‘6P

13Y A XUC I,E. AllIIXPLOS1ON:

>:
PROJECT G.M313UGGY
7
A. E. Sherwood

La\vrcnce Radiation Laboratory, “University of California

Livermore, California

ABSTRACT

,
A simplified model is proposed for transient flow in an underground

r~aumal gas reservoir containing a gas well created by a nuclear explosion.

The usual assumptions of radial flow with an effective well radius are made,

b~~ zti.e efiem of a large wellbore storage volume is accounted for. A

a—
solc~ion is, given to a linearized version of the gas flow equations which

# ple and useful forms for small or large time. Model

reduces to -

parameters are determined using well pressure-time data from the Gasbuggy

experimer.z, and good agreement is obtained between calculations and

rr.easuremer.ts for nearly one year following detonation. Calculations are

also made and compared with measurements of transient pressure in a

85
nearby moni;or weil and the change in Kr concentration in the nuclear

\“/
c 11.

‘:Work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Atomic Energy commission.

 -2-

‘1’:lc fi~’st. joint govcl’lllll cllt-illclllst[.y experiment (Project Gasbuggy),

usi~~g :~~1u::.lcl.g~soulKi nuclear explosive to stimulate production from a low-

pcrlll L’LL!)ilAL)” !Oa~ l.~scl.v~i~., was dctonat.ccl o:l Dccembcr 10, 1967, near

I.’~.l.lllirlgton, A’ew h~cxico. A brief history of the project and summary of

1 2,3 of
results to l“cbruary 1!)69 has been given, and more general reviews

und~’1.glwu:ki :ILLclc2ar explosion phenomena and potential industrial uses are

available. There are two major aftereffects of a nuclear explosion (deeply

buried in law -porosity, competent rock) most important to reservoir

siimula~ion and to any discussion of transient flow behavior; the existence

of a nLiclcar chimney with a large void volume and shock-wave induced

fr~cmring of reservoir rock far out into the reservoir.

The lypi Wi ‘---”

Chmlllcy is a roughly cylindrical: fragmented rubble zone
e
~~:al~l, forllled \\,it]lin minutes after detonation by collapse of the cavitY
.
)
crea~eci by ;he explosion. The chimney height is usually several times the

cz~-ity radius and, with appropriate explosive yield and location, may

c’ompleiely penetrate the vertical thickness of gas-bearing sandstone strata.

~=o~t~~lot in~estigation~ 4.
Indicate that the Gas buggy experiment follows this

S-e:leral scenario. The large chimney void volume, regardless of its spatial

distribution, has an important effect on transient flow behavior, analogous

:0 I!lc \$cllborc storage effect in conventional gas or oil reservoir analysis.

Recognition of the large storage volume is essential to any transient flow

.mociel.

The outgoing shock wave5 from the detonation has sufficient strength

to crack rOCk well beyond the chimney radius, although the relationship

(iis between fracturing and permeability increase is not known. Since it is

e
 t m

-4-

0 pres!lot \vells \vcrc of nominal size, and test results were influenced by the

pl.oxinlity of :]atural fractures to the small weU bore. 6 One might not expect

sig:liiica:~t perturbations on ~’adial How during post-shot testing since the

cffccti\-e \vcll l.adius is now comparable to thk reservoir thickness. Elkins7

. . .. :-..
lIGS Li~l~StiOll~.i tile as~iiillpilwil ,.l- ...~~li.~1
W. -=.-- f~oW
... ~-n ~ homo~feneous reservoir, but

lacking cictailcd int’ormation on spatial permeability variation, I make the

assumption l~ith only slight rcscrva.tion.

Pern~c~bility variation near the chimney is a different question. Very -

high pel.nleability is to be expected in ‘the chimney rubble zone, decreasing

rapidly beyond the chimney radius Rc until the background reservoir permeability

is reached at some maximum radius of shoe k-induced fracturing, Iii.

Detailed prediction of the spatial permeability distribution in terms of stress-

wave induced rock failure is an important matter. One might suppose that
4?
permeability,” beyond the chimney zone, should decay with spherical symmetry

D ,.- AL-. .-.kfi+L pOIPLt.

.
measurea IrC31-i-i
LHL =LNJ ~n~ mAw we rely
L-“. ..=. Qn results from the Hardhat Event8 in

gra~. itic rock as a rough guide, and the plot of hypothetical radial permeability

in Fig. 1 roughly follows the Hardhat measurements. To simplify calculations

le: -~s define an effective well radius Rw, Rc < Rw < Rf, as shown in Fig. 1,

u’ith infinite perrne abiiity inside Rw and preshot background permeability beyond

R IYeglec~:ng flow resistance in the chimney is a good approximation if “

\v“
chimney permeability is orders of magnitude higher than the surrounding

reser~”oir. Extending this zone of no flow resistance out to an effectil:e well

radius R ,V \\’ill cause error mainly in the initial stages of a transient flow

problem, 9
as demonstrated by Rodean’s calculations. For a rapidly decaying

permeability-distance function, like that measured on Hardhat, one can infer

e that PL~v will be only slightly smaller than Rf.

e
 -5-

(1)

(2)

l~here p, P, and v are gas density, pressure, and viscosity, respectively, u is

superficial \’ector veloci;y based on total cross-sectional area, and V is the

vector differential operator. Darcy’s equation, as stated above, is an

10 11
empirics; la~~ valid at low flow velocity. Corrections for non-Darcy flow

are often significant close to the well-bore radius of a small-bore conventional

e ~.yell 1 where velocity may be high at typical gas production rates. For a

nuclear ~~ell with large effective well radius, rough calculations indicate that
D
Zq. (2) \viU be valid at the well radius and beyond. Combining Eqs. (1) and

(Z) ~i~re~, for radial flow with constant k and +

(3)

Gas density may be written in the form

MP
P=~, (4)
s 81

-(i-

m Ihe local rock matrix temperature even in a flow situation, since the g~~

:s n~o~’in: very slowly at typical well production rates. The preshot re:iervoir

rock is essc:ltially isothermal, except for the geothermal gradient whicl~

j:~t~:.\-ai. ~il~s ~lllal~ effect is about the same as the vertical pressure

\“ariation over Lhc Gas buggy reservoir due to gravity, which has alreacl~’

‘~ee:l neglected. NIost of the energy of the nuclear explosion is depositwl

as thermal energy close to the detonation point, and non-isothermal eff~~cts

~x.~11
.. **-. h= mos~ noticeable
w- ---- in the chimney region where such effects becom~~

e part of the reservoir boundary condition.

Eventually there will be small temperature changes in the reserwlir

D
~ue to heat flow from the chimney region. For a rough estimate, consiilering

:ht? explosive energy to be a point source, one can calculate that rock at

;kree cavity radii will rise very slowly to a maximum of about 2 percent, over

arn’bient absolute :ernperature~ this maximum occurring about 30 years ~f ter

de:onatio.n ;i.me.

Assum,ing reservoir gas temperature is constant, and putting Eq. (~)

i:m (3) gives

(5)
t. Di
-7-
I
1

solution b$, numerical

be estimated reasonat>ly
F,

\vi211. To make .possiblc a simplified analytical solution, assume H and z are

and linearize Eq. (5) by
constant since their pressure dependence is minor,

(6)

~yi~ere P is constant and defined as the reservoir pressure far from the well.
o
equation in porous media has been
T!lc a~cura~> of linearization of the gas flow
>.<
error as gas well pressure approaches
smdied, ‘ ~11~ S1lOWS diminishing

reser~roir pressure.

Equation (S), with the above assumptions, becomes

(?)

linearized differential Eq. (7) for gas flow in the

In more concise form, the

~~servoir is

(8)

::(+%’
1

‘<’<m’””’
r= # (distance relative to well radius)

I&wot
7=— (climensionlcss time)
+9 R;

2
e NP2-P .
Q
0
‘SSCC tii~ review in Ref. 10, Chap~cr 5.
9. 6,

-8-

ConstaRt IIrcliilead IUass Flow Rate Boundary Condition

40 Suppose that gas is withdrawn at the wellhead at a constant mass flow

l’ate p Q , ~vllcrc Q s is tile volume flow rate at standard density p~ = AMsps/3 Ts.
Ss
The mass flow rate across the reservoir boundary Rw is, in gen~ral, not .
*
equal to the ~~ellhead flow rate if the well has a finite storage volume. In a

conventional \vell, the storage volume is essentially the tubing volume between

v’ellhead and reservoir, and may often - ---~

“be neg~ec LHA ~i~~~e it is Of t’ne order C)f

~ fcw ;;-uIIdrd
cubic feet. In a nuclear chimney well. the storage volume is of

the order of se~’eral million cubic feet, clearly not negligible.

Equating the mass flow rate into the well to the accumulation plus

~r:e~i~:~~d output rate gives .

e
(-PuA)~+~
w
=
(Vw+
dp

)_R<R
w
-%QS’ (9)

~vhere A ii the boundary area at Rw, Vlv and Pw are the well volume and
D
der. sizy, anti tlhe other symbols have been defined.

it is assumed, by taking VIV outside the +:-a ~=~ivative

~~i~~=u-- -. in Eq
-“
(9), that

v:e~l volume does not change with time as it might, for example, if there were

an. appreciable infl’ux of water into the chimney.

~OW in ternls of the reservoir -A-7 (~i~ 1), Vw is the total gas
rLUUGA,.-b. .

\roluEle cont~ine~wi~hin the well radius R and in this case the tubing volume
w’
to ;he well!lead is insignificant. If the effective weU radius is considerably

lar=er than the chimney radius there may be a significant gas volume contained

in ~ke pore space out to Rw.

 .(J _

As a rcnl@ appl’oximatioll,

\~ = v + +1 R2 (lo)
\\’ c %V‘

7
~y!lcre T:,- is the cavity volume created by the explosion, initially spherical
L

ad distributed through the chimney region during cavity collapse. The above

equation is incorrect using- preshot porosity + and assumes the cavity volume

is created enrirely by rock displacement, neglecting compaction or bulking

effects. It is not necessary, however; to use Eq. (10) other than to infer that “
at ~ea~t ~ ~ ~06 ~t3
the well ~’olume V is larger than the cavity- voY~4me, 1. e. ,
w
‘aas,ed on :ke estimated 6 Gasbuggy cavity radius of 78 ft.

The gas well density pw in Eq. (9) may be written in the same form

M ,V P,v
Pw = Z\\r~ Tw (11)
“

ITiePL press~re Pw is cor.stant throughout the well region (chimney and fractured

zone) by dhe assump:mn -f ~;

W~ fih ‘.
L4A5.Z nerrneability,
. but it is, of course, time-dependent.

ItTell temperature Tw is an average over the well region. It has been observed

011Gas buggy, fro-m measured gas temperatures during the first year postshot,

zhat T \v is significantly higher than ambient reservoir temperature T and

increasing slowly with time. Subscripting the molecular weight in the well, Mw,

is ari added complication necessary for a nuclear stimulated reservoir if

resid’dal C~I.;~Y gas molecular weight (average, based on gas cOAm~OSitiQn)

d~ifers sign~ficantly from reservoir gas molecular weight M. MW was about

 -1o-

S13percc:’.t ;]igl~e~. lhall M prior to [luw-testing the Gasbuggy well, tJccausc of

,
12
o The value of Mw docs~’t change
I.he hiSh CO., colltcnt of tllc chimney gas.

::lIIC!l L)\~c’r 2 sllol.t interval of well lcsting”, but is time-dependent over long

~l-entually approach IVI as the original chimndy gas is withdrawn and replaced

b}” reser~wir gas. From this discussion then, the correct time derivative

of well derisity can be written

and the time dependence of the logarithmic term should be estimated and

included in any numerical c? ?.culation that pretends to be exact.

For an approximate analytical solution, neglect the logarithmic term

in Eq. (12) and linearize the boundary condition as in Eq. (6) by writing

(13)

Pnrn’tlifqi:lr:
bu...:y . . . . ..y Ihc above wii!l Eq. (9) and introducing the same r, T, and A

tieiir,it.io:-~s as in differential Eq. (8) gives the boundary equation

f%)r+~=i(%)r=,
-” ‘>0,
(14)

_. . . ———
 (dimensionless capacity ratio)

and 1

Q/?=p ZMs T
q. (wcllheacl flow rate, pressure squared
rk h M T~
dimensions)

The a in Eq. (14) is a dimensionless quantity, and the symbol has

.zlhaws it re~resents a
been borrowed from the heat conduction literature ,, ..*. _ . . .

thermal capacity ratio. For fluid flow it represents essentially (since the

C’s
a- physical property ratios are near unity) twice the ratio of the well region

gas volume, if filled wit’n rese-rvoir rock> to the actual weU volume. For the

Gzsbuggy lvell, a is approximately 0.8. Neglecting the well volume amounts

e
10 letting ~ + a, giving the cylindrical surface SUUrCe appr~~imation” The

B acidi~ional step of letting R\t, + O gives the line source approximation which
13
is the principal mathematical basis for oil and gas well test analysis.

The recognition of finite well volume is known in the literature as the wellbore
14
s:orage effect, and was first treated analytically by van Everdingen and Hurst.

The effect is only important in typical gas well drawdown tests for times of

i.he order of hours, after which the line source approximation becomes valid.

The main use of van Everdingen and Hurstls wor]< has been to provide a

conservative time estimate, after which the storage effect may be neglected.

pmeyl~ predicted in 1965 that “It is doubtful that wellbore storage will be

G,,
-- important factor in long-time buildup or drawdown testing.1’ He did not

ioresee a ne~v technology. In a nuclear chimney well, the storage effect wifi

--. .. —-.
* B>

-12-

The initial Gasbuggy chimney pressure buildup

0 be important for a long tirnc.

is aIl csample of the wellbore storage dl’cct uncomplicated by external wellhead

I1OW, ald chimney pressure was still increasing slowly toward reservoir

pressLIre six nlonths after detonation.

Y

Reservoir and Chimney Well Initial Conclition

Assume that initially the reservoir is everywhere at the constant

reserl-oir pressure P’ while the chimney weU region may be at a different

o’
initial pressure Pi. If one chooses to start calculations long after the nuclear

cleton:ltioll, wllcn tl~c chinlney well is essentially at reservoir pressure, Pi may

be set Cqual to PO. If one wishes to start calculation a few minutes after

detonation time, then a step-change initial condition should be good approximation

since the chiiiiney 1s usua~iy r---..!

LULL.LGU
in -----
~pronds
. . .
or minutes, which is virtually

inszantaneo”~s compared to the time scale for reservoir gas movement. P.

0 —
1
represent> then, the pressure of noncondensible cavity gases along with a

F contribution from reservoir gas in the fractured region out to the well radius.

l~e write the initial condition:

hi, Osr<l
~. r =0, (15)
o, l<r<cs’
1

where
● b

-13- 1

The sol~;tion to the dil’fcrc]~tial Ec]. (8), with boundary condition (14)

~:ld initial condition (15), has been found by th’e Laplace transform method f

<or the analogous heat conduction problem, T and may be written I

/
i

I
~
(16)

where F and C, are functions of r, a, and T discussed in the Appendix. We are z

I
p:-imarily interested in the pressure within the chimney well, i. e. F(l, a, T)

and G(1, c<,T) ~~hich, for convenience, will be calied simply F(T) and G(T).

-.~: ~.i~]~er ~n~~~] or AU*

‘1-~fifi
~=
.,-.l>~m”
VCA1UC,3
-F
UL
+:—a
LLJIIU,
nl_\
11 fl ~ dIIUU(T)
_. -.] ol—\ 1-----
naVe Sirnp~e ai~e’brai C rt

forms to be discussed shortly. Equation (16) reduces to a single term in !

— _.: ----- -.. ____
-. AaLLons m’here A . =Oorq=O.
LY

@B 1

~,ewalizat:o:: !Iv Superposition for Variable Rate I

I
Tile a’hove solution is based on a constant wellhead mass flow rate i
I
[
;~Q~, or q in z~c kmg”uage of Eq. (14). One would like to describe reservoir Ik

“~~1-.ak-ior for the case of variable wellhead flowrate, which includes the common
1
zes; situaiiofi ~vhere flowrate is held constant for a time and then shut off to .

“ L,,>
=-_ ---6:.press~re ‘O~ildup. We generalize boundary condition (14) to read

W31eT,2 no~,v q(~) lS an arbitrary, externally controlled variable related, directly

t
~~ ,.=.e,.~.l
.-. .~.,.e wellhead flow rate by the numerical factors defined in Eq. (14).
~

*
‘See
Carsla]v and Jaeger, 16 Chapter 13.7 and references therein, where the
I
sol-u: ion is given for the two separate cases of finite A I
A = 0. i, q = O, and finite q,
-,
B 1
I
 -14-

Til C s~~lution to the diffcrcntiul equation for variul>le q(T) fOllOWs from
16
akO Calkd the
~!lu. s,>hltion ior i’ixcd q by tl~c use of Duhanlclts theorem,
14
and the resulting equation is

*
supm.pos~tio:l principle,

~=~i +J F(T)
T

o
q(x) 2-
&
G(T-A)dX.

..
(18)

.
although written above only for
whicil holds at any point in the reservoir,

th well pres~ure” SUppos e that q(7) changes in a discontinuous stepwise

manner and is represented by

(19)

and qm probably will be zero to allow pressure

-+.:-.y of z.he ~j may be zero
Eq. (19) may still be used”
‘S:ildup. ii q(r) cilarLges in a continuous manner-,
the continuous function by
v:ith as much accuracy as desired by approximating
(18) gives
Putting Eq. (19) into
small, staircase increments.

(20)
G(T - Tn)
A = Ai F(7) + qO G(T) + (qn - qn-l) ●

2
n=l
s. a

-15-

extcmi O!lly L!lr<m:g”h tcrnl j lk’ere T < T \“ 7-.

J+l”
J
Equation (20), along with the cicfinition of the functions 1? and G in the

Appcnciix, allows calculation of the complctc pressure-time WCU behavior

cicring nuclear chimney well testing, within the accuracy of the linearization

approximation and other model assumptions. The equation is a natural

extension of tllc ~vorl< of van Everdingen and Hurst $ to ~ situation where

wellllore storage is important.

In addition to a pressure-time calculation, one would like to predict the

concen~ration -ti.me behavior of radioactive or other chemical species leaving

t~he c’nimney region, due to dilution by reservoir gas influx. This requires a

:LnAo\~~edge of the actual influx rate of gas into the well, together with a
17
o cescrip~ion of chimney gas behavior such as a perfect-mixing or displacement

m.ociel.
)
E the mass flow rate into the well is ps(Qs)R , where (Qs)R is the
w w
}-alxne flow rate at standard density ps entering the well at Rw, then

7-

‘see Eq. (1~~-13) of Ref. 14. The cited work is based on flow of a slightly
ccx.mqressible liquid, but linearized gas flow is equivalent to liquid flow with
sorae c}i~rlges in definition. Our constant mass flow rate is replaced by
constant ~~olurne rate for liquid flow and A becomes PO - P. In the definition
c: ~, P(I is replaced by /3-1 where P is liquid compressibility, and their
cie~inition of q applies.

6
e
1 _iG -

I
(21)

For Lilt case of ~-ariable wellhead rate, with q(~) expressed by Eq. (19), by
Y
using Eqs. (17) and (20) we find

j
A.
a~ 1 dl~(~)
_——-qo F(T)- (qn - ‘n-l)
()‘r~r=l=qj Q dT 2
n.1

F(T - Tn) , (22)

andJ as before’ ‘j < T< ‘j+l “

Constant Pressure Boundary Condition

For gas production over an extended period, well pressure is often

held constant and wellhead flow rate is the variable of interest. The linearization

IZqs. (6) and (1 3) will always be in error, especially if well pressure is held far

‘selow reservoir pressure, and this case is best handled by numerical methods. In

Con:rasz, ciu~-ing well testing at constant or ~-ariable rate. there will be times

.,,”,;,. ~ p. the linearized solution is accurate anti useful, in particular when the

well pressure is either approaching or departing from reservoir pressure.

For a nuclear stimulated reservoir, ~<;ellbore storage should still enter

:,..
. ..LU
A -nlo,ll~finns
LuALu A.--..
-..
— for the constant pressure boundary condition in the sense that

-“
-.T is unreaiis~ic to assume that well pressure is dropped immediately to the

~e~ired level, when in fact it may take weeks to get there because of the large

s.iorage capacity.

E flow time is large? the quasi stead y- state equation of Aronofsky and
18
Jer. kins will provide a good approximation to the wellhead flow rate.
 -17-

III. Gasbcggy Cllinlllcy Pressure ~~eas~lre~~lcnts and’ Calculations

0
prcssul=c mcasurcmcnts are available from the chimney we 11(designated

C,13-ER) stamin: at 32 ~iays after tllc December 10, 1!367 detonation date.

\\’hlch lncluacs the :-.. + rlfi,,, +0<+

ThiS rc:ort CLJVC~’Stllc pcri~~ o-~~o days, “ ‘ - ‘ fll”b L JLVV. .=-.

pcl.iod froill 9ol_~17

- day5 followed ~Y pressure buildup to 330 days.

- During the period 0-201 days, small amounts of gas were withdra-w-n at

the lvdihe~d. for Ws ~Il~lYsisJ which produced pressure perturbations of only

a few psi anti‘ i~hich. arc neglected in the calculations. During this period,

wellhead pressure was measured with a Heise gauge graduated in l-psi

19
increments to 1500 psig. Wellhead pressures have been corrected for

the gra~tiiy i]cad, to the preshot reference depth of 4150 ft, by numerically

integrating dp ‘ pg dh, using the geothermal temperature gradient most of

t;-le \’;ay ao\\”~lI~UL

... .h;f+;ma
=LILL ....~
to
.
~n- ~ssumed constantchimney temperature Of

e ~?oo~ :le~r ~~oo ft.

Two different equations of state produced the same

res-dlt ~vithin a few psi.

From 201-330 clays a Kuster bottom-hole pressure gauge was used, arid

co~.parison of the IIeise gauge plus the calculated head correction with the

l<”ds~er gauge, located at a depth of 3790 ft, shows agreement within 2 psi

~. “~o~ ~:~y~. A small head correction has been made to subsequent Kuster

g~~~ge .nleas’cre~i ep.:~ to correct to the reference depth of 4150 ft.

Press~re measurements are shown on Fig. 2. The rapid decrease in

.pl.~~s~~~ ., +hA> ,,,

n * t}~e wellhead according
s~~rtlng at 201 days :S Cille 10 gd~
-s- - --. :
WLL1lUA ~VVA. ~. . .

IO Ike ilow rate schedule given in Table 1. The calculated pressure-time

c><:-~re~ o~&~~g. 2 are based on physical property and model parameter data

svm-.marized in Table 2. Reservoir gas and chimney well gas molecular weight,

Co.mpxsslbility factor, and viscosity are based on gas composition data given
o
o
 -18-
1

I
0 ::1 Ta’ble 3. Chimney gas average rnolccular weight M w decreased by about

CJge~~~::: between 201 and 330 days, although this change is ignored in the

@yJ~~-(~~Ils, and compressibility factor Zw is insensitive to the composition

changes Occurriw. Zw is evaluated at temperature Tw and pressure Po,

~r!~ile Z is based on T and PO. Reservoir temperature T is based on preshot

mc!asurenlcntsj and chimney temperature Tw is estimated from postshot

nlea~~re~~~ellts.

For one-dimensional calculations, it is unnecessary to specify +, k,

arid h separately, only the porosity-thickness, +h, and the permeability -

~hic~ne~s ~dl must be known. The reservoir thickness is about 300 ft,

~~ar~i]lg from a depth of about 3900 ft, although only about 150 ft has

s.=-ficient permeability and porosity to be productive. The @h value in

Table 2 is based on preshot measurements averaged over the entire interval.

e

z s:imate of Pi and Rlv

i
Tiie :m.osI uncertain parameter in the proposed reservoir model is the
“.
e~:~c~i~~e Ii,.& radius AR
J although
\\, if the model makes any sense Rw ought

zo Ple beti~een the expected cavity radius (80 ft) and the predicted maximum

:rzc~2r:2g radius (390 ft).

~he initial pressure buildup after detonation offers an opportunity to

es;inlate Rl~r. h a real sense, the first gas flow lftestl’ is occurring during
-.
1:::s period. H chimney pressure measurements are delayed by reentry
-:----- .
,! .-,- ~t-..~ <=<++01 nvn~~ll~~ P. can be estimated by extrapolation.
‘: -~~’ii~, LLi C,A lil L1. AO_* p. b- u.... v - ;
L

in the linearized solution, Eq. (20), is needed since

l“-.”. .~~~ ,1.,,,Q

lUL UC4JW, ~:~~ for this time period

A = Ai I?(T) . (23)
.. 1

.l(J-

~’si]lg the small time ‘C?xpansion of ~J(T), [ Eq. (A-7), one finds, after substituting

cicfinitions and rearranging,

(24)
I?2=P; +set l/~&...,
1

\Yllei’C Se is the slope of E’2 versus tl/2, early after detonation, and is given by

(25)

~ is directly proportional to R and thus Rw may be calculated if the other

e W$

parameters in Eq. (25) are known. Recalling that the linearized solution

understates both reservoir and chimney well capacity by replacing P with PO

1/2
in Eqs. (6) and (13), I recommend that P~/2 replace PO in Eq. (25) when

using it to estimate RIl,.

Figure 3 shows a plot of P’ versus t 1/2 for the 201 -clay pressure buildup

period. Unfortunately, the extrapolation from 34 to O days is long, although

the method of plotting suggested by the model is helpful. The second term

o: Eq. (.%-7) is useful in estimating the time beyond which one will see

curvature on Fig. 3. For a > 1/2, the curvature will be negative. From
4 1/2.
Fig. 3, it is estirna;ed that Pi = 800 psia, and Se = 6.4 X 10 psia2 - day .

Il?ith y’alues of M, PO, and Vw estimated below, Eq. (25) gives Rw r = 180 ft.

It is interesting to consider whether or not an extrapolated initial

pressure Gf 200 psia is reasonable, by an alternative argument. Initial

presscre res~~lts from mixing chimney gas with reservoir gas contained in

the p~:e space out to R since within the framework of the model the chimney
w’
well volume includes both chimney and fractured zone volume. Pressure

equilibration within this region is probably very rapid, and becomes

 -20-

instantaneou~ u’itl~ the assumption of an infinitely pcrmcablc fract.prcd zone.

Neglecting corrections for temperature> molecular Weight} and gas non-id ealitY3

p. is silll~~j’ a volume average of chimney and fractured zone initial pressures.

1
ll-ith a total well volume Vw = 7
-. 8 X 106 ft3 (~iscussecl below), the fractured
6 ~t3 as
zone is 29 percent of the total volume if the cavity volume is 2.0 X 10

predic~ed. If Eq. (10) is used with R = 1S0 ft then the fractured zone is
w
39 percent ii the t~tal volume. Assume that chimney gas consists initially of

lsater vapor and the noncondensible cavity gases CQ2, Co, and Hz. The partial

pressure of the latter three species is nearly consthnt from 34 to 201 clays at
12
dbout 530 psia, althouch there is probably some chemical reaction occurring

and perhaps some additional C02 generation by carbonate rock decomposition

aue to late time heat flow from the region of detonation. Adding 30 psia of

~’;ater vapor pressure (250°F) gives a rough total chimney gas initial pressure

a
0< 5S0 psia. Using 1170 psia reservoir pressure (discussed below) in the

) iractured zor. e and a fractured zone between 29 and 39 percer~t. of total volume

Y+~-es ~n e~; imated chimney ~vell initial pressure Pi between 750 and 810 psia,
5’

irl gOOd agreement with the 800-psia extr~poktiorla

The lineariz d solution also allows reservoir pressure P. and permeability

thic}mess kk. to be estimated from the initial 201 -day pressure buildup period.

“Using Eci. (23), with the large time expansion of F(7), Eq. (A-9) gives

-p 2 =P:+
%
T+..., (26)
 -1
~yhere SP , tile slope of 1>2 versus t long after detonation, is given by
i

~_ p~ lNI~Tz’ v
-sl
1
=~
(‘O i )(lM Tw Zw
)
__Y-&
P* h “
(27)

non-linear solution as well pressure approaches

-1
plot of P2 versus t , from which it is estimated that
-1
= 1170 psia. and -Sl = 3.3 X 107 psiaz . day . The preshot estimate6 of
‘o
P. is 1030 psia, compared to an estimate of 1260 psia in the earlier feasibility
~o
mxi>-. Rcsardless of how one extrapolates to infinite time, it is difficult to

believe that reservoir pressure could be much less than the measured value

of roughly 1100 psia at 201 clays. We have been neglecting temperature

i:-icreases in ti]e chimney gas due to late-time heat flow, but rough calculations

i~idi~a~e t!la~ ul~reasonably large heat fluxes and associated rates of temperature

c!:ange would be requlreci ‘O<” “hirnney

to si,is~a.,, ~. A....-.- well pressure more than a few psi

–*. ----- -=cnplrfli~

~~’JK~ ic au. .e. i
press~~re. On the assumption that temperature changes are

o:-ly a small perturbation, and with Eq. (26) as a guide, one should be able to

ex::apola~e IO irtiir.i:e time with reasonable accuracy to get Po. It should be

noteci that the details of the permeability distribution near the well are not “

1--
~aAA~ol-~antat ~a~e ilme when the pressure gradient is spread far into the reservoir,
.

=nd R\V does riot appear in Eq. (27).

F ro~. the slope of the curve at large time, with Vw as estimated below, kh

to be 9 millidarcy-feet. According to the preshot estimate, 6 kh lies

20
1 LO 3 md-ft, while the feasibility study used 26 md-ft. Since the
.. ... .
test well was wltnln ~+ “.
200 .L mr +h=
,.Aw ~~imne~
. . . . .. . well, one might expect better
●☛

-22-

pressul “L.
‘-bLlildu~ period ~01 days,
COVCFS 4 and the apparent kh value represents

an av-erage o~-er a considerably larger reservoir volume.

.

Chimney well volume Vw may be experimentally determined by withdrawing

g-as from :ke ~~ell at a constant rate Q~. As a z eroth approximation, equating

output rate TO depletion and neglecting gas influx from the reservoir, one gets

(28)

,~,~ere ~p is the pressure drop in the well over flow time interval ~t~ and the

ozher symbols have been defined.

For a bet~er approximation one can estimate reservoir gas influx from

Zc.s. (22), (&4.7) and (A-g) which lead, after integration over the finite interval
,.
hq to

(29)

. () 1’2ASJ.M6T+..
‘17-F-
4L2 t)7- ., 2
(30)

(31)
 .~~-

~~ilcl’c c ~ rd;>rcsc[its a col’rection 10 the xeruth approximation duq to reservoir ‘

0
~“.~s inililx i(l!lolvil]~- i~.om tile controlled withdrawal rate. In Eq. 120), &7 is the

- .1.r:,.,,,,
] . . Vnfr.
tiilllc?llslt))ll~’Ss ti~nc corlwspo(lding. 10 tit., a;l(i- CYhas l)ec Il UL’L1ll UU. -r . . . ~hat

c,L —03s (57 — 0, as Ollc would expect. C2 is a correction arising if the

~lliiillld)- ~i~’li is not :~t reservoir pressure at the time [dirnensionlcss time r
1
i:] Eq. (~ ~)] fC1ll~kVillg detonation wllcn the controlled gas withdrawal begins.

~>:~;cr syn]bols in Eq. (31) have been defined.

Irrom tl~c measurements of flowrate and pressure drop between 201 and

207 days, (T-lV)o is calcula~ed to be 3.3 X 106 ft3, and after including the

- correction terms (E2 turns out to be negligible in this case) Vw is found to be

9
-. ~X io~ fi3 . The reader will note that estimating Vw, kh and ptw from the

experimental data involves the three equations (25), (27), and (29) which are

most cor.~wniently satisfied by a few trial-and-error iterations.

e
Calculated Chimney Well Pressure-Time History
;y>
Calcuiat.ed and measured chimney well pressures are shown on Fig. 2,

~~,i~;l caic-~lations based on the data of Table 2, estimated by the methods

<isc’ussed Qbove. The broken curve is the linearized solution, represented

by Eq. (20). The solid curve is based on identical assumptions, except

>::
Calc’dations were done on a CDC-3600 computer, and are believed to be
accura:e to ~vithin about 0.1 percent. The linearized calculation, involving
a si.mp~e numerical integration, requires about an order of magnitude less
.-, . . ---- ~.. f;fi+t~- differences.
co=~puter time than numerical calculat~u~l Uy i A...

.—----- ------ .--. .. —..._a _-< -..: ._ . . . . _- _. . .. . . .

. . . . .——
 t:latlzqs. (G) and (13) arcllot. Llsccl, and the cliff crcntial equation and boundary
21
c~>:]~ii~iOll al’~ kept in nonlinear form and solved by a numerical method.

T;lc disagrc~:~-~e:lt bctwccn the numerical results and the linearized analytical

~o~utioll is ~:la~itativelY
. consistent with what one would expect, considering that
i
the effect c>: linearization is to underestimate the storage capacity of both

good agreement with measured pressures

-a+ 0L4.
LLWL
.),mh~i~ino
y. .b..-~
since model parameters

of measurements up to this time. From

~o~ to ~~() days the model is being tested in a predictive sense, and Fig. 2

Shclu’s good, although not quite quantitative, agreement between calculated

and measured pressure. Abrupt changes in the pressure-time curve between

200 and 220 days, due to wellhead flowrate changes, show up clearly in the

model calculations.

IT-. Gasbuggy .~ressure-Time History at a Radius of 310 Feet

.L. J flD 9RC) QVQ

Pressi:re measurements in a nearby we~l (ciesignamu UD-AALUJ ---

si-,ov:~. on Fig. 5 alor.g with the model prediction, by nonlinear numerical

“Caiculaiion, o: pressure at a radius of 310 ft from the chimney well.

The sudden oscillations in measured pressure between 200-250 days -

are caused by gas withdrawal from GB-2RS during well completion and

d-uring several short-term flow tests. The amount of gas withdrawn is

43
reia~ively small, about 4 X 10 ft . but sufficient to cause large temporary

~G~.d perturb= zions in pressure and prevent quantitative comparison with the

calculations during this peqiod. From 250-330 days, the discrepancy between
.
measured ana ea..ln,,l~t~~ nre~sure
w.~.. - ~ is roughly what one wo~d expect, based

@ on the amount o: gas withdrawn locally.

.. s

disappe~ra lIL’.C by radioactive decay leads to

(Qs)~{
P
,,1 (s-)= - [ -—s —w ~?> (32)
Pw v
w

‘.I.”:.
crc Ci is Zhe initial cone.c>ntration, after chimney formation, but prior to
4!) ..;-.
.~
. “~”+o:l
.. ...- by i’loyv of reservoir gas. In terms of the reservoir model, Ci contains

._ c crtain amount of built-in dilution since t~le total am’ount of radioactive

*
m.a;erisl is assumed to spread immediately after cavity collapse throughout

-..
...e chimney ‘.’:eil volume which includes both the cavity volume and the pore
~?. ~.e out to the well radius. Let the total initial curies of the radioactive
S’>ace vv-Ll---

nuclicle oi” ir.:erest. be C, then

(33)

One o;:en associates a perfect mixing *model with a simple exponential

i~~li.qe d co~. centration witfi time. Equation (3~) reduees to this case only

‘ib~ cons~an; ~~iell density pw, and constant reservoir gas inflow rate (Qs) ~ .
w
*Caic-LlaZic,:. , of reservoir gas flow rate into the chimney are shown on ~%. ~
e

..- .. . —- ..— .—— -

 -26-

based tile linc~~izcd s~lu~iona Eels. (21) and (22), and also by the more
a’ oil

Influx is large near zero time because of the

e.xa~I numerical calculation.

assk:mcd sicp-change in initial pressure, and the abrupt changes in influx

.
~+~:. ..}~i dal.s ~rc ixl respO1l~e to the sudden changes in wellhead flowrate in
.
9
T~b~~ 1.
85
One of the long-lived radioactive contaminants of interest is Kr .
~~ ,. . . .
.%ssu:~.ing C = 350 curies, ar.d with other quarltities ir. Eq. (33) taken from ““~
-

3 (QOC, 1 atm). 85
Table 2, then c. = 11 1 pcl/cAm A plot of Kr concentration,
1
obtained by integration of Eq. (32) using the numerical solutiorl +----
~U~ (QS)R
22
and p,,?, is shown on Fig. 7 along with measured concentrations. It seewms
..
likely that perfect mixing does not prevail, especially during fiow testing

~-ter 201 days when there appears to be considerable by-passing of uncontaminated

reservoir gas. The calculations show only a slight decrease in concentration

(s from about 30 days until the start of flow testing which is consistent with the

.~i~a~ur~men:s, although the absolute values disagree.

T-z. Cor.clusiox

~Yit:l a simple ~adia~ flow model, which includes the effect of well-bore

.sZorzge, it has been possible to obtain good agreement with Gasbuggy chimney

pressure m.easuremients for nearly one year following detonation. Chimney

~vcL ad reservoir parameters have admittedly been determined using data

Gve:’ Ii:c U:.:-SZ seven months, but the numerical values are all reasonably

close tG preshot estimates, except perhaps for reservoir permeability.

The linearized solution to the gas flow equations is nGt very accurate

in comparison to the finite difference numericai soiution, ~u~ ~~~e ~~m>p~e

.. b
-27-

quatio;’s LiL’\-L210pcd l’or early UIKI l,CILCtimes during initial pressu’fc buildup

are quite lis.?flll in dctcrnlinill~ cllimncy well parameters and reservoir

The estcnded period of pressure change foiiowing detonation and prior

~
to gas flo~v testing provides an opportunity for analysis which is nonexistent

in a con~-entional well with small storage volume. The main requirement is

~~t~le~.
h~g.!~efi or lower, It would be desirable to develop a method of quickiy

reestablishi]]g communication with the nuclear chimney after detonation, in

order 10 make full use of this early pressure-time history.

The second year of gas flow testing will provide a more severe test

of t!le proposed model. Eventually, one would like to be able to predict the

spatial per.r. eabiiity distri’o-ution resulting from nuclear explosive fracturing

and inclutie this in a two-dimensional calculation.

I would like to ih2nk A. L. Edwards for discussions on the application

O: !2~s ...~.
!. =:- ilow comp~ter program to problems of gas flow in porous media.

The experimental measurements used in this report are a result of

::,e combi~;ed efforz of the many people and organizations involved in the -

Gzsbuggy project.
-~:)’. 11’ll;lci:(l!ls 1“ :~nd G 01 LIIC Constant Rate Problcrn

Th~> iunctiolls 11’(r, c?,T) and G(r, G’, ~) of Eq. (16) arc g“iven below, following
16 i? cie~~rilbe~ the p~~~sure decay after an initial Stcp-
c;aissia\v a~~d Jaeger.

clia.ll:gc pl. cs sure difl’ercncc between reservoir and WC1l, while G describes the

pl.e~~tlre Cha:lge accompanying a constant wellhead mass removal rate. The

dimensionless quantifies r, a, and .T have been defined in Eqs. (2) and (14).

~
a
f(u, r, a) e-Tu4 du (A-1)
# 17(r, a, ‘r) ‘ # g(u, cl)
J
o

~a f(u, r, a)(l - e-Tu2) ~u (A-2)

G(I’> ~. 7) = # “
J U2 g(u, a.)
o

in tlhe abotie, u is a dummy variable of integration, and f(u, r, ~) and g(u, ~)

are defined by

i(u, r, a) = Jo(ur) [u Ye(u) - ~ Yl(u)] - Yo(ur) [u Jo(u) - ~ ‘l(u)]

g(uj a) = [u Jn(u) - a Jl(u)]2 + [u Ye(u) - Q Y1(U)]2

Ji and Yi are Bessel function of integer order i, of the first and second
23
;:l~.d, res~eczively, in the usual notation of Watson.

—
 -29-

1, the above l’educe to

.At ti~c well r:ldi~~s, r =

(A-3)

(A-4)

It shouILd also be noted that, at fixed r and a,

been used in deriving Eq. (22).

and this rel~tion has
and
For a ~vell with small volume a — ~,

@ (A-5)
~? (1,(0,7) = o

0 CG 2
‘TU (A-6)
du
G(l, @,~) ‘~
T J U3 [J$) ~ Y:(u)]
0.

simply that an initial pressure change is of no cor~sequence

Zquation (A-s) means
Equation (A- 6) is the continuous cylindrical
in an iti~a~ize~ vje’1 of zero volume.
-+<-- .n~ i~ identical
.—— —— to equation (VI-24) of van
s’~rface soll~~e app~o~~r-I-ldLIU’L =..= .-

14
P..,..-x;m C;c.?l ---—
:,-,d Hurst. It is useful to have approximate equations for F and
63A
Lv’=- uL. .a ~.. L-
.-A ~arg~ time
“-----
-—
S : and from Jaeger,
C-, 21 the ~’:eil radius, for both small wu

(B
-
m
.—..-
-----
.——. — —— “
 -30-

(A-7)

(A-8)
3p+...’. ,,
~r (7) = d--r
-++

~..
A 7 is l:trgt~:

. (A-9)
>

(A-1O)
-J-, . . .

-/ = 0.5722 “ “ “ (Euler(s constant).

Fig, 8 for a = 1. The leading

60 –
*7 ~.>~.
.,.-$ G (): ~<s. (~-~) and (A-4) are plotted ‘n
are shown by the dotted
.--.
~...-. and large time approximations
--- ~ of ~~.e small time

(IS
e
91 A
-31-

RJ21?12RENCES

3. R:lu’so:l, D. E. , “hlciustrid Applications of Contained Nuclear

Explosio!ls,’f Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, L’CRL- 14756

(July, 1!IG6).

-+. l<orve~s, J. A. , and Rawson, D. E. , “Gasbuggy Postshot Investigations

in GB-ER, ” Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, UCRL-50425

{April, 19GS).

5. Cherry, J. T., Larson, D. B. , and Rapp, El G., “ComP~ter

Caicuk:ions of the Gasbuggy Event, ” Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,

6 Li\”ermore, UC RL-30+19 (May, 1968).

6. ~~o~zer , F., “Gasbuggy Preshot Summary Report,” Lawrence Radiation

Lz’bo~2:ory, Livermore, UC RL-50345 (NTovember, 1967) (PN’E-1OO1).

7. Elk::Is, L. ?7. , ‘1.A.I-IInterpretation of Gasbuggy, ** J. Pet. Tech.

(June, 196s) —J
20 549.

8. Boardman., C. R., and Skrove, J., “Distribution in Fracture

Pe~imeability of a Granitic Rock lMass Following a Contained h’uclear

Explosion., “ J. Pet. Tech. (~NIay, 1966) lS, 619.

c1
“. Rodean, H. C. , “Effects of Underground Nuclear Explosions on Natural

Gas Well Performance,” Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore,

UC RL-i2229 (June, 1965) (in particular, Fig. 4).

 E. , “1’lle Physics of Flow through Porous iMeclia,

York (1960). ‘

S\vift, ~. IV., and Kicl, 0. J. , J. Pet. Tech. (Ju”ly, 1962) ~, 791.

sll~i~!i: C. F., and Momycr, F. I?. , #JGas Quality Investigation Program

Status Report for Project Gasbuggy,” L’awrence Radiation Laboratory,

Livermar’e, U’CRL-7 1314 (September; 1968).

S!att.llcws, c. s. , and Russel, D. G. , Pressure Buildup and Flow

Tcsis in ~~C~k, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, New York,

Monograph \701. 1 (1967). ~

van E~crclingcn, A. F. , and 1-Iurst, W., “The Application of the Laplace

Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs,” Trans. AI~NIE (1949)

~, 2105.

ihrney, H. J. , “ Non-Darcy 1710w and Wellbore Storage Effects in

PressL~Pe Buildup and Drawdown of Gas Wells,” J. Pet. Tech.

(Febl, 1965) H_, 223.

c~r~i~~~, fT. S., and Jaeger, J. ~. , Conduction of Heat in Solids,

,
Oxiarci, Londmn ( 1939) 2nd ed.

Higgins, G. H. , Rabb, D. D., and Rodean, H. C. , “Theoretical and

Expe riaental Studies Relating to the Ftirging of R.adioactitity from a

Gas lVell Stimulated by a N’uclear Explosion,” Lawrence Radiation -

Laboratory, Liwrmore, uCRL-~051~ (December 1968)”

.Aronofsky, J. S. , and Jen~~ins, R. > “A Simplified Analysis of Unsteady

Radial Gas Flow,” Trans. AIME (1954) ~, 149.

Quong, R. , Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, private communication.

IB
0
., &

-33-
. . 1 . .

20. P~’C~,iL><:i
GasiJus!UY’Feasil>ility Study, U. S. Atomic Energy Commlsslon,

psE-looo (1965).

~i. Edwards, A. L. , “Calculation of Transient Laminar Fluid Flow in

Laboratory, Livermore,
Porous Media, “ Lawrence Radiatiol~

UCRIL-50664 (May, 1969).

99
--- S:llith, C. F. , “Project Gasbuggy Gas Quality Analysis and

of Radiochemical and Chemical

E~-altl~tion Program Tabulation

Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore,

.Analltical Results, “

UCRL-50635 (April, 1969).

of Bessel Functions,
~~. ]i’ztson, G. X. , A Treatise on the Theory

C2111bridge, London (1952) 2nd ed.

~~. Jaeger, J. C. J “Conduction of Heat in an Infinite Region Bounded

Internally by a Circular Cylinder of a Perfect Conductor, “

(1956) ~, 167.
.+usti-alian J. P’hys.
 -34-

T;113LE 1 —WELLIIEAD ~LOW RA-rE SCIIEDULE

Q:

o * o
12/10/67
4.82
~/~3/~~ 201

0
7/4/63 207
.
p /.-/,-0 2Q8 5.03
il~l~~
0.74
7/10/63 213

o
7/14/68 217 “

(start next flow test)

11/4/63 330
 = 1170 psia

T = 5z4”R

= 19.4
MolecIiIQr weight
z = 0.86
Compressibility factor
= 0.014 Cp

qh = 10.8 ft

kh = 9 md-ft

Ch:rnr.ev lVell Gas

Pi = 800 pSia
Initial pressure
T = 7100R
w

M = 25.5
w
z = 0.95
Co~.pressibility factor w

=28 X106ft3
.
. 4
-3 G-

‘1”A]3 xx (1 —G~fj
“’ ~().Mp~s~”rIo~
● Mole Friction

o Cc>;ylponmlt
Presllot
Reservoir ClaS
,: Postshot
OL:— Lluy
LIIL1ll
(34 days)
”.-.. P-.-.
u--
C.1
J

0.002 0.361
co,,
— 0.038
co
— 0.168
~-;..>
— 0.002
x$
—
0.008
\- !0.006
-~‘7
0.365
0.857
CH ,
-x
0.036
c.,~i. 0.072
0
0.012
0.039
C3H8
0.004
:-c . . 0.007
.%0
0.002
:I-C<HIO 0.009
0.0006
0.003

, 0.0004
0.002

0.003 0.003

1.000 1.000

0.67 0.88

to am“)

‘:’A..Irerage Oi ~el~en El Paso ISatural Gas Company analyses

. .
73. Ii’. Crawiord, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, private communication

69
 -37-

No MT:NcIJArrultE

conccntratio~~, picocuriesl’cl-113
c

c curies of radioactive nuclide ,

equation (A- 1)
dimensionless fun ction,
32.17 ft/sec2
g.ay,itational acceleration
equation (.4 - 2)
dimen siotlless function,

h reservoir thicl~ness, ft

1.
A
reservoir permeability, millidarcies

molecular weight, lb/lb mol

P pressure, psia

reservoir pressure, psia

‘o
flowrate, equation (14), (psia)2
q

flowrate, ft3/day
Q .
dimensionless radial distance, equation (8)

radial distance, ft
psi-f~3/(lb mO1-OR)
gas con. siant ~ 10.73

equation (25) or (27)

slope of curve,

time, day

tev.perature, “R

vOlume, ft3

gas compressibility factor

dimensionless capacity factor, equation (14)

.= .2
pressure deviation, equation (8), (psla)

gas viscosity, cP
3
P Qas density, lb/ft
 -38-

NTOMEA~CLATURE (Continued)

equation (8)
dimensionless time,

porosity, gas filled volume fraction

v of reservoir rock

chimney

early time

fractured

initial condition

tinle” index

T– L-A:----
la~~ LL1lLG

11
time index

time index, except P.

standard condition

w eil
 l~IGUlill CA1’”rIOXS

!
1-”
*’ 1:;”.1. S:;<’LCIIof nuclwr chimney Well with radius Iic in a gas qeservoir

~oi ?!lickness 11. Comparison of hypothetical permeability distribution

‘ lvi:ll effective well Iwiius model.

~!’~g. 2. P:’essLlre-tinle history, Gasbuggy cjlirnney well.

~~g. 3. # ~cl’SLIS d~, extrapolated to zero time.

y~g. ~. P2 ~“er~~is 1000/t, extrapolated to infinite time.

~~(g. ~. Pressure-time history at a radius of 310 feet from the chimney ~~+ell.

Fig. 6. Calculated gas flow rate crossing well radius Etw into chimney w en.
,- ;
i’ .~. 7. D~~~tio~ of l{rs5wit’n reservoir - gas. Calculated curve assumes

perfect mixing in chimney well.

l?:g. s. Dimensionless functions F(r, a, ~) ap.d G(r, ~, T) for linearized gas

flow .
 --i

I
I
I

i
1
I
,.
1
I
I
~ Hypothetical
permeability
radial

$s Sherwood - Fig. 1
 I i
I I I
1 —.— Linearized calculation
Numerical calculation

Time after detonation — days

Sherwood - Fig. 2
 I
*.”.
. ..”
... ..
-...
.. ..
..--....
~-%.
.
,/’
..~
,-.
* -.
1.1 .J
..“
. ..
....-’
. .. ...
....
...2
. ,..‘
.t.
..

. .
.. .

0.5 /
/
/
/
/
/

0.

, —
.a

\ I I
i I I i 6
10 12 14
c).5f 6 8
0 2 4
* – ~aysl’2
1.
I
I 200
L 100
~ 10
Days after detonation

Sherwood - Fig. 3

.
@

o
“

I I ,1
1 I 1
I I
I
!
i
‘“35f\
l\
\
1.30’-
.1 \\
\
.

q-
-.
-.
-.,
-8
-. -
-> .
-b.
-..
“...,
-#
%.
--%
.-.
- ●
-..
=.. =.
.. . . .
●..O

I
.*. .
● ✎

“..
.
. .. . .
“.. .
..
.-O
. .
t~ I I I I
I I 1
I ! 1 1
t 18 20 22 24
0.9J 6 8 10 12 ‘4 ‘6
2 4 -1
o
looo/t— 10-3 days
I1
I ! 50
I 100
200 150
Days after detonation

Sher~vood - Fig. 4
u &

i I
I I
I I

. .
. .
...... .-
I .-- .
. .0

. . .

.. ..
. .
. .
.
.
. .

1 I I ~
350
72: : 150 200 250
0 50 100
Time after detonation — days

Sher~vood - Fig. 5
 I
Q s

1 I
2.5,
I. I I
,, {
1;
——— Linearized
Al -.-.: --1 --le,,l+inn
— Iwurnel Ib.UI Qua..,.-, .. ..

-o
@“ I
I
.:

I ! 1

250 300 350

Time after detonation — days

Sherwood - Fig. 6

Ad!h
w
a
 I

I I I
125
r:: [ “ I I

l“”:
1.
●

~. ,-

i . I
1 1 1 I I
0! 250 300 350
100 150 200
0 50
Time after detonation — days

Sherwood - Fig. 7
 ,

L5, I I I I
1
Exact representation

(3
L’

Sherwood - Fig. 8

e—
o