre-
The sketch obtained from these noisy deriva- symbolic representation of this sketch. tations that are consistent with the data,
tive data is shown on the same plot (Fig. 5) 2. Knowledge of the models-construc- which is something even an expert would
and is seen still to contain anomalies. The tion and description of interpretation rarely attempt to do.
initial representation of the sketch is quite . models, including basic models, influence
complex: (up, plateau, down, minimum, up, of combinations, combination constraints, Nomenclature
maximum, down, minimum, up, plateau, and regime description. B = FVF, RB/STB [res m 3 /stock-
down, minimum, up, maximum, down, mini- 3. Matching-identification of appropri- tank m 3 ]
mum, up, maximum, down, valley, up, max- ate interpretation models through qUalitative C r = total compressibility, psi- 1
imum, down, minimum, up, maximum, match and quantitative constraints. [kPa -I]
down). With the rules described earlier, A program based on the methods de- C = wellbore storage, bbl/psi
however, the program recognizes the scribed in this paper was written in the AI [m 3 /kPa]
anomalies and, by successively removing language PROLOG. The program has been CD = dimensionless storage constant
them, constructs the final representation of able to perform model identification on real h = formation thickness, ft [m]
the curve: (up, plateau, down, valley, down, data even when they were very noisy. The i = index
valley, up). The graphical equivalent of this use of PROLOG was important to this work k = permeability, md
representation is shown in Fig. 6 along with in that this language performs "backtrack- L = distance between the leftmost
the original sketch. ing," which means that all possible solutions and rightmost points
Only one model is identified in this case, are determined. This was one of the major
p = pressure, psi [kPa]
a well with wellbore storage and skin in a goals of the work: to provide a mechanism
p D = dimensionless pressure
reservoir with pseudosteady-state, double- by which no feasible interpretation fails to
ilp = pressure change, psi [kPa]
porosity behavior. The two other models ob- be included (as might occur in a manual
tained in the previous case are not proposed analysis). This backtracking feature is the
Q = quality
here. This is because the representation ex- principal reason for the choice of PROLOG r = regime
hibits a stabilization after the early-time over such languages as LISP, C, or FOR- r w = wellbore radius, ft [m]
hump (Fig. 6). The stabilization found TRAN, although it is conceivable, as with s = van Everdingen-Hurst skin
occurs in a very noisy region and may there- any AI application, that the method could factor
fore be erroneous. be implemented with greater difficulty in Si = shape

348 March 1990 • JPT

 !M = elapsed time, hours
A = interporosity pseudosteady-
state-flow parameter
p. = viscosity, cp [mPa·s]
(J = standard deviation of error of
fit
cp = porosity
w = storativity ratio
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the
SUPRI-D research consortium in Innova-
tions in Well Test Analysis and by Schlum-
berger.
References
1. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Pressure Transient Test-
ing," JPT(July 1982) 1407-13.
2. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test
Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE, Richard-
son, TX (1977) 5, Chap. 12.
3. Padrnanabhan, L. and Woo, P.T.: "A New
Approach to Parameter Estimation in Well
Testing," paper SPE 5741 presented at the
1976 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simula-
tion, Los Angeles, Feb. 19-20.
4. Tsang, C.F. etal.: "Variable Flow Well Test
Analysis by a Computer Assisted Matching
Procedure," paper SPE 6547 presented at the
1977 SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, April 13-15.
5. Padrnanabhan, L.: "Welltest-A Program for
Computer-Aided Analysis of Pressure Tran-
sients Data from Well Tests," paper SPE
8931 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
Sept. 23-26.
6. McEdwards, D.G.: "Multiwell Variable-
Rate Well Test Analysis," SPEI (Aug. 1981)
441-46.
7. Rosa, A.J. and Horne, R.N.: "Automated
Type-Curve Matching in Well Test Analy-
sis by Using Laplace Space Determination of
Parameter Gradients," paper SPE 12131
presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco,
Oct. 5-8.
8. Barna, J. et al.: "Improved Estimation Al-
gorithms for Automated Type-Curve Analy-
sis of Well Tests," SPEFE (March 1988)
186-96; Trans., AIME, 285.
9. Bourdet, D. et al.: "A New Set of Type-
Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis,"
World Oil (May 1983) 95-106.
10. Bourdet, D. et al.: "Interpreting Well Tests
in Fractured Reservoirs," World Oil (Oct.
1983) 77-87.
11. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirard, Y.M.:
"Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test In-
terpretation," SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302.
12. Gringarten, A.C.: "Type Curve Analysis:
What It Can and Cannot Do," JPT (Jan.
1987) 11-13.
JPT • March 1990
13. Binford, T.O.: "Visual Perception by Com-
puter," Proc., IEEE Systems Science and Authors
Cybernetics Conference, Miami (Dec. 1971).
14. Brady, J.M.: Computer Vision, North-
Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1981).
15. Horn, B.P.K.: Robot Vision, McGraw-Hili
Book Co., New York City (1986).
16. Lowe, D.G.: Perceptual Organization and
Visual Recognition, Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, Boston, MA (1985).
17. Startzman, R.A. and Kuo, T.B.: "A Rule-
Based System for Well Log Correlation,"
SPEFE (Sept. 1987) 311-19.
18. Gringarten, A.C.: "Interpretation of Tests in Allain Horne
Fissured Reservoirs and Multilayered Reser-
voirs With Double Porosity Behavior: Theory Olivier F. Allain is a field engineer with
and Practice," JPT (April 1984) 549-64. Schlumberger Wlrellne & Testing In
19. Clark, D.G. and Van Golf-Racht, T.D.: Gabon. He holds an MS degree from
"Pressure-Derivative Approach to Transient Ecole Natl. des Ponts et Chaussees In
Test Analysis: A High-Permeability North Paris and MS and Engineer degrees In
Sea Reservoir Example," JPT (Nov. 1985) petroleum engineering from Stanford U.
2023-39. Roland N. Home Is an associate profes-
20. Houze, D.P., Horne, R.N., and Ramey, H.J. sor of petroleum engineering at Stan-
Jr.: "Pressure-Transient Response of an ford U. He holds BE and PhD degrees
Infinite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture in a In theoretical and applied mechanics
Reservoir with Double-Porosity Behavior," and a DSc degree in engineering, a/l
SPEFE (Sept. 1988) 510-18. from the U. of Auckland. The Stanford
21. Proano, E.A. and Lilley, 1.1.: "Derivative U. SPE Student Chapter faculty sponsor
since 1981, Home received the 1982
of Pressure: Application to Bounded Reser-
Distinguished Achievement Award for
voir Interpretation," paper SPE 15861 Petroleum Engineering Faculty. He
presented at the 1986 SPE European Confer-
chaired the 1986-87 Microcomputer Ap-
ence, London, Oct. 20-22. plications Committee and served on the
22. Stegemeier, G.L. and Matthews, C.S.:
1983-87 Editorial Review Committee
"Study of Anomalous Pressure Build-Up Be- and on a Technical Committee for the
haviors," JPT (Feb. 1958) 44-50; Trans.,
1989 Annual Meeting. Horne is a mem-
AIME, .213. ber of the Textbook Committee and a
23. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Practical Use of Modern
Technical Committee for the 1990 An-
Well Test Analysis," paper SPE 5878 nual Meeting.
presented at the 1976 SPE California Regional
1yieeting, Long Beach, April 8-9.
51 Metric Conversion Factors
bbl x 1.589 873 E-OI = m3
cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa·s
ft x 3.048* E-Ol = m
md x 9.869233 E-04 = I'm2
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO = kPa
psi -I x 1.450 377 E-OI = kPa- 1
• Conversion factor is exact.
Provenance
Original SPE manuscript, Use of Artificial
Intelligence for Model Identification and
Parameter Estimation in Well Test In-
terpretation, received for review Oct. 2,
1988. Paper accepted for publication Dec.
11, 1989. Revised manuscript received Sept.
11, 1989. Paper (SPE 18160) first presented
at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition in Houston, Oct. 2-5.
JPT
349