Analysis of the Pressure Response
of a Single-Probe Formation Tester
E.B. Dussan v., SPE, Schiumberger-Doll Research, and Yogeshwar Sharma, SPE,
Summary. The single-probe formation tester is a logging tool used for measuring the vertical pressure profile of formation fluids
and retrieving fluid samples. We propose using the pressure measurements taken during this tool's normal operation to determine local
values of both the horizontal and vertical permeability (i.e., permeability parallel and perpendicular to the formation bedding planes,
respectively) in an anisotropic formation.
Introduction
U sing pressure measurements taken during the operation of a for-
mation tester to determine permeability is not a new idea. The usual
procedure is to analyze the signal measured during pretest immedi-
ately after the tool is set in position against the wellbore wall. This
procedure consists of withdrawing fluid from the formation in two,
rather quick, successive stages. Typically, two permeabilities, called
drawdown and spherical buildup permeabilities, are determined.
Drawdown permeability is calculated from measurements taken
while fluid is being withdrawn from the formation, and spherical
buildup permeability is calculated from measurements taken after
the completion of two drawdowns when the formation relaxes to
an undisturbed state. Despite the fact that they are frequently regard-
ed as being the same physical formation property, the value of draw-
down permeability is often several times (sometimes as much as
an order of magnitude) larger than spherical buildup permeability.
We perform a theoretical analysis on the pressure variation in
the formation near the probe (that part of the formation tester in
contact with the formation through which the fluid flows into the
tool) during drawdown, taking the anisotropy of the formation into
account. This enables us to derive a relationship between the draw-
down permeability (calculated from tool measurements) and the
horizontal and vertical permeabilities (physical properties of the
formation rock). Combining this with the well-known expression
for spherical buildup permeability (also calculated from tool meas-
urements) allows us to determine both the formation's horizontal
and vertical permeabilities. We want the values of the horizontal
and vertical permeabilities, not the drawdown and spherical buildup
permeabilities, because the horizontal and vertical permeabilities
are used to characterize the properties of porous rock.
Horizontal and vertical permeabilities determined from knowledge
of both drawdown and spherical buildup permeabilities show that
drawdown permeability must be greater than spherical buildup per-
meability if horizontal permeability is greater than vertical perme-
ability, which is always the case in the absence of fractures. We
use these results to determine an expression for the effective probe
radius of the tool for an anisotropic formation, a useful concept
when analyzing the pressure variation within the formation on length
scales equal to or greater than the wellbore radius. Finally, we ex-
tend the expression for the pressure transient during buildup to in-
clude higher-order effects beyond the spherical time function to
determine whether or not our results yield reasonable values of the
horizontal and vertical permeabilities.
The single-probe formation tester that we analyze consists of a
probe, two pretest chambers (sample chambers, each having a
volume of 0.6 in. 3), and a pressure gauge. After the probe is set
in place on the borehole wall, the piston in the first pretest cham-
ber is activated, causing fluid to withdraw from the formation at
a specific volumetric flow rate, q), and for a specified period of
time, f). Immediately after the first pretest chamber is filled, the
piston in the second pretest chamber is activated and fluid is with-
drawn from the formation at a different volumetric flow rate, q2,
and for a different period of time, f2' The primary function of the
pretests is to remove mud and debris from the probe and to assess
the quality of the seal formed between the formation and the probe
so that the formation, and not the borehole, pressure will be meas-
Copyright 1992 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, June 1992
Elf Aquitaine
ured. If, in addition, pressure measurements are made from the
moment the probe is set in place until long after the second pretest
chamber is filled (i.e., until the pressure at the probe relaxes to
the value of the undisturbed formation), as shown in Fig. 1, then
formation permeability near the probe also can be estimated.)
Permeabilities usually are calculated on the basis of pressure
values at the probe measured at the end of each drawdown, which
we denote by p) and P2, (i.e., at the moment each pretest chamber
is filled completely), and from the asymptotic behavior of the pres-
sure measured at the probe as the formation relaxes to an undisturbed
state. The process by which the latter occurs is called buildup. Per-
meabilities determined from the two drawdowns are defined through
the following equation.
k'UU=qiP-C/[27r(pt- Pi)rep ] for i=l or 2, .............. (1)
where the subscript dd emphasizes that this permeability is calculated
from data measured during drawdown, Pt is the undisturbed value
of the formation pressure, rep is the effective probe radius, C is
the borehole shape factor, and p- is the formation fluid viscosity.
Eq. 1 usually is expressed as
k,/di=5660QiP-I(Pt- Pi)' ............................ (2)
where kddi is in md, qi is in cm 3 /s, p- is in cp, and (Pt-Pi) is in
psi. Eq. 2 assumes that C=0.645 and rep =0.105 in. (correspond-
ing to a probe radius of 0.21 in.) ),2 The permeability value cal-
culated with measurements taken during buildup is obtained by
comparing the asymptotic form of the pressure measured at the
probe, P, as f-OO (in practice, this is from 1 to 5 minutes), with
the following theoretically derived expression
__1_). ..... (3)
-Jt
where m== ( q)p-
47rks
)J ,pctp. , ......................... (4)
'Irks
and where the spherical buildup permeability is defined by
ks==(klik v) 'l§, •••.••••••••••.••.••.••.•...•••••••• (5)
where kH and kv are horizontal and vertical permeability, respec-
tively; ,p is porosity; and c t is total compressibility. The ks value
is calculated as follows. The value of m is determined by making
the pressure measurements taken during the buildup period, best
fit Eq. 3, where m is the only unknown. Once m is known, then
ks follows directly from Eq. 4 (Refs. 1 through 3), resulting in
ks = (p./7r)(q) 14m) 'h (ct,p) 'h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
Thus, both drawdown and spherical buildup permeabilities represent
quantities calculated with Eq. 1 or 2 for i = 1, 2 and Eq. 6 for data
gathered from logs [the pressure history at the probe, p(f)], labo-
ratory measurements (c t and p-), and specifications of the forma-
tion tester (qi' rep, and f i ).
Throughout this study, we assume that the formation is homo-
geneous and anisotropic, with principal axes in the vertical and
horizontal directions (isotropic in the two horizontal directions),
151

