Analysis of Short-Time Transient Test Data
By Type-Curve Matching
Robert C. Earlougher, Jr., SPE-AIME, Marathon Oil Co.
Keith M. Kersch, SPE-AIME, Marathon Oil Co.
Introduction
Occasionally, insufficient transient test data are avail-
able for analysis using semiiogarithmic i plotting
methods. This usually happens when data collection
stops before wellbore storage (afterflow) has become
negligible. Under those circumstances, the semi-
logarithmic straight line does not develop, and com-
mon semilogarithmic analysis methods cannot be
used. When such methods cannot be used, the engi-
neer either obtains no information from the test or
must use the available, short-time data to estimate
reservoir characteristics. This paper presents a tech-
nique for the approximate analysis of such short-time
transient test data. The method applies to buildup,
falloff, drawdown, and injectivity tests when wellbore
storage effects are important. It should not be used if
data can be analyzed by more conventional, semi-
logarithmic plotting methods.
It has long been recognized that wellbore storage
(afterfiow) can impede pressure transient test anal-
ysis. 2,3 Several ways have been suggested for deter-
mining when well known semilogarithmic techniques
can be used for transient test analysis. I, 3, 4 Gladfelter
et al. 3, I and Russell" present calculational methods for
analyzing the portion of transient test data influenced
by wellbore storage. Curve matching 7 - 12 and regres-
sion techniques '3 have also been proposed for accom-
plishing such analyses.
All these methods have disadvantages. The tech-
niques presented by Gladfelter et aI.5 Russell,6 and
Earlougher and Kersch 13 utilize either trial-and-error
analysis or require that the afterflow schedule be cal-
A new type-curve matching technique significantly easier than those previously
published allows the estimation of permeability, skin factor, and wellbore storage
coefficient from short-time transient test data. The method is explained here and is
illustrated with several examples.
JULY, 1974
culated, or both. These approaches are tedious and
not always successful.
In spite of its disadvantages, curve matching seems
to be the most promising of the methods, particularly
for the engineer who does not have a computer avail-
able. Cooper et aI.7 present type curves and an analysis
technique for specific flow and injection tests with the
well shut in before testing. At the start of the test,
the pressure instantaneously changes to some new
value. Then both pressure and flow rate vary during
the test. The Cooper-Bredehoeft-Papadopulos type
curves are useful for analyzing data taken during the
flow period of a drills tern test. 11 ,12 Agarwal et aI.9
point out that neglect of the skin effect makes the
Cooper-Bredehoeft-Papadopulos type curves of dubi-
ous value. In any case, those curves do not apply to
the more common transient testing situations: buildup,
falloff, injectivity, and drawdown. Ramey 8 and Agar-
wal et aI.9 suggest type-curve matching for these kinds
of transient tests. They present applicable type curves
that form several families of curves with skin
factor and wellbore storage coefficient as parameters.
Ramey's curve-matching method requires that the
data plot be slid both horizontally and vertically to
obtain a match. This feature and the fact that the
curves have very similar shapes make the matching
technique difficult to use unless there are data at least
onto the start of the semilog straight line.
McKinleylO uses a similar approach, but with a
different kind of type-curve plot. He plots his type
curves so there is only one family of curves and
793
so the data plot is slid only horizontally during the ting used here is explained in the Appendix. Fig. 1
matching process, thus providing two advantages shows the type curves used in the curve-matching
over Ramey's method. But McKinley assumes that method. *
(cpfl.ctrw2)/k = 1.028 X 10- 7 cp sq ft/(md psi) and The dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient used
s = 0 in his type curves, thus reducing the accuracy in Fig. 1 is defined by
of the data match. McKinley"O and Barbe and Boyd14
present data and several examples of the use of C - 5.6146 C
D - 27rcpc t hrw" , (la)
M<?Kinley's method. They imply that this analysis
procedure can be used in lieu of the more com- or
mon semilogarithmic techniques, thus allowing much
shorter transient tests than normal. An MS thesis" 5 CD = 0.89359 C
(lb)
from the U. of Zulia compares the Ramey and cpCthrw 2
McKinley methods for well tests on Venezuelan wells. where standard SPE nomenclature and field units are
It concludes that the Ramey curves gave good results used.
in about two-thirds of the cases, and that the McKin- The parameter on the curves in Fig. 1 is
ley curve gave good results in about 40 percent of
the cases - but that neither method was very good 28 _ 0.89359 C e 28
by itself. Our experience indicates that any type-curve
CDe - h 2 (2)
CPCt rw
matching technique is less accurate than semilogarith-
mic analysis methods. This applies to techniques Test Analysis Method
already in the literature as well as the one presented We recommend using this type-curve matching tech-
here. We propose using a type-curve matching anal- nique only if conventional transient test analysis can-
ysis only as a last resort, when it is clear that a test not be used. For this reason, the Ramey8 type curve
has been run for insufficient time to be analyzed in (log 6.p vs log 6.t, where 6.p is the pressure change
better, more accurate ways. during the test and 6.t is the time since the beginning
Changes in the wellbore storage coefficient have of the test) should be plotted to determine how long
been shown to have a significant effect on the early- wellbore storage is important. If the type curve indi-
time pressure response during a well test. 16 The type cates the possibility of analyzing with a semilog plot,
curves presented in this paper and elsewhere s- 1o are this should be done and the technique presented here
valid only if the wellbore storage coefficient stays should not be used. If the test is not long enough for
constant throughout the test. semilogarithmic analysis, the following approach
We calculated the same kind of data presented by can be used.
Ramey,8 Agarwal et al.,9 and McKinley"O to construct 1. Plot observed test data as 6.p/6.t (psi/hr) on
type curves that should allow better type-curve anal- the ordinate vs 6.1 (hr) on the abscissa of log-log paper
ysis than presently available. The type curves in- of the same size as Fig. 1. We normally place tracing
cluded in this paper provide the following advantages: paper over Fig. 1, trace the major grid lines for ref-
1. There is only one family of curves; erence, and use the grid of Fig. 1 to plot actual data
2. The match is essentially in one dimension. Most on the tracing paper. Thus, the data plot and the type
of the match is performed with horizontal slid- curve have the same scale. The curves on Fig. 1 are
ing only, although slight vertical corrections ignored during this plotting - only the grid of Fig. 1
can be made to improve match accuracy; is used.
3. They allow for estimating skin factor; 2. Estimate the wellbore storage coefficient ex-
4. They include the effects of porosity, compressi- pected from completion details by using
bility, and wellbore radius.
In spite of these advantages, the approach should C = Vwc . (3)
be used only when semilog analysis techniques can- for a completely fluid-filled wellbore, or
not be used because a transient test has been too brief
for wellbore storage effects to become insignificant.
C= Vu . (4)
The formation permeability (or kh/ fl.) calculated by
this technique is usually correct within a factor of
2 or 3; the skin factor calculation is qualitative, indi-
(1~4 :J
for a wellbore with a rising or falling liquid level.
cating the approximate degree of damage or improve-
ment. The curve-matching method requires that for- 3. Calculate the location of the horizontal asymp-
mation porosity and thickness, fluid viscosity and tote on the data plot:
compressibility, and wellbore radius be known or
estimated. 6. P ) _ qB (5)
( Tt 1.0 - 24C .
Six examples illustrating the type-curve matching
technique are included. They employ actual field data The quantity on the left-hand side of Eq. 5 is the
and computed data (taken from the literature) to show value of 6.p/6.t observed on the data plot when
that the technique gives satisfactory results.
6. P 24C) = 10
The Type-Curve Matching Method ( 6.t qB Fig. 1 .
Type Curves
*A larger-scale copy of Fig. 1 is available from the authors on
The theoretical reasoning behind the type-curve plot- request.

794 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

c II
p
.....
'C>
-..j
.j:>.

?
.2.5
I.
"

0.1 ~ °1
val
(\J , 0"

8
0.1_
<J <J

a
+"==-+

D112S
II
1.!
SPE 4488 ANALYSIS OF SHORT TIME TRANSIENT TEST DATA 8Y ~;;;p:;:;-.
P:~'.5
TYPE CURVE MATCHING
't8. R.C. EARlOUGHER. Jr. and K.M. KERSCH

0.01
m Ts
© 1973, MARATHON Oil COMPANY

25 9 1
kh LH
p:' C
2.5
t
md ft hr
cp' bbl/psi
10 3 10 4 10 5 106
-..j
'C>
VI Fig, l-Master type curve (reprinted by perm1ssion of Marathon Oil Co.).
on the type curve of Fig. 1. curves to the same data. The calculated value of the
4. Place the type curve data plot over Fig. 1 so skin factor will probably be inexact, also. However,
the asymptote calculated in Eq. 5 overlies the value the skin factor calculated from Eq. 8 should indi-
of 1.0 on the ordinate of Fig. 1; that is, so cate the relative amount of damage or improvement.
This curve-matching approach will give a much
Il P 24C) = 10 more accurate value of formation transmissibility if
( Ilt qB Fig. 1 •.
the wellbore storage coefficient and skin factor are
5. Slide the data plot horizontally until the best known independently. Then in the matching process,
match is obtained with one of the curves on Fig. 1. one has the horizontal alignment from the wellbore
To get a good match it may be necessary to add a storage coefficient and can pick the curve in Fig. 1
slight amount of vertical movement to the data plot. that should be matched.
In any case, it is important that the grids of the two
type curves be kept parallel to each other.
Examples
6. Sketch the matched curve onto the data plot. Example 1
From Fig. 1 read the value of A pressure drawdown test on a new oil well appears
to be strongly influenced by wellbore storage. Never-
( CD e2.) Fig.1,M
theless, enough data exist to determine formation
properties from the semilog plot. We analyze this test
Pick any convenient match point and read the values with the techniques presented in this paper, and
of compare the results with results from the semilog
analysis. Table 1 gives pressure time data. Other
( ~) M ,(llt)M known data are
qo = 179 STB/D, Ct = 8.2 X 10- 6 psi-I,
from the data plot and the values lying directly under Bo = 1.2 RB/STB, rw = 0.276 ft,
this point from Fig. 1: h = 35 ft, 1> = 18 percent.

(~ 2q~)Fig.l'M (:h ~)Fig'I'M '

These values are used in estimating transmissibility,
skin factor, and wellbore storage coefficient.
7. If any vertical movement was necessary during
the curve-matching process, recalculate the wellbore
storage coefficient:
qB (Il P 24C)
C = Ilt qB Fig.l,M
(6)
24 (Il P )
flt M We calculate the wellbore storage coefficient (Step
where q and B are observed for the test; the other
quantities are taken from the match point after the
type-curve match. This value of the wellbore sto,age
coefficient should be relatively close to the value cal-
culated from the wellbore completion in Step 2. If it
is not, it is important to search for a reason, such as
washed out sections of the hole, voids connecting
with the wellbore, etc.
8. Estimate formation transmissibility:
Since we do not know completion details, we can-
not use Eq. 3 or 4 to estimate the wellbore storage
coefficient. Thus, we must match without this aid.
We plot IIp/ Ilt vs Ilt on tracing paper laid over the
Fig. 1 grid. Then we slide the tracing paper data plot
on Fig. 1, as described in Step 5 of the section on
Test Analysis Method, until a good match results.
Fig. 2 schematically shows the data plot matched to
Fig. 1. (For clarity in printing, the grid is omitted.)
Match point data are shown in Fig. 2. This completes
Steps 1, 5, and 6 of the analysis procedure.
7) using Eq. 6 and the match data from Fig. 2:
qB (Il P 24C)
C = Ilt qB Fig.l, M (6)
P
24 (Il )
Ilt M
- (179)(1.2)(0.1053) = 0.0942 RB/psi.
- 24(10)

kh
C (kh
p.
flt)
C Fig.l,M
TABLE 1-PRESSURE DATA FOR EXAMPLE 1
Time, Ilt Pressure Change, IIp IIp/Ilt
- ---'-'--(-:-Il-,t),...:;M----'''--'-- (7) (hours) (psi) (psi/hr)
p.
0.2 19.7 98.50
where C is from Eq. 6. 0.3 28.1 93.67
9. Estimate the skin factor from 0.5 43.1 86.20
0.7 58.3 83.29
s
= ~I
2 n
(1) C t hrW 2 (CD e28hig.l,M)
0.89359 C .
(8) 1.0 75.1 75.10
2.0 114.5 57.25
Although we feel this method is an improvement 3.0 135.5 45.17
5.0 152.2 30.44
over other type-curve matching methods presented in 23.31
7.0 163.2
the literature, it is still not exact. Values of kh/ p. may 10.0 166.7 16.67
be uncertain within about a factor of three, as illus- 20.0 171.2 8.56
trated in the Examples Section. This uncertainty 30.0 173.9 5.80
occurs because of the similarity in shape of the type 50.0 175.2 3.50
curves and the possibility of matching two or three 70.0 177.1 2.53

796 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 We use Eq. 7 to calculate kh/ f.L (Step 8):
C (kh I1t)
kh _ -; C Fig.1,M
-;: - (I1t)M
= (0.0942)(49,000) = 4620
(1.0)
The skin factor is estimated from Eq. 8 (Step 9):
= 1.1 [cp C t hrW 2 (CD e
s 2 n 0.89359 C
= 1. I [(0.18)(8.2 XI 0-6 )(35)(0.276)2(1 0 20 )]
2 n (0.89359)(0.0942)
= 18.
These results are approximate; the technique nor-
mally should be used only when other analysis meth-
ods fail. In this example, however, we wish to illus-
trate the analysis method and give an indication of
its accuracy. Thus, we chose a test with sufficient
data for a conventional, semilog straight-line section
analysis that gives
kh
3,500 md ft/cp
f.L
s = 12.
The transmissibility we calculate is within 32 per-
cent of the value from the semilog plot; but the skin
factor is off by 50 percent. In spite of the approxi-
mate nature of our analysis technique, fairly good
results were obtained.
The wellbore storage coefficient, C = 0.0942 RB/
psi, appears to be within reason. If we assume an oil
gravity of 30° API (p = 54.7 lb m / cu ft) and that the
fluid level is changing, we then calculate Vu = 0.0358
bbl/ft from Eq. 4. This corresponds to about a 6-in.-
ID pipe (r ;:::: 0.25 ft), and is not out of line with what
little we know about the completion.
Example 2
Occasionally, early-time transient test data show con-
siderable scatter. This happens because normal meas-
urement errors in p and t represent a higher percent-
age of I1p and !1t at early times than at later times.
The scatter may be further amplified by forming the
quotient, I1p /!1t. This example shows that the type-
curve-matching analysis technique can be applied to
data with an early-time scatter. The data are from a
(7)
pressure buildup test in a pumping well in Illinois:
h = 25 ft, Ct = 1 X 10- 5 psi-t,
df/ cp = 20 percent, q = 66 STB/D,
, m t cpo
7 w = 4.5 in. (shot hole), Vu = 0.0411 bbl/ft.
B = 1 RB/STB,
Test data are plotted as I1p/l1t vs I1t in Fig. 3. In
2S
hig.1,M ]
(8) this case we know that rising fluid level storage is
.
important. Using Eq. 4, we estimate the wellbore
storage coefficient, C = 0.095 RB/psi. Then we can
estimate the location of the horizontal asymptote
fromEq.5:
I1P) qB _ (66)(1) _ .
( I1t 1.0 = 24C - (24)(0.095) - 29 pSI/hr.
Proceeding through Steps 4 and 5, we get the match
indicated in Fig. 3. We use Eq. 7 to calculate
~ = (0.095{(4200) = 400 md ft/cp.
This agrees well with results from other tests in the
same area. Skin is estimated from Eq. 8:
= 1.. I
[(0.2)(10- 5 )(25)(4.5/12)2(10 4 ) ]
s 2 n (0.89359)(0.095)
= - 0.1.
Thus, we conclude there is essentially no damage or
improvement. .
Example 3
This example demonstrates the magnitude of errors
that might occur in using the technique presented
here. We analyze the calculated data presented as
Fig. 4 by McKinley. 10 The log-log plot of I1p / I1t vs
!1t is shown in Fig. 4, along with two possible type-
curve matches. The solid line is the match for the
CD e 28 = 10 2 curve of Fig. 1. The dashed line is for
CD e 28 = 105 • The shapes of these two curves are very
similar; it is not obvious which one, or which curve
between, gives the best match. Table 2 compares re-
sults calculated from these two matches with McKin-
ley's match and the data he used to calculate his
curve. For these calculations we used q = 175 STB/D

'00r------r------,----------.,

'"'"
w
~
z
'2
'"~
"
is 0.1
~l·m
OJ ~

.a!<i

0.01'-:--------'--;--------''-:-------'
103 104 10 5 '~L,- - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - , L- - - - - - - " 0 0
kh at MO FT HR O
P:" C' ----cP. BBl/PSI 6t,hr

Fig. 2-Example I-drawdown test on a new oil well. Fig. 3-Example 2-buildup test in a pumping well.

JULY, 1974 797

 TABLE 2-RESULTS FOR EXAMPLE 3
McKinley
CDe" = 10" CDe" 10·
= Curve Match Actual
C (bbl/psi) 1.64 x 10-' 1.76 x 10-' 1.74 x 10-' 1.74 x 10--
kh/ p. (md ft/cp) 63 136 52 59
5 0.7 4.6 o o
TABLE 3-RESULTS FOR EXAMPLE 4
McKinley McKinley
Circles Curve Match Triangles Curve Match
(s=2) (s=2) (5= -2) (5= -2) Actual
CDe" 10· 10
C (bbl/psi) 0.185 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178
kh/ p. (md ft/cp) 1,400 500 to 1,000 1,090 2,500 to 1,000 1,000
5 3.4 >0 -2.5 <0 ±2

TABLE 4-RESULTS FOR EXAMPLE 5

CDe"= 10'· CDe" = 10"" Russell· McKinley'·
C (bbl/psi) 0.0105 0.0105 0.011
kh/ p. (md ft/cp) 370 636 310 280
5 -6 -18 4.4 >0

and B = 1.0 RB/STB. Although McKinley does not
specifically give a value of <PfLCtfw2/k, we assume it to
be 1.028 X 10- 7 cp sq ft/(md psi), the value used for
his type curves.
This example indicates that errors of a factor of
2 to 3 can occur in the permeability calculation. N ev-
ertheless, it is encouraging that even though CD e 28
varied by a factor of 10 3 in this example, kh/ fL varied
by a factor of only 2. When all other methods fail, it
is better to know permeability within a factor of 2 or
3 than not at all. Unfortunately, the uncertainty in
skin factor can be worse. If the uncertainty in CD e 28
is lOX, then 'the skin factor will be uncertain by about
the additive quantity, 1.15 X.
Example 4
Fig. 5 is a type-curve plot of McKinley's10 calculated
data (McKinley's Fig. 6a and 6b). The triangles rep-
resent calculated test response for a well with s = - 2.
The circles represent response calculated for a well
with s = + 2. McKinley's other data are kh/ fL = 1,000
md ft/cp; q = 100 STB/D; B = 1.0 RB/STB; C =
0.178 bbl/psi; (<PfJ_Ctfw2)/k = 1.028 X 10- 7 cp sq ft/
(md psi).
Fig. 5 also shows the type-curve matches obtained
using Fig. 1. The results given in Table 3 compare
quite well with the parameters used by McKinley to
calculate the data.
Example 5
Russe1l 6 provides the field data shown in the type
curve of Fig. 6. These data are also used by McKin-
ley in his Example F -2."0 Since there are no data points
at very early times, these data are difficult to analyze.
Equally good data matches can be obtained using the
CD e 28 = 10"0 or the CD e 28 = 10 20 curves, shown as
the dashed and solid lines, respectively, in Fig. 6.
Using Russell's data of q = 157 STB/D; B = 1.6
RB/STB; fL = 0.3 cp; h = 4.0 ft; <P = 0.10; Ct =
2 X 10- 5 , and assuming fw = 0.25 ft, we obtain the
results shown in Table 4. Both Russell's and McKin-
ley's results are shown in the table for comparison.
In spite of the marginal quality of the data, the
most useful results are obtained using the matching
procedure presented in this paper. If several CD e 28
curves seem to match the data equally well, then we
can estimate a fange of transmissibility. This gives an
idea of the accuracy of the results. In this case, we
conclude that the transmissibility is between 370 and
640 and that the well is badly damaged.

IO'r------,-------,-------, - .6.t,hr
I 0 0 r - - - - - - , - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - ,~

il.1,hr 61,hr

Fig. 4-Example 3-calculated data from Fig. 5-Example 4-calculated data for damaged
Fig. 4 of McKinley,'· and improved wells, from McKinley,'·

798 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Example 6 TABLE 5-RESULTS FOR EXAMPLE 6
Fig. 7 shows data from Example F-3 of McKinley, 10 CDe"= 10" CD e"=10' McKinley
a buildup test on a gas-lift well. The test is so domi- C (bbl/psi) 0.0109 0.0122 0.0125
nated by wellbore storage that conventional data kh/ p. (md ft/cp) 6.81 20.7 7.0
analysis is impossible. The only other data McKinley
gives are q = 3.5 STB/D; B = 1.0 RB/STB; p. = 9 CD = dimensionless wellbore storage
cp; and h = 6 ft. coefficient, Eq. 1
The data plotted in Fig. 7 can be matched reason- e = 2.7182818 . . . .
ably well with values of CD e 2 s from 10 2 to lOB. Using g = acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec 2
these matches we calculate the results shown in Table gc = units conversion factor, 32.17 Ib mft/
5. McKinley does not give enough data to estimate s. (lb l sec 2 )
However, we know s for CD e2S = 10 B will be about h = formation thickness, ft
6.9 above the value for CD e2S = 10 2 • The type-curve p = pressure, psi
matching procedure gives a transmissibility value that !1p = pressure change during the test, psi
varies by a factor of 3. Even so, without some kind of q = flow rate, STB/D
type-curve matching procedure, these data could not rw = wellbore radius, ft
have been analyzed. s = skin factor
t = time, hours
Conclusions !1t = running test time, hours
1. The curve-matching technique presented in this V u = well bore volume per unit length, bbl/ft
paper can be used to estimate formation transmissi- V w = total wellbore volume, bbl
bility, skin factor, and wellbore storage coefficient p. = viscosity, cp
from short-time transient test data. The method p = density, Ib m /cu ft
should not be used if well known semilogarithmic ¢ = porosity, fraction
methods can be applied.
2. To use this technique it is necessary that forma- Subscripts
tion porosity, formation thickness, system compressi- D = dimensionless
bility, and wellbore radius be known or estimated. Fig. 1 refers to material on the type curve of
The test must involve a known constant flow rate. Fig. 1
3. The type-curve matching technique presented M refers to data taken at a match point
here applies to pressure drawdown, pressure buildup, from a type-curve match
injectivity, and pressure falloff testing. w = wellbore
4. Results tend to be more accurate if the wellbore References
storage coefficient, C, can be determined by means 1. Matthews, C. S., and Russell, D. G.: Pressure Buildup
independent of the transient test. However, if that is and Flow Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, Society
not possible, acceptable results can still be obtained. of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, DaIlas (1967) 1.
5. During this study, we demonstrated numerically 2. van Everdingen, A. F., and Hurst, W.: "The Applica-
tion of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems
that the skin factor can be included with the wellbore in Reservoirs," Trans., AI ME (1949) 186, 305-324.
storage coefficient in constructing type curves for 3. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson, C. A., Jr.:
short-time transient behavior. "The Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir Pres-
sure from Bottom-Hole Pressure Build-Up Characteris-
tics," Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 91-104.
Nomenclature 4. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Non-Darcy Flow and Well bore
B = formation volume factor, RB/STB Storage Effects in Pressure Build-Up and Drawdown
c = compressibility, psi- 1 of Gas WeIls," 1. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1965) 223-233;
Trans., AI ME, 234.
Ct = total system compressibility, psi-
1
5. Gladfelter, R. E., Tracy, G. W., and Wilsey, L. W.:
C = wellbore storage coefficient, RB/psi "Selecting WeIls Which Respond to Production-Stimula-

100.-------,---:-------,1:---------,

{
[~l: 13.4 po;/h,
Coe2SSJOlO-

CoelS: 10 10 ------
[~.2,cl· 1.01
6t qB
FiV.I,M

[JI'l •• 16h, I
(
[~'~l
p. C
"IO.. mdft _ _
Fi9.1, M cp
h'_
bbl/psi
~ X

~ 100h~=='----+-------t-~------1
ilOl~==~~~.~.~~.~C.~~~M~~~~h~p~o;n~I------~------~
10"

!
COe'~
:I~
[~l"
t:.t
100 p,i
If hr
2! •
Coe =100 ••••.
l!.P
Tt"qa
[
z4cl
'" 0.1
Fit· I ,"
[.61] .. t 0.165 hr

[~'~l
fl. C
'"
to·~·_h'_
Fit·I,M
cp bbl/psi

10L------~------L-----~ IL-------ILO-----~~~----~IOOO
O.! 10 JOO
61, hr
at. hr
Fig. 6--Example 5-pressure buildup test, Fig. 7-Example 6--buiJdup test on a gas· lift well,
data from RusselL" data from Example F·3 of McKinley.'o

JULY, 1974 799

 tion Treatment," Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1955)
117-129.
6. Russell, D. G.: "Extensions of Pressure Build-Up
Analysis Methods," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1966) 1624-
1636; Trans., AIME, 237.
7. Cooper, H. H., Jr., Bredehoeft, J. D., and Papadopulos,
I. S.: "Response of Finite-Diameter Wells to an In-
stantaneous Charge of Water," Water Resources Re-
search (1967) 3, No.1, 263-269.
8. Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "Short-Time Well Test Data Interpreta-
tion for Oil Wells in the Presence of Skin Effect and Well-
bore Storage," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1970) 97-104; Trans.,
AIME,249.
9. Agarwal, R. G., AI-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H. J.,
Jr.: "An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin
Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: I. Analytical Treat-
ment," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1970) 279-290; Trans.,
AIME, 249.
10. McKinley, R. M.: "Wellbore Transmissibility from
Afterflow-Dominated Pressure Buildup Data," J. Pet.
Tech. (July 1971) 863-872; Trans., AIME, 251.
11. van Poollen, H. K., and Weber, J. B.: "Data Analysis
for High Influx Wells," paper SPE 3017 presented at
SPE-AIME 45th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Oct.
4-7, 1970.
12. Kohlhaas, C. A.: "A Method for Analyzing Pressures
Measured During Drillstem-Test Flow Periods," J. Pet.
Tech. (Oct. 1972) 1278-1282; Trans., AIME, 253.
13. Earlougher, R. c., Jr., and Kersch, K. M.: "Field Ex-
amples of Automatic Transient Test Analysis," J. Pet.
Tech. (Oct. 1972) 1271-1277.
14. Barbe, J. A., and Boyd, B. 1..: "Short-Term Buildup
Testing," J. Pet. Tech. (July 1971) 800-804.
15. Solano c., C. A.: "Aplicaciones de los Metodos de
Ramey y McKinley a Pozos Petroliferos Venesolanos,"
MS thesis, U. of Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela (Dec.
1971) .
16. Earlougher, R. C., Jr., Kersch, K. M., and Ramey,
H. J., Jr.: "Well bore Effects in Injection Well Testing,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1973) 1244-1250.
17. Brons, F., and Miller, W. C.: "A Simple Method for
Correcting Spot Pressure Readings," J. Pet. Tech.
(Aug. 1961.) 803-805; Trans., AIME, 222.
APPENDIX
This appendix presents the reasoning behind the type-
curve plotting technique presented in the paper. We
start by defining three dimensionless variables used
commonly in reservoir fluid flow.
Dimensionless time:
(A-I)
tD = 0.0002637 ( k ") t
<PfLCtrw
Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient:
CD = 5.61458 C (A-2)
27r<pcthrw2
Dimensionless pressure:
PD = 0.007082 ( k: )~~ (A-3)
Dimensionless time, dimensionless wellbore stor-
age coefficient, and skin factor (always dimensionless)
are usually taken as the independent variables in fluid
flow work. Dimensionless pressure is commonly ex-
pressed as a function of dimensionless time. It is pos-
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office June 26, 1973. Revised manuscript received March 28,
1974. Paper (SPE 4488) was first presented at the SPE·AIME
48th Annual Fall Meeting, held in Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30·0ct.
3, 1973. © Copyright 1974 American Institute of Mining, Metal·
lurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper will be printed in Transactions volume 257, which will
cover 1974.
800
sible,8,9 however, to express PD as a function of tv,
Cv, and s. Adopting this convention and using an
approximation given for PD at short time, we write 8
Pv = -Ctv (A-4)
v
Rearranging Eq. A-4 and applying Eqs. A-I, A-2,
and A-3,
PDCD _ 24 6.p C - 1
~ - qB 6.t - . (A-5)
at very short times. Furthermore, from Eqs. A-I and
A-2, we find
~ =
Cv
0.0002951 (kh) C
fL
b.t (A-6)
Since Pv is a function of tv, Cv, and s, we suspect
from Eqs. A-5 and A-6 that a plot of PDCV/tD VS
tD/CD should give a family of curves parametric in
CD and s, with all curves asymptotically approaching
PvCv!tv = 1 at small tV/CD. This indeed happens,
but the number of curves is so great that the plotting
approach seems to be of little value.
The multitude of curves can be reduced to one
family of curves by defining an effective wellbore
radius. 1, 17 In terms of this effective wellbore radius,
the dimensionless storage and time terms become
(A-7)
and
(A-8)
Note that Eqs. A-7 and A-8 can be substituted into
Eqs. A-5 and A-6 without changing the latter equa-
tions, since the e2S terms cancel. The family of type
curves in Fig. 1 is a plot of the group in Eq. A-5 vs
the group in Eq. A-6 with CD e 28 as the only param-
eter. In Fig. 1, we omit the numerical coefficient from
Eq. A-6 to simplify calculations.
The inclusion of the skin factor term in the well-
bore radius, and hence in C v and tv, has been sug-
gested as an approximation by other authors.",9,17 We
get an understanding of why this approximation works
from the long-time approximation for the functional
relation between tD, s, and PD. At long times, the well-
bore storage coefficient is no longer important, S04
Pv = 1h [In(4tv) - 0.5772] +s (A-9)
This can be rewritten:
Pv = 1h [In(4t D e"")
- 0.5772] (A-lO)
Note that this is the same as Eq. A-9 with tD replaced
by tve 2S and the skin term omitted. If we use this
modified dimensionless time and the modified dimen-
sionless wellbore storage of Eqs. A-7 and A-8, then
the skin factor is correctly included in both the short-
time (Eq. A-5) and the long-time (Eq. A-lO) expres-
sions for Pv·
It is not so simple to show analytically that this can
be done for intermediate times. However, the numer-
ical results obtained in our study compared well with
Ramey's' and McKinley's"0 data for dimensionless
times greater than 100, showing that this can be done
with reasonable accuracy. .TPT
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY