Pressure Build-Up Analysis, Variable-Rate Case
A. S. ODEH
MEMBER AIME
F. SELIG
ABSTRACT
A second-order approximation to the exact solution of
the diffusivity equation corresponding to the pressure
build-up of a well producing at a variable rate is derived.
This approximation is applicable when the well's shut-in
time is larger than the total time elapsed since the well
was first produced. The resulting equations are compact in
form and easy to use. Thus, the need for Horner's'
theoretically precise but rather laborious solution to the
above problem is eliminated. In addition, these equations
apply where the use of Horner's widely known approxi-
mate method is questionable.
From a practical point of view, the reported method is
best suited for analysis of drill-stem tests and short pro-
duction tests conducted on new wells.
INTRODUCTION
The utility of drill-stem and short production tests in
reservoir studies has long been recognized by the reservoir
engineer. If interpreted correctly they could lead to a
wealth of information upon which may depend the suc-
cess or failure of reservoirs' analyses.
Initial reservoir pressure and the average flow capacity
are two quantities that are normally sought from a drill-
stem and/or a short production test analysis. Pressures are
the most valuable and useful data in reservoir engineering.
Directly or indirectly, they enter into all phases of reser-
voir engineering calculations. Therefore, their accurate
determination is of utmost importance. The flow capacity
kh of the reservoir is indicative of its commercial capa-
bility. In addition, it can indicate the presence of a dam-
aged zone around the wellbore and, thus, the necessity
for remedial measures.
Of the several methods used to analyze drill-stem and
short production tests, Horner's' method is by and large
the most common. It applies to an infinite reservoir and/
or a limited reservoir where the effect of production has
not been felt by the boundary.
Horner's method makes use of the so-called "point-
source" solution of the diffusivity equation. The point-
source solution is approximated by a logarithmic function
and the superposition theorem is utilized to give the
familiar pressure build-up equation
162.6q t + (J
p", = Pi - ~ log,o - ( J - ' (1)
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office
Dec. 20, 1962. Revised manuscript received March 19, 1963. Paper pre-
sented at U. of Oklahoma-SPE Production Research Symposium held
April 29-30, 1963, in Norman, Okla.
'References given at end of paper. SPE 546
790
SOCONY MOBIL OIL CO., INC.
DALLAS, TEX.
where (J is the shut-in time, q is in reservoir barrels per
day and the rest of the symbols conform with AIME
nomenclature.
Eq. 1 was derived for a well which produced at a con-
stant rate q from time zero to time t and was then shut in.
In actuality, such a constant rate of production does not
normally obtain. Therefore, a correction must be applied
to Eq. 1 to account for the varying rates of production.
Horner suggested two methods. The first, which results in
a theoretically accurate solution, is rather lengthy and
laborious and, thus, it is not suited for routine analysis.
The second which has been termed a "good working
approximation" is the one used by the majority of the
reservoir engineers. In the second method, Eq. 1 is modi-
fied by simply introducing a corrected time t, and writing
162.6q t,+(J
Pw = Pi - ~log,o - ( J - (2)
where q is the last established production rate prior to
shut-in, and t, is obtained by dividing the total cumulative
production by the last established rate. Horner's original
paper does not give any indication that this method of
correction is based on any theoretical justification. In
addition, there is a question as to what constitutes the last
established rate. In case of a drill-stem test some engineers
use the average rate obtained by dividing the total fluid
produced by the total flow time, while others calculate the
average rate by dividing the total fluid produced by the
last flow-period time. Obviously, different results obtain
for the different flow rates used.
Because of this, a simple method to the varying-rate
case was developed which is theoretically sound and
which defines clearly the flow rate and its associated time
to be used in the calculations. The final equation arrived
at is
162.6 q* t* + (J
Pw = Pi - kh log" --()- (3)
where q* and t* are a modified rate and time, respectively,
and can be easily calculated. In addition, it is shown
theoretically that Horner's approximate method, if used
for a variable-rate case, gives the correct pressure but
would not be expected to give the correct flow capacity.
MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS
The general equation governing the flow of slightly
compressible fluid in porous media may be written as
lip lop cf>cfL op
or' + r 'Or = ~k- Tt (4 )
The elementary solution to Eq. 4, representing an
instantaneous withdrawal of Q units volume of fluid at
the origin at t = 0, is known as the instantaneous sink
JOURl'IAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
or source solution' and is given by function of time could be measured and Eq. 9 becomes
r }J..C
then
60p = - ~ e - -4iit""'
47rkht t* ~ 2 [t - :~ "i,q
ti+ t i+l
(t, + t'+l)] . (11)
If the rate of withdrawal, q (T), is variable, then

I
t
where it is assumed that the q - t curve was divided into
Q= q(T) dT n equal time intervals each of 60t length.
o For a drill-stem test the rate of flow as a function of
and time is usually not known. The pressure as a function of
_ tJ-
t
q T () -
,' .;~c

4/,(t-T) d
time during the flow periods is known. With a reasonable
p, - P - 47rkh t - e (5) degree of accuracy, Eq. 9 could be written (see Appendix
of
T T
B) as
n-l
where Pi is the reservoir pressure at t = O.
t* ~ 2 [ "i,[(P'i+1 -- Pt.) (f'+l + t,)] ]
In the case of an infinite reservoir with the well located t - 1/2 _0 n 1 (12)
at r = 0, and if the well is flowed for time t and then
"i, (Pt, - Pi)
shut in for time 0, and if r" (the well radius) can be o
approximated by zero, and ignoring the effects of after- Po represents the pressure at the start of the first flow
production, the sand-face shut-in pressure at time t + 0 is period, i.e., at t = O. Pn is the pressure at the end of the
given by second flow period prior to shutting-in the well for the
_ ft [It+8 q (T ) - t+~T d
final pressure build-up, i.e., at tn.
Pi - P - 47rkh t + (J _ T e T

o APPLICATION
EXAMPLE 1
. :-- d'l Data
A production test was conducted on a well according

=--
tJ-
47rkh
I+ f

t
q(T)
(J - T
e - t+~-T d T

(6)
to the schedule shown in Table 1. After nine hours, the
well was shut in and the sand-face pressure was recorded,
as shown in Table 2. The problem is to calculate the
o
_ rw'<ptJ- c reservoir pressure and the average kh of the field.
where A-~
Solution
It is desirable to approximate Eq. 6, so as to put it 1':' as given by Eq. 11 is equal to
in a workable form. This can be done by introducing a
modified rate, q* = constant, and a modified time t*, 2(9 _ 478.5 X 1.5 + 319 X 4.5 + 159.5 X 7.5)~
such that the integration at the right-hand side of Eq. 6 478.5 + 319 + 159.5 3
can be carried out analytically. q* and t* have to be
= II hours.
chosen in such a way that
+
319 X 3 + 159.5 X 3) 24
~ q* A) (478.5 X 3

I
o
t
t +
q(T)
(J - T
e- t+':-T dT [
-
E' (
I - t* +0
q* (Eq. 10)
24 X 11
= 260.9 reservoir BID.
Extrapolation of the straight-line portion which is given
(7)
t* + 0
approximately by 2 > --0- ;;;, 1 (Fig. 1) gives an ini-
ao
where -Ei (-x) = Ie~v duo tial pressure of 3,000 psi.
x kh = 162.6q*tJ- = 97 md-ft where tJ- = 0.6 cp, and
By the proper expansion of the Ei functions and the 111
integral in Eq. 7, one arrives at (see Appendix A) 111is the slope of the straight line = 263 psi/cycle. For
162.6,M* t* + (J comparison, the same example was worked out using
Pi - P = kh log,o - ( J - (8) Horner's method, Fig. 1. It resulted in an initial pressure
where of 3,005 psi and a kh of 77 md-ft. A simulated case on
an R-C network electric analyzer resulted in an initial
pressure of 3,000 psi and a kh of 100 md-ft.
t* -- (9)
and TABLE I-SCHEDULE FOR CONDUCTING PRODUCTION TEST