q our modeling it as a planar surface. Because we are interested only
q2
q1
P 0 t1 t2
Pf -_ .. _._ ..
P1 ProbV
Set
P2
I
0 t • rJ at x=O (Fig. 2).
o The z vertical coordinate is scaled with rp- The difference in scales
Fig. 1-Pressure measured by formation tester In response
to two successive drawdowns. At t = 0, probe Is set in posi-
tion on wellbore wall. The first drawdown occurs at t t 1 , = withpj-PI'
and the second at t=tl +t 2 . The corresponding volumetric
flow rate, q, of formation fluid Into the tool is Indicated above
the pressure.
and that the dynamics of the formation fluids (almost incompress-
ible) are described by the single-phase Darcy equation. This implies
that the two values of the drawdown permeability obtained from
Eq. 1 or 2, when i= 1 and 2, are identical. We also assume that
the formation layer is sufficiently thick so that its boundaries do
not influence the measured pressure during buildup.
The generally accepted opinion is that drawdown and buildup
permeabilities are the same physical quantity. If they differ in value,
then drawdown permeability should be less than buildup permea-
bility because of the possible presence of a detectable skin at the
probe during drawdown. I -3 However, the opposite is often the
case; i.e., it is not uncommon to encounter drawdown permeabilities
that are greater than the buildup permeability. 1,4 This can vary
from a few multiples to more than one order of magnitude. The
simplest explanation for this effect postulates that fractures are
created in the formation near the probe when the tool is set in place
on the wellbore wall, resulting in a negative skin. 1-3 The objec-
tive of this study is to show that analysis of the pressure field near
the probe during drawdown, which properly accounts for the for-
mation anisotropy, predicts that drawdown permeability is greater
than spherical buildup permeability. More specifically, we dem-
onstrate that kdd>ks for formations in which kH>kv. We also es-
tablish that kH > kdd . This last result is consistent with experience
that log-determined kdd is usually smaller than core-measured k H.
We begin by analyzing the fluid dynamics near the probe during
drawdown, taking the effect of formation anisotropy into account.
We then present a simple table look-up method for determining kH
and kv from the values of kdd and k s' These latter two quantities
are calculated directly from laboratory data, formation tester spec-
ifications, and logs. Next, we obtain higher-order corrections for
the expressions of probe pressure during buildup and present a
method by which these corrections validate the model assumptions.
Finally, we determine the effective probe radius for an anisotropic
formation.
Drawdown In an Anisotropic Formation
Our objective in this section is to determine a relationship between
the pressure at the probe at the end of the first drawdown, PI' and
the rate fluid withdraws from the formation, QI (the same rela-
tionship applies between P2 and Q2 for the second drawdown). The
exact expression is difficult to obtain, so we focus on an approximate
form applicable when the parameters rplrW' <p/Lctrjlkvtl' and
<p/LctrJlkHt t are small. Here rp is the probe radius and rw is the
wellbore radius.
The key to the analysis is realizing that almost all variations in
pressure within the formation occur within a distance of approxi-
152
mately 3rp from the probe. If rplr w is sufficiently small, then this
portion of the wellbore appears to be relatively flat, thus justifying
in the pressure value at the probe at the end of filling the pretest
chamber and we are concerned only with cases characterized by
small values for <P/LCtrjlkHtl and <p/LctrJ Ikvtl, it follows that the
pressure field within the formation near the probe may be regarded
as steady state, at least to lowest-order approximation.
We use a rectangular Cartesian coordinate system that is oriented
so that the wellbore wall near the probe can be approximated by
the x=O plane, with the formation located in the half-space x~O.
