Pressure Buildup for Wells
Produced at a Constant Pressure
C.A. Ehlig-Economides, * SPE, Stanford U.
H.J. Ramey Jr., SPE, Stanford U.
Abstract
Conventional well test analysis has been developed
primarily for production at a constant flow rate.
However, there are several common reservoir
production conditions which result in flow at a
constant pressure instead of a constant rate. In the
field, wells are produced at constant pressure when
fluids flow into a constant-pressure separator and
during the rate decline period of reservoir depletion.
In geothermal reservoirs, produced fluids may drive
a backpressured turbine. Open wells, including
artesian water wells, flow at constant atmospheric
pressure.
Most of the existing methods for pressure buildup
analysis of wells with a constant-pressure flow
history are empirical. Few are based on sOUIid
theory. Hence, there is a need for a thorough
treatment of pressure buildup behavior following
constant-pressure production.
In this work, the method of superposition of
continuously changing rates was used to generate an
exact solution for pressure buildup following con-
stant-pressure flow. The method is general. Storage
and skin effects were incorporated into the theory,
and both bounded and unbounded reservoirs were
considered. Buildup solutions were graphed using
conventional techniques for analysis. Horner's
method for plotting buildup data after a variable-rate
flow was found to be accurate in a majority of cases.
Also, the method by Matthews et al. for determining
the average reservoir pressure in a closed system was
determined to be correct for buildup following
constant-pressure flow.
Introduction
When a flowing well is shut in, the pressure in the
well bore increases with time as the pressures
'Now with the U. of Alaska.
FEBRUARY 1981
throughout the reservoir approach a static value.
Analysis of the pressure increase, or pressure
buildup, often provides useful information about the
reservoir and the well bore itself. Techniques exist for
determination of well bore storage, skin effect,
reservoir permeability and porosity, and either the
initial reservoir pressure or the volumetric average
reservoir pressure at the time the well was shut in.
Effects of fractures penetrated by or near the
wellbore also can be detected, as well as nearby faults
or reservoir drainage boundaries.
Most of the techniques for pressure buildup
analysis were developed for wells which, prior to
shut-in, were produced at a constant rate. When the
production rate before shut-in changes rapidly,
conventional analysis is often suspect. If the exact
rate history is known, the theory of superposition in
time of constant-rate solution leads to the method
derived by Horner 1 which compensates for changing
production rates. This method results in long
calculations. However, in the same paper Horner
proposed a simplified procedure in which the last
established rate was assumed constant and the flow
time was set equal to the cumulative production
divided by the last established rate. Other methods
for analysis of pressure buildup after a variable-rate
production history were proposed by Odeh et al. 2-4
A special case of variable-rate production results
when a well is produced at constant pressure. The
first published application of pressure buildup
analysis for a well produced at constant pressure
prior to shut-in was by Jacob and Lohman. 5 Their
graph of residual drawdown vs. total time divided by
shut-in time results in a semilog straight line. The
permeability thickness was computed from the slope
of the recovery line using the average discharge rate
0197 7520181100027985$00.25
Copyright 1981 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
105
 TABLE 1 - UNIT CONVERSIONS
Variable Darcy, SI Metric Units English Units
kt 0.000264 kt
to
<Pllctr; <Pllctr;

qBIl 141.2qBIl
qo
27rkh(Pi-P wf) 27rkh(Pi -Pwf)
No N/[27r<pcthr; (Pi -Pwf) N/[27r<pcthr; (Pi -Pwf)
0.1832qBIl 162.6 qBIl
m
kh kh
kh(p*-p) 1
'Ci Ci = 27r Ci = --
qtpBIl 141.2
c atm- 1 , Pa- 1 psi -1
h cm,m ft
k darcy, m 2 md
P atm, Pa psi
q cm 3 /s, m3 /s BID
r cm,m ft
t seconds hours
Il cp, Pas cp