~
Time Interval Average Production Rate Production per 3-Hour
q* = (10) (hours) (res. BID) Interval (res. bbl)
0-3 478.5 59.8
Eq. 8 holds only when both t and t* are less than 0, a 3-6 319.0 39.9
6-9 159.5 19.9
condition necessary for the validity of Eqs. A-4 and A-7
of Appendix A. This condition could be obtained easily TABLE 2-SAND-FACE PRESSURE
in drill-stem tests and short production tests. V is the Shut-in Time Pressure Shut in Time Pressure
volume of the fluid produced from time t = 0 until the (hours) ~ (hours) ~
well is shut in. Eqs. 8, 9 and 10 are given in practical 2 2812.5 11 2919
3 2838 13 2929.5
engineering units. 5 2872.5 15 2935
7 2895 17 2942
During a short production test, the rate of flow as a 9 2910

JULY, 1963 791

 ~--~---~-~~----~-----~~-.----,

3000

'" 2000
iii
a.
!: 2900
w w
c:
::>
<I>
'"~ 1800
<I> <I>
W w

2800~
c:
a.
g: 1700
!
THE "r'" oJ.)oI. METHOD ,,- THE t*q* METHOD
,. HORNER'S METHOD 1600 t.l. - t IS THE SECOND FLOW
PERIOD TIME

2700L-----------~------~----~--~--~~~~~ [500!
I 10 10
MOGIFIED TIME + SHUT-IN TIME MODIFIED TIME + SHUT-IN TIME
SHUT-IN TIME SHUT-IN TIME

FIG. I-DETER;\ll],;ATION OF ORIGINAL RESERVOIR PRESSlJRE A"D FrG. 2-DE'l'EH:I'II],;ATION OF ORIGIl(AL RESERVOIR PHESSt:HE A"D
AVERAGE FLOW CAPACITy-ExAMPLE 1. AVERAGE FLOW CAPACITY-EXA~lPLE 2.

EXAMPLE 2-A FIELD CASE kh 162.6 X 445

392 = 185 md-ft/cp.
Data /L
The drill-stem test data shown in Table 3 were obtained b tamed
.
from a test run on Well x. In the test, 2.6 reservoir bbl
l
Th us, t,le -kh 0 by this meth od is hlgner man the
of oil and 14.4 bbl of salt water were recovered. Calculate
kh kh .
the original reservoir pressure and the average ~- of the - obtamed by the ('" q'" method by 23 per cent.
fJ. fJ.
field.
DISCUSSION
Solution
The results of the two examples indicate that while the
t* (Eq. 12) = ( 89 ~ 1/2{ [38 X 4 + (229 ~ 69)83 initial reservoir pressure values obtained by the t* q* and
Horner's approximate method compare favorably, the
+ (366 ~ 229)113 + (480 ~ 366)143 flow capacities could vary markedly. This is expected con-
+ (546 ~ 480) 1681/[38 + 229 -- 69 sidering the derivation that went into Eq. 8. If A, the
difference between the true integral value and the approx-
+ 366 - 229 + 480 ~ 366 + 546 ~ 480] () imate formula, vanishes as e- 2 then, the first coefficient
= 69 minutes. in the expansion of ,A must be zero resulting in qt = V.
This means one requires only that the product of the time
17.0X24X60
q* = 69 355 reservoir BID. chosen for the calculation and the flow rate should be
equal to the fluid produced from t = 0 to shut-in time.
t" + () Thus, one is reminded of Horner's method which requires
The extrapolated straight-line portion of the --e- only that t,q = V. Therefore, Horner's method if applied
plot, Fig. 2, resulted in an initial pressure of 1,935 psig. to a variable-rate case results in a first-order approxima-
The slope was 385 psi/cycle. Thus, tion. From the derivation it is seen that a, is the intercept
of the straight line as B approaches infinity, which in prac-
kh 355 X 162.6
--;;: = 385 = 150 md-ft/cp. tical application gives the original reservoir pressure.
The slope of the straight-line portion of the build-up
For comparison, the calculations were made using t = 55
curve which is used to calculate the average kh of the
minutes, i.e., the second flow period time. This is what
reservoir is given by a" the coefficient of the e-' term.
is normally done in DST calculations!-' Thus, q =
Thus, to obtain a good value for the slope one must re-
17 X 60 X 24 quire that .A vanishes at least as B- 3 This requirement,
55 = 445 reservoir BID. The results, as shown
though fulfilled in the t*q* method, thus leading to Eq. 9,
in Fig. 2, are an initial pressure of 1,920 psig and a slope is absent in Horner's method. This explains why the kh's
of 392 pSi/cycle. Therefore, obtained by Horner's method if used for a variable-rate
case could be considerably in error.
TABLE 3-DST DATA fROM TEST RUN ON WElL x
The kh obtained from pressure build-up analysis is
first flow Initial Second Flow
normally used to indicate whether a damaged zone exists
Final
Period Closed-in Pressure Period Closed-in Pressure around the wellbore and the need for remedial measures.
Time p Time p Time p Time p It is clear that, if the kh is considerably in error, one can
(min) (p,ig) (min) (p,ig) (min) (p,ig) (min) (p,ig)
easily arrive at the wrong conclusion with subsequent
0 0 0 38 0 69 0 546
4 38 3 1764 15 229 12 1601 financial loss. On this basis the use of the t*q* method
6
9
1855
1894
30
45
366
480
24
36
1708
1758
in a varying-rate case is strongly recommended.
12 1915 55 546 48 1789
15 1929 60 1809 Strictly speaking, the t*q* method applies when both
18
21
1937
1943
72
84
1824
1836
('" and t are less than B. This means, the analyst in draw-
24 1950 96 1844 ing the straight-line portion of the pressure build-up curve
27 1952 108 1853
30 1954 120 1857 should attach considerable importance to the points which

7')2 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLO(;Y

 t* + 8
fall approximately in the range 2 > -~8-;;? I corre-
sponding to the restriction imposed on Eq. 8. Therefore,
for a proper pressure build-up analysis, the well shut-in

[Ei ( --A) -Ei ( --.-- ( 1+-

time should be at least lih times the time elapsed since
the well was first produced. Drill-stem tests and short 8
A)]
+8 t,
= In r:' )
8
production tests on new wells could be easily made to
satisfy the time-limit condition. Therefore, the t*q':' A(' I (A'(' ....,)
method is best suited for the analysis of the pressure --~+- -~+ At- +--
8' 8" 2 ' .
build-up data of these two tests. For a well that has been
and with
producing for a relatively long period, the shut-in time
required for the correct application of the t*q* method
might be too long to be economically feasible. On the
In ( I + t;' ) t;' _ ~'~', +{~';
= (A-7)
other hand, Horner's approximate method, which is a we obtain after a small amount of rearranging,
first-order approximation, would not be expected to give
the correct flow capacity either. a,~ Ji(T)dT ~ q':' t':, (A-8)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
R. H. Barham, M. E. Brewer and W. H. Wilson ran the
a,~ - HA + t ~ T)q(T) dT + c/' (t~' + At':')
simulated case on the analyzer. The authors are grateful (A-9)
for their help. The authors would like also to thank the

ftr
management of Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc., for permis- A'
a,~ (t~Tr+2A(t~T)+ 2 ] 1(T)dT
sion to publish this paper.
o
REFERENCES r:"
~q*
1. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure BuildUp in Wells", Proc., Third
[ -3 (A-IO)

World Pet. Cong., The Hague (1951) 11,503. Setting a 1 = 0 yields

2. Carslaw, H. S. and Jaeger, J. c.: Conduction 0/ Hellt in

f
Solids, Second Ed. (1959). t
3. Dolan, J. P., Einarsen, C. A. and Hill, G. A.: "Special Appli q*t':, = q(T)dT = V (A-ll )
cation of DrillStem Test Pressure Data", Trans., AIME
(1957) 210, 318. o
4. Johnston Testers, Inc.: Practical DrillStem Test Manual. Setting a, = 0 yields
5. Ammann, C. B.: "Case Histories of Analysis of Characteristics
of Reservoir Rock from Drill-Stem Tests", Jour. Pet. Tech.
(May, 1960) XII, No.5, 27.
AV + tV ~ J:q( T) T ciT = V;':' + A V, (A-12)
6. Zak, A. J., Jr. and Griffin, Phil, III: "Evaluating DST Data", or
Oil and Gas Jour. (April 15, April 29 and May 13, 1957).