The z axis coincides with the vertical direction. The perimeter of
the probe opening through which fluid flows is given by y2 +z2 =
The x and y horizontal coordinates are scaled with rp(kHlkV) l-2.
between the horizontal and vertical directions is used so that the
dimensionless form of the equation governing the pressure field
can be expressed in terms of the Laplacian. The pressure is scaled
The dimensionless form of the equation governing the pressure
field is
02p 02p 02p
-+-+-=0, ............................ (7a)
02x 02y 02 z
where P=(Pj-p)/(Pj-PI), ......................... (7b)
x =xlrp (kH/k v) l-2, .••.•.••.••.••.•.•••••.••.•••••• (7c)
y=ylrp(kH/k v ) l-2, •••••••••••.••.•.••••••.••••••.• (7d)
and Z=z/rp. . ..................................... (7e)
The boundary conditions are
p=1 atx=O, y2kHlkV+z2:s;;1, ..................... (8)
op/ox=O at x=O, y2kHlkV+ z2 > 1, .................. (9)
and p-O as x 2 +y2 + z2 - 00. • . . • . . • . • • . • • . . • • • . • • • • (10)
Hence, the boundary conditions state that P =p 1 across the probe
opening (Eq. 8), no fluid flows through the remainder of the well-
bore wall (Eq. 9), and P-Pj away from the probe opening (Eq.
10). Note that the inclusion of (kHlkV) l-2 in the horizontal scale
simplifies the governing equation, Eq. 7a, at the expense of dis-
torting the shape of the probe opening from a circle to an ellipse.
We primarily are interested in the relationship between Pi -PI
and ql' Thus, we must evaluate the integral on the right side of the
following expression:
qt/LlrpkH(prPI)= J op/ox 1;=0 dydZ, .............. (11)
Ap
where Ap is the area of the probe opening.
The boundary-value problem defined by Eqs. 7a through 10 arises
in the theory of elasticity when one is concerned with the deforma-
tion of a semi-infinite solid in contact with an elliptically shaped
stamp. Goodier and Hodge 5 discuss these equations and evaluate
Eq. 11. From their evaluation, Eq. 11 becomes
Pj-Pi =(qi/L/27rrp k H)F(7r/2, .J l-kvlkH)' .......... (12)
where F(a,b) is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. 6
Determination of kH and k v
We can identify two relationships containing the horizontal and ver-
tical permeabilities. The first relationship comes from combining
Eqs. 5 and 6, arising from the pressure transient during buildup,
giving
(k'/ikv) 'h =(/LI7r)(q I /4m)2f>(c t<p) 'h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . (13)
The second relationship is Eq. 12. Thus, we have two equations
(Eqs. 12 and 13) and two unknowns (kH and kv). The solution to
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1992
this set of nonlinear equations can be obtained with Table 1. We
begin by evaluating the parameter in the first column, rp(pj-PI)I
7r(qlm 2/4c t4»'h, which is based on data from logs, laboratory
measurements, and formation tester specifications. Then, we refer to
the second and third columns of the same row for corresponding
values of this parameter, 4(pj-PI)rpk HlqIl)' and 4(pj-PI)
xrpkv1qIl),' respectively, to determine both kH and kv because all
other terms in these two expressions are known. 7 For example,
ifthe logs, laboratory measurements, and formation tester specifica-
tions give rp(Pj-PI)I7r(qlm 2 /4c t4»'h=0.762 and qIl.d4(Pj-PI)
xrp=2.0 md, then with Table 1, we get k H =3.28 md and kv=
0.328 md, resulting in an anisotropy ratio, kH1kv of 10.0.
To simplify the presentation, we use
k d ==qlP.14(Pj-PI)rp ' ............................ (14)
As indicated by the equivalence symbol, Eq. 14 defines k d • Be-
cause kd is the permeability of an isotropic formation (Le., kH=
kv), it makes sense to refer to it, rather than kdd' as the drawdown
permeability. Again, logs, laboratory measurements, and formation
tester specifications are sufficient to calculate both ks and kd with
Eqs. 6 and 14, respectively. Knowing the value of k/kd allows
us to determine both kH1kd and kVikd with Table 1. The values
of kH and kv, then, are obtained explicitly by multiplying kHikd
and kVikd by the known value of k d.

Buildup Transient at Probe

We identify the next two terms, beyond those appearing in Eq. 3,
in the asymptotic expansion as t- 00 for the pressure at the probe
during buildup in an anisotropic formation. these allows us to check
the values of kH and kv determined previously. For kH and kv to
represent the horizontal and vertical permeabilities of the formation,
it is necessary for these higher-order terms to be small compared
to the right side of Eq. 3. Failure to meet this condition implies
that at least one of our assumptions concerning the nature of the
system (homogeneous formation, single fluid phase, etc.) is invalid
and that the values of kH and kv determined by the method de- Fig. 2-Slde view of probe section of formation tester set In
well bore wall. The pad makes a hydraulic seal by pressing
scribed previously must be disregarded.
against the mudcake. The probe, located at the pad center,
During buildup, the pressure everywhere, not just near the probe, extends through the mudcake to the formation. The origin
is close to Pj; hence, the pressure field throughout the entire for- of the coordinate system lies on the wellbore wall, at the probe
mation must be analyzed to determine its transient behavior at the center. The y axis points into the page.
probe. Thus, the appropriate length and time scale are r w and
4>p.ctr~/kH' respectively. On this length scale, the probe appears
to be a point on the wellbore wall because rplrw is small. The which means that P = Pj before fluid is withdrawn from the forma-
equation governing formation pressure is tion. The pressure scale was chosen to minimize the number of pa-
rameters appearing in the dimensionless form of Eq. 16.
ap
af
=_I_~(/P)+~ a
f af af
2
p
f2 ae 2
+ 2p
a , .............. (l5a)
az 2
The solutions to Eqs. 15 through 18 can be expressed in terms
of Green's function. 8 Evaluating the expression for p at (f, 0, z) =
[1,0, Zepirw(kHikV) 1'2] gives the following value for pressure at
where p ==[2rw(Pj-P)(kHkV) 1'2]IQlp., ................ (l5b) the probe.
.2
f==rlrw, ....................................... (15c) A
2 JtlkH1q,IlCt r2
W
eZ e/4 (t-r)
A +00

E Joo
p=-
z==zlrw(kHikV) 1'2, ..................••.......... (l5d) 3 ~ n=-oo 0
7r 0 "7r(t-r)
and f==tkHI4>p.ctr~. . .............................. (l5e)
We use a cylindrical coordinate system in which the wellbore
wall is at f=1 and 0~e<27r, and the probe is at (f, 0, z)=
(1, 0, 0). The boundary conditions are
eZep 2/4(f-r)
+f)]+
+00 00 e(32(i-r)
a~ =j-[H(f)-H( -t1k: Q2 [H(f- t1k\) x
~ n=~oo J ~{[ Y~(~»)2 +[J~({3»)2} d{3dr,
ar C 4>p.ctrw Ql 4>p.ctrw

H .................................... (19)
-H(- (tl +t2)k +f)]}o(e)o(z) at f=1 ............ (16)
4>p.ctr~ which is valid for f> (tl +t2)kHI4>p.ctr~. Refer to Eqs. 23 and 24
for expressions of zep' The lowest-order terms in an asymptotic
andp-O as f2+ Z2- 00 , (17) expansion of Eq. 19, valid as f-oo, are given by

J
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••

where H(x) is the Hea~iside step function, and o(x) is the Dirac
delta function. Thus, the boundary conditions state that two draw- qlp. 4>p.ct
Pj-P-- -[!sO(t)+!sl(t)+!dt)+ .. . ], ..... (20a)
downs of strength ql and q2 exist during time periods [0, ttl and 47rks 7rk s
[tl> tl +t2], respectively (Eq. 16), and that P:-Pj away from the
wellbore (Eq. 17). The initial condition is
p=O at f=O, .................................... (18)
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, June 1992 153
 TABLE 1-S0LUTIONS TO EQS. 12 AND 13 FOR k HAND k v

rp(p, -Pl) ( 4c t ¢
7r qlm2
y' 4(p, -pdrpkH
qll'"
4(p, -pdrpkv
QliJ.
=k.1kd =kH1kd =kv1kd kHlkv
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0
0.9368 1.1803 0.5902 2.0
0.8956 1.2917 0.4306 3.0
0.8649 1.3729 0.3432 4.0
0.8404 1.4370 0.2874 5.0
0.8200 1.4900 0.2483 6.0
0.8026 1.5353 0.2193 7.0
0.7874 1.5747 0.1968 8.0
0.7739 1.6098 0.1789 9.0
0.7618 1.6413 0.1641 10.0
0.6821 1.8515 0.0926 20.0
0.6361 1.9764 0.0659 30.0
0.6040 2.0657 0.0516 40.0
0.5796 2.1353 0.0427 50.0
0.5600 2.1923 0.0365 60.0
0.5437 2.2406 0.0320 70.0
0.5297 2.2825 0.0285 80.0
0.5176 2.3196 0.0258 90.0
0.5069 2.3527 0.0235 100.0
0.4973 2.3827 0.0217 110.0
0.4886 2.4102 0.0201 120.0
0.4808 2.4354 0.0187 130.0
0.4735 2.4588 0.0176 140.0
0.4669 2.4806 0.0165 150.0

dadf3
fsl (t) x------------------------
[1-a 2 -f3 2k Hlk y] 'h [(z-a)2 +(yVkylk H -(3)2 +x 2k ylkH] y,
0.08(t-tl -t2)kH .................................... (21)
1 0.08tk H ]
xln------ -In , ............ (20c) becomes
cf>/Lctr; t% cf>/Lctr;
MI
P-Pf- asx 2 +y2+z2-oo,
_ -cf>/LCtZ e/ [(I-q2 /ql) q2/ql 1 ] 21rkH[z2 +x2kylkH+y2kylkH] y,
and fs2= + -- .
3ky (t-tl)% (t-tl -t2)% t% .................................... (22)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20d)
The Appendix presents the details.
The values offsl1fsO andfs21fsO should be evaluated for the en-
tire time period during which the determination of m is based. If
the value of either fsll f sO or fs21 f sO is not small compared to uni-
ty, then the calculated values of kH and ky should be disregarded.
Effective Probe Radius
We introduce the concept of an effective probe radius so that we
can analyze the formation pressure on the rw length scale (deter-
mine the influence of large permeability barriers, formation hetero-
geneities, etc.) without having to determine it near the probe. This is
only valid provided rplr w is small. Because the probe is modeled
on the r w length scale as a point on the wellbore wall, the pressure
precisely at the point has a value of negative infinity during draw-
down. This results from unrealistic values of the solution for the
pressure field near this point. Use of the effective probe radius al-
lows us to evaluate the pressure at the probe despite this charac-
teristic.
This concept is valid because, on the length scale of the probe,
rp, the pressure within the formation approaches hemispherical
flow away from the probe. This means that the formation pressure 5
given by
where Eq. 12, a property of the solution, is used to obtain Eq. 22 .
We also can verify that, as t- t I' the solution for formation pres-
sure on the rw length scale (Eq. 19) takes the same form as Eq.
22 as (f, 8, ,0-(1,0,0). The effective probe radius, zep' is de-
fined so that the pressure at (r, 8, z)=(r w , 0, zep) is the same as
the pressure at the probe. Because Eq. 22 accurately represents the
pressure on the rw length scale near the probe, PI' we obtain zep
by evaluating Eq. 22 at x=O, y=O, and P=PI' giving
zep=M I /[27rk H(Pf- P I)]' ......................... (23)
An alternative form is obtained from Eq. 12 as
Zep=rp /F(1r/2, VI-kylk H ). ...................... (24)
We call the position (r w' 0, zl!f!) the effective probe radius in defer-
ence to existing terminology In the literature for an isotropic for-
mation. Note that zep =2rpl1r when kH=ky.
Discussion
As indicated previously, the determination of kH and k y values is
a straightforward process. Log, laboratory-derived data, and for-
mation tester specifications are sufficient to calculate ks and kd'
as expressed by Eqs. 6 and 14, respectively. The values of kHlkd
and kylk d that correspond to the known value of k/kd are deter-
mined from Table 1. kH and ky follow immediately upon multiply-
ing kHlkd and kylk d by k d.
We can also use Table 1 to assess the sensitivity of kH and k y
to the degree of uncertainty in the data used to calculate kslkd' This
can be done in several ways. The most straightforward, though not
necessarily the most sophisticated, approach consists of attributing

154 SPE Fonnation Evaluation, June 1992

an overall error to each term appearing in the expression for kslkd'
rp(PI -PI)(4ctc/>lqlm 2) 'h 17r. This allows us to calculate an error,
E, in kslkd' We can estimate the percent error incurred in kHlkd
and kylkd with Table 1 values corresponding to kslkd+E and
kslkd-E. For example, if kslkd=0.67 and E=0.067, then kHlkd=
1.89±0.19, and kylkd=0.095±0.043. This corresponds to a
±1O% error in kHlkd' a ±45% error in kylkd' and an anisotropy
within the interval 12 <kHlky<40. Thus, we see that the error in
kH1kd is of the same order as that in kslkd' Substantial uncertain-
ties, however, can be associated with the predicted values of kylkd
and kHlky.
Table 1 also shows a trend between kH and k y. By comparing
the first three columns to the fourth column, we see that ks <kd,
kd<kH' and ky<kd' provided that kH>kd. Thus, the analysis pre-
dicts that drawdown permeability is always equal to or larger than
spherical buildup permeability for a homogeneous anisotropic for-
mation, provided kHlky> 1. The degree to which kd exceeds ks'
however, is probably not very great. We can make an estimate once
we identify a realistic range for kHlky. For core data, kHlky gener-
ally lies within the interval 1 skHlk y Sl50. For this anisotropy
range, Table 1 indicates that k/kd must satisfy 0.467 < k/kd S 1,
implying that kd1ks<2. Some data,I,4 however, show that kd1ks
exceeds this ratio, being in the range of 3 <kdlks <30. If kHI
k y = 150 is a reasonable upper bound for these cases (which might
only be true for crossbedded sands 9 ), then we must conclude that
either some assumptions in our analysis are inappropriate or some
data used to calculate kd or ks were analyzed incorrectly.
Probably our weakest assumption is that the formation is
homogeneous. The general belief is that flows induced over different
length scales are characterized by different permeabilities-the larger
the length scale the smaller the permeability in a heterogeneous for-
mation (with the exclusion of fractures as the cause of anisotropy).
Another general belief is that the length scale associated with buildup
(multiples of rw) far exceeds that associated with drawdown (mul-
tiples of rp). 2, 10 Consequently, questions can be raised about the
appropriateness of our using drawdown and buildup equations
together to determine one set of values for k H and k y. The separate
use of Eqs. 12 and 13 to identify two sets of kH and ky values re-
sults in more unknowns than equations, making it impossible to
obtain a unique solution. Ranges of permeability values, however,
can still be identified by postulating anticipated appropriate ranges
of kHlky. Thus, for 1 SkHlkyslO, the definition of ks implies that
1 <kHlk s <2.15, and Table 1 gives Isk Hlkd s1.64; while for
1 SkHlkys 150, l<kH1ks<5.31 and 1 <kH1kd<2.48. These
numbers indicate that kd is closer in value to kH than k s' This
should come as no surprise because the direction normal to the area
of the probe is horizontal. If the normal to the probe coincides with
the vertical direction, as could possibly happen in a horizontally
deviated well, then the kd value would not be as close to kH as in-
dicated above. The above range of kH values determined from
drawdown may be helpful when one is concerned with supercharg-
ing, stimulation and completion planning, and identifying regions
of high-permeability contrasts. Permeabilities determined from
buildup may be more appropriate when one is concerned with ques-
tions involving a larger length scale (e.g., coning).
We should not lose sight of other possible reasons for obtaining
unexpectedly high values of kd1ks' Considerable error may be as-
sociated with the technique used to measure PI -PI during draw-
down or to determine m (the constant multiplying/so in Eq. 4).
Cinco-Ley et al. II point out that, when plotting the buildup pres-
sure transient (ordinate) in terms of the spherical time function (ab-
scissa) (the usual procedure for determining m), the late-time data
can be greatly distorted. Curves may appear to be linear (with slope
m) when they are not. This results from all the late-time data being
squeezed into a relatively small interval on the abscissa. Instead
of this technique, they recommend using curve-fit data to solve the
inverse problem for the influence function. If the logarithm of a
suitable form of the influence function is plotted against the
logarithm of time, spherical flow can be identified by the appearance
of a straight line with the appropriate slope.
Appreciable errors also may be associated with the measurements
needed to calculate kd' such as partial plugging of the probe. Use
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, June 1992
of pretests to calculate different kd values can identify some of
these situations.
Finally, one should not forget that the determination of ks'
through the usual procedure of determining the value of m, always
assumes that higher-order terms beyond the spherical time function
are negligible in Eq. 20a. That is, we always implicitly assume that
both/sll/so and/s2 1/so are small compared to unity during the time
period in which m is determined (see Eq. 20). Roughly speaking,
this requires both c/>p.ctr~/(6kHT) and c/>p.ctr)/(3k y T) to be smaller
than, say, 0.1, where T is the value of the smallest time period after
the second pretest is shut in and the determination of m has begun.
From a practical viewpoint, T~3 seconds. If we assume that
c/>p.ct -1 X 10 -13 seconds, then kH and k y must be greater than 1
and 0.01 md, respectively.
Conclusions
We showed that both the horizontal and vertical permeabilities of
a homogeneous formation, in principal, can be determined from
the pressure response measured with a single-probe formation tester.
As suggested by two examples, the accuracy of the prediction of
horizontal permeability is better than that of vertical permeability.
Of course, these predictions could be improved by use of a formation
tester with more than one probe. We also showed that kd ~ ks for
an anisotropic formation (k Hik y > 1) without using the assumption
of a negative skin created by the formation being fractured by the
probe when it was set in the borehole wall. For situations where
drawdown permeability far exceeds spherical buildup permeability ,
we can conclude that either the formation is heterogeneous or the
data are in error. One should not discount the possibility of an in-
correct analysis of the pressure transient during buildUp. If the for-
mation is heterogeneous, then a range of plausible horizontal
permeabilities in the region near the probe can still be estimated
on the basis of the results presented here.
Nomenclature
a,b = dummy variables
Ap = area of probe opening through which fluid flows
C t = total compressibility, psi - I
C = shape factor for drawdown permeability measured
with formation tester, usually equals 0.645
E = error
lsi = defined by Eqs. 20b through 20d
F(a,b) = complete elliptic integral of first kind
H(x) = Heaviside step function
J ~ = derivative of Bessel function of first kind
kd = drawdown permeability defined by Eq. 14
kdd = drawdown permeability, md
kH = horizontal permeability parallel to bedding planes, md
ks = spherical permeability, md
ky = vertical permeability perpendicular to bedding
planes, md
m = constant in asymptotic form of pressure transient
during buildup
P = pressure, psi
p = dimensionless pressure defined by Eq. 15b
P = dimensionless pressure defined in Eq. 7b
PI = formation pressure, psi
Pi = pressure at probe at conclusion of first and second
drawdowns, psi
q = volumetric flow rate of fluid entering tool, cm 3 /s
qi = volumetric flow rate of fluid entering tool during
first and second drawdowns, cm 3/s
(1,e,z) = dimensionless cylindrical coordinate system;
zcoincides with wellbore center
rep = effective probe radius, in.
rp = radius probe opening through which fluid flows, in.
rw = wellbore radius, in.
155

Authors
Elizabeth B. Du••an Y., a research
scientist in the Interpretation Science
Dept. at Schlumberger·Doll Research In
Ridgefield, CT, researches fluid flow in
porous media. Previously, she was an
associate professor of chemical engi-
neering at the U. of Pennsylvania. Dus-
san V. holds a PhD degree In mechanics
from Johns Hopkins U. (Photograph un-
available.) Yoge.hwar Sharma
11. Cinco-Ley, H. et al.: "Analysis of Pressure Tests Through the Use
of Instantaneous Source Response Concepts," paper SPE 15476 present-
ed at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
Appendix-Asymptotic Expansion of Eq. 19
The asymptotic expansion of the right side of Eq. 19 is straightfor-
ward. We begin by expanding the integrals with respect to (3, after
changing the variable of integration to x.
~Joo __________________________
e-Xdx ~

manages the Reservoir Engineering o x({ y~[.JX/(t-T) )]} 2 + {l~[.JX/(t-T) )]} 2 )

Sharma Dept. at Elf U.K. pic's Geoscience Re-
search Centre In London. Previously, he
worked at Elf Aquitalne Centre Sclentlfique Technique Jean 00 e _(32 (f-T)d(3
Feger, Cray Research, Schiumberger-Doll Research, and
Aramco. Sharma holds a BS degree In mechanical engineering =1 (3{[Y~«(3)F+[l~«(3)F}' ................ .. ... (A-I)
from the U. of Alberta.
where x=(32(t-T). Because t-T is always large, y~(z) and I ~(z)
can be expanded about Z =0. Expanding the complete integrand and
t = time integrating term by term gives
f = dimensionless time defined by Eq. 15e
ti = duration of first and second drawdowns 00 e-xdx 71'2
x,y,z = rectangular Cartesian coordinate system ~J ---------------- - -----
x,y, z = dimensionless rectangular Cartesian coordinate system o x({ Y6[.Jx/(t-T) ]}2 + {16[.Jxl(t-T) ]}2) 8(f-T)
defined in Eqs. 7c through 7e, respectively
Y~ = derivative of Bessel function of second kind
X
I1+-I-[-y-ln 4(t-T)] + ... 1, ............... (A-2)
zep = effective probe radius in anisotropic formation
(X,(3,T = dummy variables
l 2(1-T) A

J
e-xdx
o(x) = Dirac delta function
"y = Euler's constant and ~J
00

----------------
Jl. = dynamic viscosity, cp o x({YJ[.JXI(f-T) ]}2 +{II [.JXI(t-T) ]}2)
q, = porosity

Subscripts - ~11+-:-[ln 4(t-T)-3/2] + ... 1....... (A-3)

i = I or 2 8(t-T) l 71'(t-T) J
I = first drawdown
Hence, leading to order
2 = second drawdown
00 00 e _(32 (f-T) d(3 71'2
References
1. RFT-Essentials of Pressure Test Interpretation, Schlumberger, Paris
n=~oo 1 (3{[Y~«(3)]2 +[l~«(3)P} - 8(f-T)
(1981) 1-76.
2. Stewart, G. and Wittmann, M.: "Interpretation of the Pressure Response
of the Repeat Formation Tester, " paper SPE 8362 presented at the 1979 X
I1+-I-[-y+4ln 4(1-T)] + ... I .............. (A-4)
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. l 2(1-T) A

J
23-26.
3. RFT Training Book, Schlumberger, Paris (1982) 1-165. Also, because zep2/4(t-T) is always small, it follows that
4. Jensen, C.L. and Mayson, H.J.: "Evaluation ofPermeabilities Deter-
mined From Repeat Formation Tester Measurements Made in the Prud- 2' Z~p
e Z ep!4(t-T) - 1+ - - - + . .. . .................... (A-5)
hoe Bay Field," paper SPE 14400 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual 4(t-T)
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
5. Goodier, J.N. and Hodge, P.G.: Elasticity and Plasticity, John Wiley Substituting Eqs. A-4 and A-5 into Eq. 19 and integrating Eq. 19
& Sons Inc., New York City (1958) 29-35. with respect to T, gives Eq. 20.
6. Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.A.: Handbook of Mathematical Func-
tions, Dover Publications Inc., New York City (1965) 1-1046.
7. Dussan, V., E.B. and Sharma, Y.: "Method for Determining Horizontal SI Metric Conversion Factors
and/or Vertical Permeability of a Subsurface Earth Formation," U.S. in. X 2.54* E+OO
Patent No. 4,890,487 (Jan. 2, 1990). in. 3 X 1.638706 E+OI
8. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C.: "Conduction of Heat in Solids, Oxford md X 9.869 233 E-04
U. Press, Oxford (1959) 1-510.
9. Nelson, R.A.: Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, • Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
Gulf Publishing Co., Houston (1985) 1-320.
10. Moran, J.H. and Finklea, E.E.: "Theoretical Analysis of Pressure Phe-
Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 28, 1987. Revised manuscript received
nomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester," JPT (Aug. Nov. 4, 1991. Paper accepted for publication Jan. 17, 1992. Paper (SPE 16801) first present·
1962) 899-908; Trans., AIME, 225. ed at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Sept. 27-30.

156 SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1992