during the immediately preceding period of flow. where P 'wD is the time derivative of the dimensionless
The value computed in this way agreed with trans- well bore pressure drop for constant-rate production.
missivity values determined by type-curve matching If production is at a constant pressure Pwj' Eq. 1 can
of transient rate data from the flowing period for be written in dimensionless variables as
several wells tested.
Clegg 6 produced an approximate analytical rID
solution for pressure buildup that implied that the l=-J qD(r)p'wD(tD-r)dr, .......... (2)
o
method used by Jacob and Lohman should not result
in a correct estimate of the permeability. Clegg's where dimensionless variables for constant pressure
solution demonstrated the need for a sound method production are defined by
for analyzing pressure buildup after constant-
pressure production.
Sandrea 7 concluded that Horner's method of
using the last established rate and an adjusted flow and
time was not valid for wells which had reached the
period of exponentially declining rates due to limited
reservoir extent. Exponential rate decline is a natural
consequence of constant-pressure production of a and rD and ID are defined as usual for circular
reservoirs.
closed-boundary system. It is a state which naturally
follows constant-rate production of a closed Referring again to Eq. 1, if production at constant
system. 8,9 pressure is changed to constant rate after time I p' the
well bore pressure at time t is given by
In this study, the solution for pressure buildup
after a constant-pressure production period is
derived through superposition in time of con- /.t rtp
Pwj(t) =Pi + 27rkh J0 q( r)p'wD (t- r)dr
tinuously varying flow rates prior to shut-in. Results
indicate that a slight modification of the Horner -qd (tp )PwD (t- tp ) . ........... (5)
method of graphing pressure buildup provides a
theoretically correct determination of the reservoir If the well is shut-in, pressure buildup is determined
permeability and static reservoir pressure. Fur- exactly from
thermore, well bore storage and skin effect and ef-
fects of a fracture can be determined by techniques /.t rIp
analogous to conventional pressure buildup analysis. Pws(fl.!) =Pi+ 27rkh Jo q(r)p'wD(t-r)dr,

Theory ................................. (6)

Application of the principle of superposition in time
to a continuously varying rate q(t) results in an where fl.! is the elapsed time after shut-in. The in-
expression for flowing well bore pressure given by tegral in Eq. 6 is difficult to evaluate because a q D (0)
is infinite. However, the equation can be written in a
/.t rID more easily evaluated form by using Eq. 2:
Pwj(t) =Pi+ 27rkh Jo q(r)p'wD(t-r)dr, . (1)"
p. -P (M D ) ~/pD+t:.ID
'In this paper, mathematical derivations are given in Darcy units. Table 1 is a
I ws =- qD (r)p'wD (tpD
conversion table for Darcy, English, and the preferred Sl metric units. Pi-Pwj 0

106 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

 TABLE 2 - REFERENCES TO AVAILABLE TABULATED
SOLUTIONS FOR TRANSIENT RATE DECLINE
FOR WELLS PRODUCED AT A CONSTANT PRESSURE

No vs. to
Without With Without With
Skin Skin Skin Skin
--- --
Infinitely large system 14 11 15
Closed boundary at re 9 11 9 11
Constantpressure boundary 11 11
at re

There are analytical solutions for a variety of

+!:J.t D -7)d7, ..................... (7)
or
Eq. 6 is completely generaL The functions used for
qD andpwD can be chosen for any appropriate set of
inner and outer boundary conditions. Examination
of the integration limits reveals that q D ( 7) is
evaluated for late times (7)tpD ) and P'wD is
evaluated beginning with time zero. Thus,
phenomena such as well bore storage, skin effect, or
fracture effects will be included in the pressure
function, while possible boundary effects will in-
fluence qD and, for large t, P'wD as welL
boundary conditions for qD and PwD. The pressure
solutions for constant-rate production are well
known, but the transient rate solutions still are being
developed. Existing solutions for q D for circular
reservoirs were derived through use of Laplace
transforms. Unfortunately, the solutions in Laplace
space cannot be inverted easily to analytical func-
tions in real space. Hence, only numerically
tabulated solutions are available. References to the
tabulated solutions are given in Table 2. The
solutions used for this work were generated using a
numerical Laplace transform inversion algorithm by
Stehfest. 10 Limiting forms for long production times
are given in Table 3 for several of the solutions. The
limiting forms for the exponential decline function
given by Fetkovich 8 contain a small error.
Derivation of the correct functions is provided in
Appendix A. Figs. 1 and 2 are type curves for
dimensionless flow rate and dimensionless
cumulative production vs. dimensionless time.
Although the integral in Eq. 6 is similar to a
convolution integral, it cannot be solved easily by
Laplace transformation. However, Eq. 6 can be