APPENDIX A (A-13 )
DERrv ATION OF EQS. 8, 9 AND 10
If the production rate q( T) is plotted vs t, the teo-ordinate
The introduction of a modified production rate q':' and of the center of gravity, t" is given by
a modified time t* has to be performed in such a way
that the difference r~(T)TdT
6. ='ft q(T)
t+8~T
e,:o-TdT ~ q':' [Ei(-~)
8
t'=J-~-
oq(T)dT
, (A-14)

o
and we obtain the final form of the solution
~Ei(~~A
(':' + 8 )] (A-I)
t* = 2(t ~ t,), q':' =
V
7' (A-IS)
tends toward zero for large values of 8. We will write 6. The coefficient a3 can be expressed in the form
as a power series in 8-' in the form

(A-2) a" = q':;':'" - J(t ~ T)'q(T)dT, . (A-16)

o
It can be seen immediately that ao = 0 for any value of
which turns out to be very small for most of the cases.
q':' and t*. Thus, if we adjust these parameters such that
With the aid of Eqs, A-I and A-6, Eq, 6 can be written
6. vanishes at least like 8-', then q':' and t* will be a
in the form
solution of the two equations
q* [ (:' + 8 At':' ]
a, = 0, p, -- p = ~f1._~ In - - - - , + - - - (.A-17)
4Trkh 8 8 l ~ ..i...J
a, = 0 (A-3)
Using the full expression for A, it is easily seen that
Using the expansions
I =~[l ~_t_~_T + (t ~,Tr + ____ ] f:~~:;:' is negligible, and we obtain Eq. 8.
t-~+-C:-8~~-T 8 e 8'
(A-4) '::,:'- EL (_x) = ~ In ')IX + x - 2~~2' + 3~33 - - -- ~-~--
 APPENDIX B Substituting Eq. B-4 in Eqs. B-1 and B-2 and dividing,
In order to derive Eq. 12 from Eq. 9, one observes that one obtains
~V . ld
q = ---;s:tYle s
_ f~(r)rdr
V'i+l - V'i (;+1 + Ii)
2 (t'+1 - I,)
] t, - f:q(r)dT
tHo! - tr
(B-1 )
and n;:I{[(!L.._ PI), .-(~- PI) .](ti+1 + Ii)}
t n-1 c:=: Vz 0 P P '.+1"
V =
f
q(r)dr c:=: ~ (V'i+l - V,,)
0
Assuming that the changes in compressibility and tem-
(B-2)
n-l[( -P - p) j - ( -P - PI ) ]
~
P 'i+l P Ii

perature of the produced fluid during the flow periods (B-5)

are negligible, one can write for any time t during the
flow periods From physical consideration and if the time increments
are chosen small enough, one can neglect the change III
P
-p + -2
g
v'
= Z + hL = CV + hI, (B-3 ) PI P
and between ti and f i +" and Eq, B-5 becomes
n-1
where P and v are, respectively, the pressure recorded by ~[(Pli+l - PI,) (li+1 + I,)]
the upper gauge and the fluid velocity at the upper gauge (, c:=: Vz _o'--_----;c--_ _ _ _ _ __ (B-6)
level, z is the fluid head above the upper gauge and hL 11,-1

represents friction losses. Thus, ~(Pli+l - p,.)

V = ~ (: - PI) (B-4 ) where po and pn are, respectively, the pressures recorded
by the upper gauge at the start of the first flow period,
v'
where PI = h" - - .
2g
i.e" f = 0, and at the end of the second flow period prior
to shutting-in the well for pressure build-up. ***

794 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM (l'ECHNOLOGY