TABLE 3 - FUNCTIONS WHICH APPROXIMATE THE SOLUTIONS FOR TRANSIENT RATE DECLINE
FOR WELLS PRODUCED AT CONSTANT PRESSURE

Outer
Boundary Range of Relative
Condition Validity Approximate Solution Error
1
Unbounded qo (to) = [- (Into +0.80907 + 2s) ]-1 <1%
2

Po (to,ro) =! (Intolr02 +0.80907) <1%

qo(to) 2

Closed tOA ~0.1' Exact"

Boundary

1
Constant tOA~ - - - Exact
pressure 2.245871"
bounded
circular

'fOA =fOrW21A.
Replacing 'w by fW = rwe - S corrects for nonzero skin factor.

FEBRUARY 1981 107

 10

reD ~ 10 3
lOt /
, ,", _.,. M
00',\
5
10 ......
I
/ -2".1 IlInr _1)
o 00 4

N
I o
,."

\
o
a
'o-2f-----+:---/---+----+----+---~

..z
10
10-4 10-3 -2 -I I0:5,,-:.......--_ _.1.,O.....
3--.......J-,2.-----L,-'_ _---L_ _ _....J
10 10
10 10- 10 10

IDA 'OA
IInr -1) (Inr -~l
.04 .04

Fig_ 1 - Dimensionless flow rate for a well produced at a Fig. 2 - Dimensionless cumulative production for a well
constant pressure from the center of a closed- produced at constant pressure from the center of a
boundary circular reservoir. closed-boundary circular reservoir.

integrated numerically_ The numerical integration Horner Buildup Analysis

scheme used in this work is outlined in Appendix B.
This method provides a mechanism for calculating
pressure buildup following constant-pressure
production for a variety of situations. A few cases
are considered here.
Pressure Buildup for atD < < t pD
For small shut-in periods, the rate function qD (T) is
essentially constant for t pD < T < (tpD + M D) .
Hence, examination of Eq_ 6 reveals that pressure
recovery can be approximated accurately by
or
Pi - P ws (tJ.t)
== 1- qD(tpD)PwD (tJ.t D )
Pi-Pwj
whenever qD (tpD ==qD (tpD + tJ.t D )
Dividing by q D (t pD) and rearranging results in
P ws (tJ.t) - P wj - tJ.t
q(tp)p./21rkh -PwD( ).
Thus, a log-log graph of iPws (tJ.t) -Pwj]/q(tp)
vs. time can be compared with type curves of
pressure drawdown for production at constant flow
rate. Effects of early transient behavior - such as
well bore storage and skin effect, partial penetration,
or the evidence of a fracture - can be analyzed using
conventional type-curve matching techinques. It can
be demonstrated that the validity of this type of
analysis is about the same as for constant-rate
production.
108
According to the Horner 1 method, buildup pressures
are graphed vs, 10g[(tp+tJ.t)/tJ.t] to produce a
semilog straight line, The slope of the line is used to
determine permeability from the equation
qp. In 10
k= - - . - ...................... (12)
27fmh 2
Horner suggested that for variable-rate production
prior to shut-in, the permeability should be
calculated using Eq. 12 with q equal to the last
established flow rate qj and with m determined from
the slope of a graph of P ws (tJ.t) vs.
log[ U; + tJ.t) / tJ.t] where t; =ND Up) /qj' Jacob and
Lohman 5 graphedpws(tJ.t) vs. 10g[tp+tJ.t)/M] and
calculated permeability from Eq. 12 with q equal to
_ ..... (9)
the average flow rate. Sandrea 7 concluded that
graphing buildup data using to Horner's method
would result in underestimation of the permeability
for wells with exponentially declining rates prior to
shut-in.
.... (10) In this work, several cases involving pressure
buildup after constant-pressure production for in-
finite, closed-boundary, and constant-pressure
bounded circular reservoirs were computed by
numerical integration of Eq. 8. In every case, if there
was a period of time when the pressure buildup was
. ........... (11)
not dominated by early transient well bore effects or
late transient boundary effects, the semilog straight
line was present and the slope produced the correct
value for the permeability when the data were
graphed according to Horner's method.
The following derivation shows that the Horner
method of graphing buildup data always will result in
the correct straight line, provided that early transient
effects and late boundary effects are separated in
time. Referring to Eq. 10, we divide by
q D (tpD + tJ.t D ) :
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 ---- CONSTANT RATE BEFORE SHUT-IN
1.0
- CONSTANT PRESSURE BEFORE
SHUT-IN

TABLE 4 - VALUES OF tj',D FOR VARIOUS VALUES OF tPD "--, I 102

",e~
FOR FLOW AT A CONSTANT PRESSURE AND ------
AN INFINITE OUTER BOUNDARY
3.0
tpo tpo = Npo IQo (tpO)
104 1.122 X 104
10
10 5 1.096 X 105
106 1.079 X 106
10 7 1.067 X 10 7
Fig. 3 - Dimensionless pressure buildup for short flow
108 1.058 X 108 times.

is not required, and the data can be graphed in the

conventional manner.
For dimensionless flow times less than 10 4 , the
semi log straight line never develops. However, the
same is true for buildup data after a very short period
of constant-rate flow, as shown in Fig. 3. Thus, the
error involved in using the Horner method for
analysis after short flow times is a problem whether
or not the well is flowed at a constant rate prior to
shut-in.
The Jacob and Lohman s method of using the
+O.80907]-P wD(M D ) . .............. (14) average rate prior to shut-in is justified by the
following arguments. If the variation in q D is small
For 1:11D ~ 5, the log approximation is valid for PwD for O<t D <tpD ' Eq. 6 may be approximated by the
and following.

(p i - P wf ) q D ( 1pD + 1:11D ) P ws (I:1t) =Pi - ~ . q(tp) IPwd (tp + M)

27rkh
1 -P wd(I:1t)], ................. (17)
== "2ln[(tPD+MD)/I:1IDl, ........ (15)

or For I:1tD ~5, the log approximation is valid for PwD

and
_ q(tp +1:1t). 1
P ws (1:1t) =P i - I n [ (tp + 1:11) /l:1t. . (16)
47rkh
Pi-P ws (l:1tD ) - - (I )
Noting that q (tfJ ) == q (t + 1:1t) for M < < t P' this =qD pD
expression is identical to the result for constant-rate Pi-Pwf
flow, except that if q (tp) were constant, t would be 1
equal to the Horner corrected flow time t;.
Thus, the . "2 ln [(tPD+l:1t D )/I:1ID ], ............. (18)
Horner method of graphing the data preserves the
material balance and produces the correct slope for or
the semilog straight-line portion of the pressure
buildup data. ql'-
P ws (M) =Pi - - In[tp + 1:11) /l:1t]. . ..... (19)
In Table 4, values of tpD and NpD /q(tpD) (calcu- 47rkh
lated from tabulated solutions in Ref. 11) are The last expression is identical to the result for
compared. For dimensionless flow times greater than constant-rate flow except that q is computed from
10 4 , the error in the slope will be less than 1.5070 if the N (t p) /1 p. This method is less accurate than the
actual flow time tp is used instead of t; in the Horner lforner method because the assumption required for
buildup graph. Thus, the Horner corrected flow time Eq. 17 is less valid than the assumption used to
FEBRUARY 1981 109
develop Eq. to. Once exponential decline has begun, Matthews et at. 12 for pressure buildup after con-
the approximation in Eq. 17 is no longer valid. Thus, stant-rate production. The average reservoir pressure
use of the average rate in calculating permeability at shut-in for a circular reservoir is given by
from the slope of the semilog straight line for a graph 2
Pi-jJ(tpD) _ N p (tpD)7rc t hr e
of buildup data is not recommended for wells which
were produced at constant pressure prior to shut-in. Pi -Pwj Pi -Pwj
The last rate will yield a more accurate estimate of =2NpD (tpD) IreD2 . ........ (24)
the permeability.
At infinite shut-in times, the extrapolated pressure
Hence, the departure of the extrapolated pressure p*
for Eq. 16 is Pi. Thus, the behavior of the Horner
from the actual average reservoir pressure jJ is given
pressure buildup curve following constant-pressure
by
production that has not shown a boundary influence
is identical to the constant-rate case. 27rkh (p* - jJ)
In the next section, boundary effects are con- qtp
sidered. The Horner method is shown to be an ef-
fective means of analysis, even when boundary ef- Pi-P*
fects are evident prior to shut-in. (Pi -Pwj)qD (t pD )
Effect of a Closed Boundary _ 2NpD (tpD) 1
The Horner method also applies for wells shut in - qD (tpD )reD 2 - qD (tpD)
after the onset of an exponentially declining
production rate. When tp > t pSS' the Horner method 1
still produces a semilog straight line for D.t suf- + 2 (lntpD +0.80907) ....... (25)
ficiently small, because q D (t pD) may be assumed to
Substituting the exact exponential function for qD
be constant. However, unlike Eq. 16, the ex-
and NpD derived in Appendix A,
trapolated pressure is not Pi' but, to use the con-
ventional notation, p*.
The equation for p* is derived as follows. For the 27rkh(p* -jJ)
closed-boundary reservoir (early enough in shut-in qtp/l qD(tpD)
time that t p > > D.t but late enough that M D > 100),
1 1
Pi - P ws (D.t D ) + -2 (lntpD + 0.80907)
----- (
qD tpD )
(Pi-Pwj)qD(tpD) qD(tpD)
3 1
1 = - (lnreD - 4" ) + 2 (lnt pD + 0.80907)
- 2 (lnD.t D + 0.80907). . ............ (20)

Adding and subtracting 1I2[ln(tD +0.80907j, = 21 (lntpD -InreD 2 + 1.5 + 0.80907)

Pi - P ws (D.t D ) 1
- 1 t
(Pi -Pwj )qD (tpD) qD (tpD) = - (ln~ +ln7r+1.5+0.80907)
2 reD
1
- 2lln(tPD+D.tD) +0.80907j 1
= 2 (lntpDA +3.4538), ............. (26)
1
+ 2In [(tpD + D.t D ) I D.t Dl or
1 1 47rkh (p* - jJ)
- - - (lntpD +0.80907) - - - - - = (lntpDA +3.4538) ........ (27)
qD(tpD) 2 qtp/l
1 This result is identical to the equation for the
= 2In[(tPD+MD)/D.tDj. . ......... (21)
Matthews et at. 12 curves for determining the average
pressure in a closed-boundary circular reservoir
Rearranging,
produced at a constant rate for tDA >0.1. Using Eqs.
q(t )/l A-9 and A-tO, a similar derivation shows that the
P ws (D.t) =p* - ~ In[ (tp + D.t) I D.tj, ... (22)
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek method is valid for
pressure buildup after constant-pressure production
where
for closed reservoirs of arbitrary shape:
Pi-P*
m
(p i - P wj) q D (t pD ) q D (t pD) jJ=p* - 2 (lntpDA + InCA) ............ (28)
1
-2 (lntpD +0.80907). . .............. (23)
Example
Eq. 23 can be used to determine static pressure Well A was produced at a constant bottomhole
correction curves analogous to those derived by pressure for 1 year. At the time of shut-in,
110 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 TABLE 5 - FLUID AND FORMATION PROPERTIES FOR 104r---------~----------~--------__,
BUILDUP TEST EXAMPLE

/l = 65 cp (0.065 Pa s) 3
B = 1.2 RB/STB (1.2 res m /stock-tank m 3 )
ct = 15x106 psi- 1 (2.2x10- 9 Pa- 1 )
fw = 0.33 ft (0.10 m)
<I> = 0.23
h = 130 ft(40 m)
tp +t:.t tp + t:.t Q.
'i
t:.t Pws t:.p -- I
000 0
(hours) (psig) (psi) t:.t t:.t

~,02~op:
0 41 0 o \S:A:T OF
0.1 75 34 87,600 624,413 SEMILOG STRAIGHT
0.25 110 69 35,041 249,766 LINE
0.5 112 133 17,521 124,883
1 202 161 8,761 62,442
2 249 208 4,381 31,222
3 272 231 2,921 20,815
5 295 254 1,753 12,489
7 302 261 1,252 8,921
10 310 269 877 6,245
20 319 278 439 3,123 Llt (hr.) 10 102
30 330 284 293 2,082
50 340 292 176 1,250 Fig. 4 - Log-log graph of buildup pressures for Example
WeIIA.

cumulative production from the well was 107,711 bbl (fp+6tl/.6.t

(17 126 m 3 ) and the flow rate was measured at 41.4 2 3
BID (7_62 x 10- 6 m 3 Is)_ The well was located in the
10 10 10

center of a 160-acre (647 520-m 2 ) square drainage

area. Additional data are provided in Table 5. '00

The average flow rate for Well A is given by

ij=Np/tp
~ 400

=107,711/365 =295 BID (5.43 X 1O- 4 m 3 Is). =44pSl/cycle

....................... (29) <In,)no "ri/qTI<'\

The flow rate just prior to shut-in was considerably 300

less than ij, suggesting that the well flow rate was
undergoing exponential decline at the time of the
test. ['I hr

Fig. 4 is a graph of log (P ws - Pwf) vs. 10gLlt. The

early shut-in pressures are controlled by afterflow
effects. Since the maximum shut-in time of 100 hours
is much less than the flow time of 8,760 hours, the Fig. 5 - Horner graphs of buildup test data using actual
and corrected flow times.
log-log graph can be compared with graphs of
conventional drawdown solutions. Deviation from
0
the 45 line on the log-log graph suggests that a
semilog straight line will result for all data with Llt
greater than 3 hours. The semilog graphs in Fig. 5
exhibit the expected straight line. From the slope, the
formation permeability is determined to be
k= 162.6 qfBp, 162.6(41.4)(1.2)(65)
mh (44)(130)
= 92.5 md. . ............. (30)

The extrapolation of the semilog straight line to

Llt = 1 hour provides a value for PI hr = 264 psig (1.82
MPa). Thus, the well bore skin factor can be
calculated as

s=1.151Plhr-Pws -log k 2 +3.23=1.98.

m p,ctr w
....................... (31)
FEBRUARY 1981 III
 The static pressure for Well A is determined from slope of Horner buildup graph
p*: cumulative production, L 3
m dimensionless cumulative production,
jJ=p* - - (lnt pDA + InCA)' ............ (32) N p /27rchr w 2 (Pi -Pwj)
2
P pressure, m/Lt 2
For the square drainage area, C A = 30.88. After 1 p* extrapolated pressure on Horner buildup
year of production, graph, m/Lt2
0.OO0264kt P volumetric average reservoir pressure,
tpDA = =0.137. . ............ (33) m/Lt2
fJ-ct A
Pi initial reservoir pressure, m/Lt2
Hence, jJ = 406 psig (2.80 MPa). Finally, by material PwD dimensionless well bore pressure,
balance, 27fkh(Pi -Pwj) /qfJ-
Pwj flowing bottomhole pressure, m/Lt2
P ws bottomhole pressure after shut-in, m/Lt2
q production rate, L 3 It
The initial reservoir pressure is determined from qD dimensionless production rate,
=p+ ~ =441 psig (3.04 MPa) ...... (35)
qfJ-/27fkh (Pi - Pwj)
Pi re reservoir radius, L
cthA
reD dimensionless reservoir radius, r e/r w
The graph in Fig. 5, using the Horner corrected rw wellbore radius, L
flowtime t;
=Np/q, has the same values for the t time
slope and PI hr but has a different value for p*. tD dimensionless time, kt / fJ-cr w 2
However, since tp production time, t
k N t* = Horner corrected production time, t
t D,A - - - ~ =0.976, ............. (36)
p rt - fJ-CA q l.t = shut-in time, t
fJ- = fluid viscosity, miLt
then T = variable of integration
m = porosity
jJ=p* - - (lnt;DA + InCA )
2 Acknowledgments
=406 psig(2.80 MPa) .................. (37) Portions of this study were completed in fulfillment
of degree requirements for graduate study at
The value for p* exceeds Pi in this case, but the Stanford U. Financial assistance was provided by
calculated results are identical using either method U.S. DOE Grant 1673500 to the Stanford
for plotting the data. Geothermal Program. Several persons gave helpful
The method of analysis proposed by Jacob and assistance and advice freely. We give special thanks
Lohman is grossly in error for closed systems in to Heber Cinco-Ley for his excellent suggestions.
exponential decline. Use of the average flow rate
instead of the last flow rate causes the permeability to References
be overestimated by more than 600%. I. Horner, D.R.: "Pressure Build-Up in Wells," Proc., Third
World Pet. Cong., The Hague (1951) Sec. II, 503-523,
Conclusions Presssure Analysis Methods, SPE Reprint Series, Society of
Pressure buildup analysis for wells produced at Petroleum Engineers, Dallas (1967) 9, 25-43.
2. Odeh, A.S. and Nabor, G.W.: "The Effect of Production
constant pressure can be done using simple History on Determination of Formation Characteristics From
modifications of conventional techniques derived for Flow Tests," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1976) 1343-1350; Trans.,
wells produced at constant flow rate. Early transient AIME,237.
behavior is analyzed best by type-curve matching. 3. Odeh, A.S. and Selig, F.: "Pressure Build-Up Analysis,
Variable-Rate Case," J. Pet. Tech. (July 1963) 790-794;
The Horner buildup method using the last flow rate Trans., AIME, 228.
and the actual flow time tp is valid and, in most 4. Odeh, A.S. and Jones, L.G.: "Two-Rate Flow Test, Variable-
cases, will produce a correct value for the reservoir Rate Case-Application to Gas-Lift and Pumping Wells," J.
permeability. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1974) 93-99; Trans., AIME, 257.
The Jacob and Lohman method using the average 5. Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well
of Constant Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer," Trans.,
flow rate is less accurate and is not recommended. AGU (Aug. 1952) 559-569.
The extrapolation of the semilog straight line in the 6. Clegg, M.W.: "Some Approximate Solutions of Radial Flow
Horner buildup graph to infinite shut-in time gives a Problems Associated with Production at Constant Well
pressure p* which can be used to determine static Pressure," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March 1967) 31-42; Trans.,
AIME,240.
reservoir pressure from the method by Matthews et 7. Sandrea, R.: "An Evaluation of Horner's Approximation in
at. Pressure Buildup Analysis," U. Nacional de Mexico, Mexico
City (1971).
Nomenclature 8. Fetkovich, M.J.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type
B formation volume factor, dimensionless Curves," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1980) 1065-1077.
9. Tsarevich, K.A. and Kuranov, I.F.: "Calculation of the Flow
ct total compresibility, Lt 2 /m Rates for the Center Well in a Circular Reservoir Under
h reservoir thickness, L Elastic Conditions," Problems oj Reservoir Hydrodynamics,
k reservoir absolute permeability, L 2 Part I, Leningrad (1966) 9-34.

112 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

10. Stehfest, H.: "Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms," _ 1
Communications of the ACM(Jan. 1970) 13, No. 1,47-49.
II. Ehlig-Economides, c.A.: "Transient Rate Decline and
NpD (s) = -In-r-D---3-/-4 2/reD2 ]
e
Pressure Buildup for Wells Produced at Constant Pressure," s[ +s
lnreD-3/4
PhD dissertation, Stanford U., Stanford, CA (March 1979).
12. Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: "A Method ........................... (A-6)
for Determination of Average Pressures in a Bounded
Reservoir," Trans., AIME (1954) 201,182-191.
13. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the As before, taking the inverse Laplace transform
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," results in
Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 305-324. reD 2 [ - 21rtDAI (lnreD- 3/4) ]
14. Ferris, J., Knowles, D.B., Brown, R.H., and Stallman, R.W.: NpD(tD) = -2- l-e .
"Theory of Aquifer Tests," Water Supply Paper 1536E,
USGS (1962) 109.
15. Hurst, W., Clark, J.D., and Brauer, E.B.: "The Skin Effect
. .......................... (A-7)
in Producing Wells," 1. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1969) 1483-1489;
Trans., AIME, 246. for tDA <0.1. Fig. 2 is a graph of cumulative
PJoduction vs. time.
For a closed drainage area of arbitrary shape:
APPENDIX A
1 4A
Rate Decline and Cumulative Production PwD (tD) = 27rtDA + -In 2" (A-8)
2 'YCArw
Function for a Well Produced at Constant By arguments similar to those given above, it was
Pressure From the Center of a Closed- shown in Ref. 11 that
Boundary Reservoir
The function presented by Fetkovich 8 for the ex-
ponentially declining rate case resulting from a ), (A-9)
constant-pressure production period in a closed-
boundary reservoir contains a small error. The
correct function is derived from the expression for
pseudosteady-state pressure drawdown resulting and
from constant-rate production. This expression for a
=~
closed-boundary circular reservoir is given by
NpD(tD) [1-exp ( -47rtDA
27rr w
PwD (tD) =2t D lreD 2 + lnreD - 3/4 ....... (A-I)

for reD2~103 and t D >0.I7rreD 2 . Applying the

lIn 4A
'YCAr w
2)] ............. (A-lO)
Laplace transformation results in
for tDA >t
- pssD .
_ 2 (lnreD-3/4)
Pwd(s) = --2-2 + --=~--.:. ...... (A-2) Replacing r w by r w ' = r we -s corrects for a non-
reD S S zero skin factor.
From the ~rinciple of superposition, van Everdingen
and Hurst 3 showed that APPENDlXB
_ 1
sPwD (s)NpD (s) = ""2' ............... (A-3) Calculation of Pressure Buildup After
s Constant -Pressure Production
SinceNpD(s) =qD(s)/s, When the flow rate has not begun to decline ex-
ponentially during constant-pressure production, Eq.
1
---2~--' .. (A-4) 6 can be approximated by
2/reD p. -P ( .M) rtDJ
-_..!:=::--+s
InreD -3/4 1 ws =1+ J qD (r)p'wD (tpD
Pi-Pwf tpD
Taking the inverse Laplace transform,

1 -21rt DA I(lnreD-3/4)
qD (tD) + lnreD _ 3/4 e
...................... (A-5)

where tDA = tD 17rreD 2 The Fetkovich functions

were defined with 112 in place of the 3/4. The
beginning of the exponential decline period is at
t DA = 0.1. Fig. 1 shows the corrected exponential rate
decline type curve.
From Eqs. A-2 and A-3,
FEBRUARY 1981
'p wD(1 00) =11 (tDJ)' .............. (B-1)
where tDJ -tpD +l:1t<tDN= (tpss),tD=I:lt D , and
qD(tD) -qD(tD I )<o>Ois arbitrarily small.
1 1+
When.o was chosen to be 0.0005, the computed
113
values for lPi -Pws (~tD) ]/[ (Pi -Pwj)qD (tpD)j vs. for tpD <tDN<tD and ~tD >tDN .
log[(t;D+~tD)/~tD] were within less than 1070 of For very long flow periods,
the values for (pws)D(M D ) vs. log
[(tPD+~tD)/~tD] for the constant-rate case. That Pi - P ws (t) =1- 12 (t D - t DN )
is, the solution for pressure buildup after constant- Pi-Pwj
pressure production matched the constant-rate
solution. + [e-a(tD-tDN ) _e-atPDJ . . . . . . . . . (B-4)
When the flow rate is declining exponentially, if
~tD <t DN, Eq. 6 becomes for tpD >tDN , ~tD >tDN , and
Pi -Pws (~t)
p. -P
I WS
(M)
== 1 - I I (t DN) _
~tD-tDN
Y- I
-'---"'--- = 1- 12 (tD) .............. (B-5)
Pi-Pwj
Pi-Pwj 0
for tpD >tDN and ~tD <tDN .
. (eay-1/4Y)dy= 1- II (tDN) - 12 (tD - tDN) Sandrea 7 showed that 12 (tD ) can be ap-
proximated by
............................... (B-2)

for tpD < tDN <tD and ~tD < tDN' where
y=tpD+~tD-7 and a=2Iln(4AI'yCA T w 2 ). The
integrand represents the product of the exponential-
rate-decline function and the integrand of the ex- ........... (B-6)
ponential integral solution, or PwD'
For very long shut-in times,
where " is the exponential of Euler's constant,
,,=1.781 ....
SI Metric Conversion Factor

~
tD-tDN
-a e- aT d7 psi, psig x 6.894 757 E - 03 MPa
tDN
= 1 - I I (t DN) - 12 (t D - t DN ) SPEJ
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office March
+ [e-a(tD-tDN) _e-atDNJ . . . . . . . . (B-3) 5, 1979. Paper accepted for publication Nov. 29, 1979. Revised manuscript
received Oct. 14, 1980. Paper (SPE 7985) first presented at the SPE 1979
California Regional Meeting, held in Ventura, April 1820.

114 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL