Analysis of Pressure-Falloff Tests
Following Cold-Water Injection
Reldar B. Bratvold, * SPE, and Roland N. Horne, SPE, Stanford U.
~umma~. This p~per presen~s generaliz~~ procedures. t~ interpret pressure i~jection and falloff data following cold-water injection
Into a hot~OlI rese':'?lr. Th~ relative permeability ch~ractenstlcs of the porous medIUm are accounted for, as is the temperature dependence
of t~e. flu~d mobilities. It IS .shown that the saturatIOn and temperature gradients have significant effects on the pressure data for both
the InjectIOn and falloff penods. The matching of field data to type curves generated from analytical solutions provides estimates of
the t~mperature.-dependent mobilities of the flooded and uninvaded regions. The solutions also may be used to provide estimates of
the size of the Invaded region, the distance to the temperature discontinuity, heat capacities, and wellbore-storage and skin effects.
Introduction
Numerous full-field waterflooding projects are currently under way
throughout the world to improve recovery. In many large oilfields,
water injection is initiated during the early stages of reservoir de-
velopment. Exploratory wells are tested for injectivity, and injectors
are tested during field operation. If properly interpreted, these tests
can give information about the progress of the flood (Le., frontal
advance), residual oil saturation, the flow characteristics of the virgin
formation, and near-wellbore damage.
In a water-injection well test, the injected fluid usually has a tem-
perature different from the initial reservoir temperature. During
injection, both a saturation and a temperature front propagate into
the reservoir. Furthermore, because of differences in oil and water
properties, a saturation gradient is established in the reservoir. The
water saturation is highest close to the well and continuously
decreases with distance from the well. Ahead of this invaded region
is the unflooded oil bank at initial water saturation.
For the interpretation of well-test data, the most important temper-
ature-dependent fluid property is the viscosity. The viscosity of both
oil and water may change by an order of magnitude between 50
and 572°F, with the major change occuring between 50 and
212 of. 1 This temperature effect strongly influences the fluid mo-
bilities, and hence, the saturation gradient and the transient pressure
response. The total fluid mobility changes continuously in the in-
vaded region and has to be accounted for in reservoir modeling
and data interpretation.
Many different models have been introduced for the analysis of
water-injection and falloff tests. Typically, these models neglect
the temperature effects, the saturation gradient, or both. Refs. 2
and 3 provide reasonably complete reviews of previous works.
For this paper, the most important reference is Fayers'4 exten-
sion of the fractional flow theory of Buckley and Leverett 5 to ac-
count for a radial temperature gradient in the reservoir. Fayers'
work was put into a mathematical framework by Karakas et al. 6
and Hovdan. 7 Hovdan also used this incompressible-fluids solu-
tion to derive a pressure-transient solution for the late stages of a
cold-water-injection test.
Recently, Abbaszadeh and Kamal 2 presented procedures to ana-
lyze falloff data from water-injection wells. Their procedures are
based on analytical solutions not presented in their original paper
and include the effect of the saturation gradient in the invaded region.
Nonisothermal effects were not considered.
In summary, a number of studies pertaining to well-test analysis
of injection and falloff tests have been presented. However, none of
these account for both of the two most important effects in a typical
waterflood: the saturation gradient and the temperature effect.
The principal objectives of this paper are (I) to derive analytical
solutions that include the most important effects in a nonisothermal
water-injection/falloff test, (2) to examine the parameters that in-
fluence the well injectivity, and (3) to present procedures to obtain
detailed and accurate information about the important reservoir and
fluid properties in a waterflood. Specifically, we consider the pres-
sure behavior at the well resulting from the simultaneous flow of
'Now at IBM European PetrOleum Application Center.
Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1990
oil and water in a reservoir with a radial temperature gradient. Ana-
lytical solutions that account for the effects of temperature and satu-
ration gradients are derived and discussed. Consequences of
neglecting the temperature and saturation effects are illustrated.
Solutions for linear systems, including the effects of linear bound-
aries in cylindrical reservoirs, were presented by Bratvold and
Larsen. 8
Mathematical Model
Fig, 1 presents a schematic of the reservoir configuration consid-
ered. The reservoir is assumed to be cylindrical with the well at
the center. The well penetrates the entire formation thickness, and
fluid is injected at a constant rate. The reservoir is assumed to be
a uniform, homogeneous porous medium, completely saturated with
oil and water. Liquid compressibilities are assumed to be constant,
while the viscosities are assumed to be functions of temperature
only. Neglecting effects of gravity, as well as heat transfer to the
surrounding formation, permits the use of a ID radial model.
Injection Period. The transient, nonisothermal two-phase flow of oil
and water requires that saturations, pressures, and temperatures be
determined simultaneously at any time. Furthermore, because cold-
water injection into a hot-oil reservoir is a moving-boundary prob-
lem, it cannot be solved with standard linear techniques, such as
eigenfunction expansion, integral transforms, or Green's function
methods.
To circumvent the problem of simultaneously solving the coupled
second-order conservation equations, we derive an alternative
approximate solution to the injection problem using a two-step
procedure.
Step 1. Assume incompressible fluids. Then use fractional fl~w
theory to solve the resulting first-order coupled energy- and mass-
conservation equations. 4,6,7 This essentially amounts to decoupling
the equations for saturation and temperature from the pressure equa-
tion. The saturation profile obtained is a Buckley-Leverett 5 pro-
file including (convective) temperature effects.
Step 2. With the saturation and temperature profIles and the mobil-
ities and diffusivities known from Step I, solve the diffusion equa-
tion for pressure by assuming that the fluid compressibilities are
small and constant. Hence, the pressure distribution in the system
is obtained by superimposing pressure-transient effects on a satu-
ration profile known a priori.
Fig, 2 shows an example of a saturation and temperature distri-
butions as functions of the similarity transform t=7rcphr 2 /qt, as
calculated from the Buckley-Leverett model and including temper-
ature effects. 4,6,7 Note that the profile exhibits two saturation dis-
continuities. In addition to the discontinuity depicted by the standard
Buckley-Leverett theory, the saturation distribution shows a sec-
ond discontinuity caused by the step-change in temperature. The
magnitude of the saturation change at the temperature discontinuity
is related to the ratio between the mobility ratios in the hot and
cold zones. The saturation distribution obtained from a numerical
simulator is superimposed on the analytical saturation profile. The
simulations were performed with a two-phase, 2D, black-oil simula-
tor developed by Nyhus 9 that is described later in the paper.
293
 ~..---- ................. 1.0
,.. "" I
I - - Temperature

/ /
/'
"- , I
I
- - Buckley-Leverett
00000Numencal simulator

I~ .
/ \
I fe \
I \ 0 I
I \ f- 0.5 I ~
I
I \ ~
(f) I Set 2 0

I I I
\ I I M = 5
I fj = 21.6 ~
\ I I
\ I I
\ / 0.0
\ Region / 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
\ 2 / ~
"- /
" " ...... ,.. / ' /
Fig. 2-Comparison of simulated and analytical saturation and
temperature distributions.
........ -------...,."".

TABLE 1-SIMULATOR INPUT DATA

USED IN VERIFICATION

Reservoir Properties Fluid Properties

T R, OF 180 SWi' fraction 0.2
Ti, OF 60.7 SO" fraction 0.1
Region 1 C/>, fraction 0.2 co, psi-' 1 x 10- 5
h, ft 25 c W' psi-' 1 x 10- 6
rW' ft 0.25 (pC)o' Btu/(ft3_0F) 23.00
Region 2 re' ft 1,000 (pC)w' Btu/(ft3_0F) 62.35
k, md 20 (pC) s' Btu/(ft 3•o F) 42.45
PR, psi 1,000 krw(Sw) Sw 3
Region 1 q, BID 250 kro(Sw) (1- S w)3

Viscosity, cp
Data Set 1 Data Set 2
J.i-oh 2.00 2.40
J.i-oc 8.00 7.20
J.i-wh 0.25 0.40
Fig. 1-Two-region, radial moving-boundary problem. J.i-wc 0.40 1.20

As Fig. 2 shows, the saturation distribution obtained numerically
is very close to the analytical solution for this data set, which is given
in Table 1 and which is typical for water-injection tests. On the basis
of Fig. 2 and other examples,3 it is reasonable to conclude that
the nonisothermal Buckley-Leverett solution is a good approximation
to the actual saturation distribution (neglecting gravity) for typical
water-injection tests where the compressibilities Co and C w are of
the order 10 - 5 to 10 - 6 psi -, and the mobility ratio M ~ 100.
Step 2 consists of solving the diffusion equation for pressure in the
composite system schematically illustrated in Fig. 1. With the satura-
tion distribution known as a function of time and space from Step 1,
the total fluid mobility and total system compressibility become func-
tions of time and space. The locations of the saturation and tempera-
ture fronts are time-dependent, and hence this is a moving-boundary
problem. In general, moving-boundary problems are nonlinear and
cannot be solved by standard techniques based on superposition.
The moving-boundary problem can be linearized by introducing
the Boltzmann variable (similarity transform) y=rl)4tD' As
shown in Appendix A, the Boltzmann variable is constant at the
moving boundary by virtue of the integrated frontal-advance equa-
tion (Eq. A-lO). Hence, the problem can be transformed to a com-
posite problem with a fixed interface where the independent variable
is y. The mathematical formulation and solution to the injection
problem is presented in Appendix A. To obtain the wellbore pres-
sure in an infinite system we evaluate Eqs. A-22 and A-23 at
rD=1.
PwD =(MI2)E, (1I4tD)' tD :5114YBL ................... (1)
and PwD = '/2E, (l/41)tD) - V2E] (YBL/1) + (MI2)E] (YBL)
+ '/2 I SBL (f"/f')[(lIFA ) -l]dSw , tD ~ 1/4YBL' ..... (2)
swf
Note that YBL is constant and that the saturation at the wellbore
sandface, Swf' is a function of time because of the line-source
inner-boundary condition. Pressure is scaled with respect to the
water properties at injection conditions, while time is scaled with
respect to the oil properties in the uninvaded oil zone.
For late times, the above solution approaches
pwD='I2(ln tD+O.80907)+sa' ....................... (3)
where the apparent skin factor, sa' is given by
..................................... (4)
The late-time solution is equivalent to the solutions derived by Hov-
dan,7 Benson et at., 10 and Barkve. * These authors assumed the
inner region to be incompressible, not only in describing the satu-
ration profile,7 but also in solving for the pressure distribution.
This implies that the flUIds in the invaded region essentially be-
have as incompressible at late times in the injection period.
'Pers~nal communication with T. Barkve, U. of Bergen. Norway (March 1987).

294 SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1990

 1.0 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
- - Injection dolo
0 0 0 0 0 Follofl data
'<
Cf) 0.5
0.0 -t---...----.---.---..,---...----,.---l
o 200 400 600
Fig. 3-Saturatlon distribution during falloff.
Following the approach used by Verigin 11 and Ramey, 12 we can
derive approximate solutions to the finite outer-boundary problems
by solving a three-region problem with moving boundaries. The
wellbore pressure for the closed system is
PwD = (MI2)[E 1(1I4tD) - E 1(r;DI4tD)]
..................................... (6)
The constant-pressure outer-boundary solution is given by Eqs. 5
and 6 without the exponential (last) term.
Finally, note that the above solutions apply equally well to the
case where temperature effects are neglected, provided that the ap-
propriate fractional-flow curve is used. As demonstrated in Appen-
dix A, these solutions reduce to the two-region solutions derived
by Woodward and Thambynayagam 13 and Barkve, 14 if the flow
is piston-like.
Falloff Period. The solid line in Fig. 3 shows the saturation distri-
bution obtained from the numerical model after 100 days of injection
with the data in Table 1. The saturation profile obtained from the
same simulator after the well is shut in for 100 days after the 100
days of injection is also shown. The saturation profiles are virtually
identical, implying that the saturation distribution during falloff re-
mains stationary. This is consistent with use of the Buckley-Leverett
theory for the injection solution because the assumption of incom-
pressible fluids will result in the immediate stoppage of the mov-
ing saturation distribution and temperature discontinuity. The falloff
problem can then be approximated by a linear problem (fixed in-
terface) where the mobilities and diffusivities are given by their
value at the end of the injection period. The solution to this variable-
coefficient problem can be obtained by dividing the invaded region
into several regions where the saturation is approximated by its aver-
age value within each region. The pressure distribution at the end
of the injection period is the appropriate initial value for the falloff
problem. The formulation and solution to the problem are given
in Appendix B. Because we do not rely on the use of a similarity
transform in solving the falloff problem, we can implement a finite
wellbore radius with storage, skin, and a finite outer boundary. The
SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1990
30.------------------,
- - Similarity solution
00000Numerica! solution
- - Piston-like displacement
20
o
~
0..
Fig. 4-Comparison of analytical and numerical solutions for
the Injection period in an infinite reservoir.
wellbore-pressure solution for the SD =0 case is obtained by in-
verting Eq. B-14 and evaluating the pressure at rD = 1:
+£ -1[xllKo(,j~)]+£ -1[x12Io(~)], ........... (7)
while the solution including wellbore storage is obtained from the
inner-boundary condition (Eq. B-6).
As demonstrated by Bratvold 3 and Bratvold and Horne, 15 the
falloff solution can also be obtained by superposing the solutions
to the stationary saturation-distribution problem.
Solution Verification
In this section, the analytical solutions for the injection and falloff
periods are compared with numerically simulated results. The simu-
lator is a single-well thermal model, which numerically solves a
more-detailed model of the physical situation. 9 The appropriate
partial-differential equations are solved with a finite-difference tech-
nique, and the solution procedure is fully implicit with respect to
pressure, saturation, and temperature. Effects of gravity, capillary
pressure, and variations in relative permeabilities are accounted for
in the simulator. The simulator can include heat convection and
conduction in two dimensions in the reservoir, as well as conduction
between the reservoir and the cap- and bedrock. The heat capacities
and conductivities are assumed to be independent of temperature
and pressure. The densities are assumed to be linear functions of
pressure and temperature, while the viscosities are entered in table
form as functions of pressure and temperature.
Gravity was neglected in all the simulations conducted. A total
of 1,000 gridblocks was used in the simulator to permit an accurate
determination of the saturation, temperature, and pressure through-
out the reservoir.
Injection Period. Fig. 4 presents data from two injection tests in
an infinite reservoir. Table 1 gives the data used in the numerical
reservoir simulator. The dimensionless pressures are plotted vs.
injection time. The two cases shown differ in the values of the vis-
cosities at injection and reservoir temperature, and hence, differ
in mobility ratios. The numerical results compare very well with
the analytical solution for both cases.
Fig. 4 also shows the results from a three-bank analytical solution,
where the displacement is assumed to be piston-like and the fluid
discontinuities move according to mass and energy balance. 13,14
Obviously, significant errors are introduced by neglecting the vari-
able saturation profile. In particular, application of the three-region
solution results in a large underestimation of the apparent skin fac-
tor, and hence, an overestimation of the formation damage.
295
 30~------------------------------------,
25~--------------------------~-------,
- - Anolytical solution
Closed OB Numerical solution
- - Similarity solution 00000

Numerical solution
00000 - - Piston-like displocement
20

20 Set 1
15
o o
a.• Set 2 a.•
10 Constant
Press. OB 10

Set 2

10 • 10 • 10 • 10 •
llto
Fig. 5-Comperlson of analytical and numerical solutions for Fig. 6-Comparison of analytical and numerical solutions for
the Injection period In a finite reservoir. the falloff period in an infinite reservoir.

Fig. S shows injection results for closed and constant-pressure
outer boundaries. Again, we get a very good match between the
numerical and analytical solutions for the closed outer-boundary
case. The numerical simulator used lacked the capability of im-
plementing a constant-pressure outer boundary. Unlike the constant-
pressure case, however, the closed outer-boundary solution actu-
ally violates a boundary condition,3 and hence we expect the
constant-pressure outer-boundary solution to give a better approx-
imation to the actual pressure behavior.
Falloff Period. Fig. , presents falloff results for the two injection
cases shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 7 shows falloff results following injec-
tion into a finite reservoir. The injection time was 100 days in both
figures.
As discussed previously, the falloff problem is a variable-
coefficient problem that is solved by dividing the ,invaded region
into several regions where the saturations and the coefficients in
the governing equation are approximated by their average values.
The accuracy of this approach increases with the number of regions
and is also a function of the saturation gradient in the flooded region.
For the examples presented in Figs. 6 and 7, we found eight regions
to be sufficient. As with the injection results, the analytical solu-
tions compare excellently with the results obtained numerically.
In addition to the examples presented here, numerous other cases
were investigated. 3 In all cases where typical water-injection data
were used, the agreement between the numerical and analytical so-
lutions was excellent. Hence, the validity of the mathematical model
is established and the use of the analytical solutions for well-test
interpretation is justified.
Results
In this section we illustrate the general behavior and the applicability
of the solutions derived in the previous sections. All examples use
the data in Table 1.
Injection Period. For both cases shown in Fig. 4, two well-defined
straight lines are evident. From the solution (Eqs. 1 and 2), we
see that the first straight line corresponds to the mobility of the virgin
reservoir fluid and has slope M12. The second line has slope 1/2
and corresponds to the mobility in the completely flooded region
where Sw=l-Sor'
Fig. 8 is a plot of the solution in real variables with Data Set
2. The calculated wellbore pressures for isothermal injection tests
are also shown. The uppermost curve is generated with the cold
viscosities, 1-'0=7.2 cp and I-'w= 1.2 cp, while the lowermost curve
depicts the result when only hot viscosities are used, 1-'0 =2.4 cp
and I-'w= 0.4 cpo It is obvious that any estimate of the permeability-
thickness product, kr1kh, 1=0, w, will be greatly in error if the vis-
cosities are not adjusted for temperature. Furthermore, the appar-
ent skin factor caused by the injected fluid bank will be significantly
overestimated, resulting in an equally large underestimate of the
formation damage at the wellbore.
The solid lines in Fig. 9 show the injection profiles including
temperature effects for Data Sets 1 and 2. The isothermal solution

25,------------------------------------,
Set 2 - - Anolytical solution
3500~----------------------------------__,

Numerical solution
00000
- - - Nonisothermol solution
- - Isothermal, cold viscosities
20 ------ Isothermal. hot viscosities
Closed 3000

15 Set 2
o
a.•
10
c:i.2ooO
5 1500
/

10001-~~~~rT~~~~~~~~~Tn~~~
10' 10 • 10 • 10" 10--' 10 -. 10 10 •
6tO t, hours
Fig. 7-Comparl80n of analytical and numerical solutions for Fig. 8-Effects of assuming temperature-Independent viscosi-
the falloff period In a finite reservoir. ties during Injection.

296 SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1990

 30,------------------------------------,
- - - Nonisothermal
25
25 00000 Isothermal, p.." IJ.o>,

20
15
o o
~15 CII
Q.
oo~
Set 2
oo~ Corey rei. perm.
5
n = 3 - 8

10 • 10 • 10 • o 2 4 6 8 10
to M
Fig. 9-Comparlson of nonlsothermal and Isothermal solu-
tions with temperature-adjusted viscosities during injection. Fig. 10-Apparent skin factor.

where the water viscosities are taken at their cold values (/tw=O.4
and 1.2 cp) while the hot values of the oil viscosities are used
(/to =2.0 and 2.4 cp) is also included. From this graph, we see that
the isothermal solution-the solution where the temperature dis-
continuity in saturation is neglected but the temperature-dependent
values of the viscosities are used-will yield both the correct krlkh
and a good estimate of the formation damage.
If we take a closer look at Fig. 9, which compares the noniso-
thermal and isothermal solutions, we see that the nonisothermal solu-
tion has a discontinuous time derivative. This discontinuity does
not occur at the point where the solution switches from Eq. 1 to
Eq. 2 but at some later time corresponding to the location of the
step-change in temperature. For Data Sets 1 and 2, this occurs at
the dimensionless times 1,535 and 1,280 (about 4 minutes). At this
time, the viscosities used in the solution switch from hot to cold
values, and we get a discontinuous time derivative. This abrupt
change in the mobilities has the same immediate effect as a perme-
ability boundary (increasing permeability in this example). Short-
ly thereafter, the invaded region starts behaving like a positive skin
zone, and the pressure starts to increase more rapidly. This sud-
den change in the mobilities is also apparent in the solution ob-
tained numerically (Fig. 4). The temperature change, however, is
gradual in the simulator because of the finite grid, and the slope
is continuous although different from the isothermal case. The major
effect of this peculiarity for the injection case is the shortening of
the two semilog straight lines as seen in Fig. 9. Because nonlinear
regression techniques typically rely on accurate calculations of the
pressure derivatives with respect to the parameters being investigat-
ed, this difference in the rate of change may lead to errors if the
isothermal solution is used. This obviously is also a concern if type-
curve-matching techniques are used to estimate reservoir and fluid
parameters.
A closer inspection of the equation for the apparent skin factor
(Eq. 4) shows that it is a function of the saturation-dependent pa-
rameters. In particular, it will be a function of the relative permea-
bility data, which usually are not known in advance. In Fig. 10
we have plotted the apparent skin factor as calculated from Eq. 4 vs.
the mobility ratio, M. The graphs correspond to different values
of the exponent in Corey's 16 relative permeability equations. Note
that the functional form of the relative permeability data will de-
pend on the exponent, while the endpoint values are independent
of the exponent. The mobility ratio, M, on the abscissa, however,
is a function of the endpoint values and not of the functional form
of the relative permeability data. From Fig. 10, we see that the
data for the various exponents are very close, in particular for the
lower range of mobility ratios. The interpretation is that if the mo-
bility ratio is known, the apparent skin factor can be estimated from
the graph in Fig. 10. Similar graphs can be generated from the
analytical solution for any chosen set of relative permeability equa-
tions. Furthermore, because the apparent skin factor does not de-
pend strongly on the functional form of the relative permeability
data, but rather on the endpoint values that can be obtained from
the analysis of the injection and falloff data, we can estimate sa
and obtain the formation damage (or stimulation), s, as s=s/ -sa'
where SI is the total skin factor obtained by standard analysis. 17

30,---------------------------------------, 10~----------------------------------_,
o 0
00 - - Nonisothermol solution
o 0
25 00 - - Isothermol. /Lwo. J.l.ah - - - Nonisothermol solution

... .. 0 0 0 0 0 [sothermol~ fLwtt. !-'on

.II. A.6. 6..6. Isothermal. J.l.wc. JJ.oc
Q)
00000 Numerical solution
- - Isothermal solution. JJ-. J.I.ao,

20 Q.
o
o
o o (f)
~15
0... L
o Q)
o
10 C
L
• 0 o
• 0 I
5 Set 2 o Set 2

10 • 10 • 10 • 10' 10' 10 • 10 • 10 •
!lto !lto
Fig. 11-Comparison of nonlsothermal and Isothermal solu- Fig. 12-Temperature and saturation effects on pressure-de-
tions during falloff. rivative type curves.

SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1990 297

 The injection solution for the constant-pressure, outer-boundary
case (Fig. 5) has a sign change in the slope as the outer boundary
is "felt" in the wellbore pressure. This slope change is described
mathematically by the late-time solution to the constant-pressure
outer-boundary case and the late-time slope 3 is
'I2(I-M). . ...................................... (8)
Hence, the slope will change sign at approximately t D = teD' where
teD is given by Eq. A-28, if M> 1. Physically, this can be ex-
plained by comparing the mobility of the reservoir oil with the mo-
bility of the injected water. Ifthe cold water is more mobile than
the hot oil, the overall resistance to flow (or injection) will decrease
as water occupies a larger fraction of the reservoir. Eventually,
the pressure must be given by the steady-state solution
PwD=lil reD' ..................................... (9)
which requires a drop in the wellbore pressure if M> 1.
Finally, to apply the above results to field data, note that the well-
bore storage effect may mask the first straight line. Furthermore,
in a relatively small reservoir, the outer-boundary effects may mask
the second straight line; i.e., the line corresponding to the com-
pletely flooded region at the residual oil saturation. As shown in
Ref. 3, however, the injection data will eventually plot as a straight
line with slope 2M7r on a dimensionless Cartesian graph for the
closed-outer-boundary case. If the outer boundary is a constant-
pressure type, the dimensionless late-time data will plot as a semi-
log straight line with slope Ih(l-M). Hence, if the test is long
enough, the injection data will give an estimate ofthe water mobil-
ity for the completely flooded region if the system is infinite-acting,
or it will give M if outer-boundary effects mask the infinite-acting
semilog straight line.
Falloff Period. Let us now return to Fig. 6 to investigate the char-
acteristics of the pressure/time curve during the falloff period. Fig.
11 presents the analytical solution from Data Set 2. The graph also
includes the solutions with cold and hot viscosity values. As in the
injection case, we see that neglecting the temperature effects on
the viscosity results in gross errors in the calculation of both krlkh
and s. The dashed line in Fig. 11 represents an isothermal analyti-
cal solution of the cold-water and hot-oil viscosities. The isother-
mal solution is shifted above the nonisothermal at early times but
will give .the correct values at late times.
A cursory inspection of the falloff data in Fig. 6 suggests that
the pressureitime data will yield two straight lines separated by a
transition period. Intuitively, and from other work, 13,14, 18·21 we
would expect the slope of these straight lines to correspond to the
completely flooded and uninvaded regions, respectively. Fig. 12
is a log-log plot of the pressure derivative, dpwD/[d In(tD. +!ltD)/
!ltD], vs. time. The analytical solution (the solid line) indi~ates that
the falloff data will not plot as a semilog straight line correspond-
ing to Sw = I-So" This is explained by Fig. 3, the saturation pro-
file in the reservoir during the falloff period, which shows that the
only place where Sw = I-So, is at the sandface. From the Buckley-
Leverett theory, we know that
rD drD I
dtD Sw
ocl'ls
w
................................ (10)
or rD21sw ocl'lsw tD' ................................. (II)
When the analytical relative permeability curves are used, 1'(1-
So,) =0 and hence TD II-sor =0; i.e., the only location where the
saturation can be at its endpoint value, I-Sop is at the line source.
This may be an artifact of the analytical solution, but even if the
injected fluid was slightly mobile at the sandface, the fully flooded
region would be very small, and the corresponding straight line
would be too short to be identifiable. If this is the case, why do
the injection data yield the properties of the completely flooded
region? The difference in the wellbore-pressure behavior between
the injection and falloff cases can be explained with the qualitative
concept of a radius of investigation. 22 Remember that the injection
298
problem is a moving-boundary problem where the saturation front
propagates into the reservoir with time. In the falloff problem, how-
ever, the saturation distribution is approximately stationary for all
times. The wellbore-pressure response reflects the average reser-
voir and fluid properties within the radius of investigation. In the
injection case, the location of the saturation front is proportional
to the radius of investigation and, after a short time, the wellbore
pressure will be dominated by the mobility near the sandface. In
the falloff case, however, the saturation reflected by the wellbore
pressure will be I-So, at !ltD =0, and then will continuously
decrease to Sw;, as the saturation distribution in Fig. 3 and the
pressure derivative in Fig. 12 show. Hence, if the well is shut in
long enough, the falloff data will plot as a straight line representing
the mobility of the uninvaded region with saturation Sw =Sw;'
A second interesting feature of the analytical falloff solution is
the decreasing slope about halfway through the time period investi-
gated in Fig. 12. The solid line corresponds to the non isothermal
analytical solution, the dashed line is the isothermal solution with
temperature-corrected viscosities, and the circles reflect the numer-
ical solution. The oscillating slope, which is caused by the same
phenomenon, is related to the discontinuous slope in the injection
solution. At early times (small !ltD), the radius of investigation en-
compasses the cold region and the mobilities are low. Later, the
average fluid properties reflected by the wellbore pressure will shift
gradually toward their hot or high values in the invaded region,
resulting in a decreasing slope. As the radius of investigation in-
creases further, the properties within the radius of investigation
eventually will be dominated by the properties in the uninvaded
region-i.e., the hot oil properties. This is also reflected by the
nonisothermal solution obtained numerically. The oscillatory slope
effect, however, is more diffuse in the numerical solution because
of the finite grid system. The resolution in the slope obtained nu-
merically is also sensitive to the timestep size used. Fig. 12 also
shows the isothermal solution for cold-water and hot-oil viscosities.
Although the isothermal solution will represent the initial and the
straight-line portions of the falloff data correctly, its slope character-
istics are significantly different from the nonisothermal solution.
Hence, in analysis of the falloff data by type-curve methods or non-
linear regression techniques, the temperature effects will be im-
portant and must be accounted for to obtain a good representation
of the solutions. This is particularly true if the falloff test is not
long enough to obtain the semilog straight line.
For the examples presented here, the straight-line portion repre-
senting the uninvaded region will be reached almost one full log
cycle earlier in the nonisothermal case than in the isothermal case
because the mobilities used in generating the isothermal solution
give a larger invaded region-i.e., a larger TDBL than the noniso-
thermal solution used in the match.
Finally, the shut-in time required to reach the semilog straight
line of the uninvaded region may be too long to be practically attain-
able. In the example discussed here, the well must be shut in for
about 30 days or about one-third ofthe injection time to get within
5 % of the correct slope. This suggests that type-curve-matching
techniques, preferably automated, will be essential for the analysis
of the falloff data.
Conclusions
1. Both temperature and saturation effects must be accounted for
to analyze injection-falloff tests associated with cold-water injection
into hot-oil reservoirs accurately.
2. A combined semilog and type-curve (nonlinear regression)
analysis of field data can provide estimates of the mobilities of the
completely flooded and the uninvaded regions; the apparent skin
factor caused by saturation and temperature gradients, and from
this, the formation damage (or stimulation); the size of the uninvaded
region and the distance to the temperature discontinuity; and the
product of the density and heat capacity of the reservoir rock or
one of the fluid phases.
3. Changes in slope caused by nonisothermal pressure transients
may be incorrectly interpreted as reservoir boundaries.
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1990
 4. If saturation gradients are ignored, the formation damage can ~o = endpoint oil mobility, kkro(Swi)/ J.loh, md/cp
be grossly overestimated. ~w = endpoint water mobility, kkrw(l-Sor)/J.lwc, md/cp
5. The solution technique presented is applicable to a wide range J.I = viscosity, cp
of injection-falloff problems. ~ = variable of integration, dimensionless
p = density, Ibm/ft3
Nomenclature </> = porosity, fraction
ai = distance to Interface i in multizone problem if; = pressure distribution at shut-in time, dimensionless
an = distance to oil/water interface in multizone problem
C = compressibility, psi - 1 Subscripts
ct = total compressibility, ct=ct(Sw), psi- I a = apparent
Cto = total compressibility of oil region, psi- I BL = Buckley-Leverett
C= specific heat capacity, Btu/(ft3 - OF) D = dimensionless
d= right-side vector f = reservoir rock
E1(x) = exponential integral, 1 e-U/udu
00 i = Region i in falloff solution or injection
f = fractional flow of wat~r 1= 0 or w
f' = df/dS w n = number of regions used in falloff solution
0= oil
f" = d2f/dS~
FA = total mobility, (Ao + Aw)/ ~w' dimensionless oc = oil at injection temperature (cold)
h= formation thickness, ft oh = oil at reservoir temperature (hot)
Io(x) = modified Bessel function, first kind, order zero P = production time
I I (x)= modified Bessel function, first kind, order one r = relative
t = total
k = permeability, md
w = water
kro = kro(Swi)
we = water at injection temperature (cold)
krw = krw(l-Sor)
Ko = modified Bessel function, second kind, order zero wh = water at reservoir temperature (hot)
Kl = modified Bessel function, second kind, order one 1 = invaded zone
.£ -I (u) = inverse Laplace transform of u 2 = uninvaded zone
M = mobility ratio, ~wc/~oh
Superscripts
P = pressure
= average
PD = dimensionless pressure, 27r~w(P-PR)/q
= vector
PR = initial reservoir pressure, psi
I = first derivative
PwD = dimensionless wellbore pressure, 27r ~w(Pwf -PR)/q /I = second derivative
Pwf = wellbore pressure, psi
q = injection rate, BID Acknowledgments
r = radius, ft
This work was supported financially by SUPRl-D, the Stanford U.
re = exterior reservoir boundary radius, ft
Research Consortium for Innovation in Well Test Analysis. Finan-
rT = radius to temperature discontinuity, ft
cial aid to one of the authors from the Norway-America Assn., The
rw = wellbore radius, ft Royal Norwegian Council for Scientific & Industrial Research
s = skin factor (NTNF), Rogaland Research Inst., and Statoil are gratefully ac-
SBL = Buckley-Leverett saturation, fraction knowledged. Many thanks also to Svein M. Skjaeveland at Rogaland
SD = dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient based on U. Center for suggesting the problem and to Takao Nanba for
injected water properties providing us with the nonlinear regression program he developed
Sor = residual oil saturation, fraction as a student at Stanford U.
Sw = water saturation, fraction
Swf = water saturation at the well bore sandface, fraction References
Swi = initial water saturation, fraction I. Prats, M.: Thermal Recovery, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson,
t = time, hours TX (1982) 7.
tD = dimensionless time, ~ot/</>ctor~ 2. Abbaszadeh, M. and Kamal, M.M.: "Pressure-Transient Testing of
teD = dimensionless time at which outer boundary is felt Water-Injection WeIls," SPERE (Feb. 1989) 115-24.
in well bore pressure 3. Bratvold, R.B.: "An Analytical Study of Reservoir Pressure Response
FoIlowing Cold Water Injection, " PhD dissertation, Stanford V., Stan-
ilt = shut-in time, hours
ford, CA (March 1989).
T = temperature, OF 4. Fayers, F.J.: "Some Theoretical Results Concerning the Displacement
TD = dimensionless temperature, (T-T;)I(TR-T[) of a Viscous Oil by a Hot Fluid in a Porous Medium, Part I," 1. Fluid
Ti = injection temperature, OF Mech. (1962) 1365-76.
TR = initial reservoir temperature, OF 5. Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.e.: "Mechanism of Fluid Displacement
u = Laplace transform parameter in Sands," Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 107-16.
6. Karakas, M., Saneie, S., and Yortsos, Y.: "Displacement ofa Viscous
Xi = unknown constants in multizone problem Oil by the Combined Injection of Hot Water and Chemical Additive,"
y = Boltzmann variable, rB/4tD SPERE (July 1986) 391-402; Trans., AIME, 282.
YBL = Boltzmann variable evaluated at rBL, rbSL/4tD 7. Hovdan, M.: "Water Injection-Incompressible Analytical Solution
'Y = Euler constant, 0.57722 ... With Temperature Effects," technical report MH-1I86, Statoil,
r = matrix Stavanger, Norway (Sept. 1986) (in Norwegian).
E = qCto/27r~oh 8. Bratvold, R.B. and Larsen, L.: "Effects of Linear Boundaries on
Pressure-Transient Injection and FaIloff Data," paper SPE 19830
.\ = similarity transform, 7rr2h</>/qt presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
1] = diffusivity ratio, M(ctolc t ) San Antonio, Oct. 8-11.
~ = endpoint diffusivity ratio, M(ctolc tw ) 9. Nyhus, E.: "Modelling of Thennal Injection and Falloff Tests," techni-
K = IIFA1/ cal report, Rogaland Research Inst., Stavanger, Norway (Oct. 1987)
A = mobility (in Norwegian).

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1990 299

10. Benson, S. M. et ai.: "Analysis of Thennally Induced Penneability En- Boundary conditions:
hancement in Geothennal Injection Wells," Proc., Workshop on Geo-
thennal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford U., Stanford, CA (1987). lim rv(apv larv) = -I ........................ (A-5)
11. Verigin, N.N.: "On the Pressurized Forcing of Binder Solutions Into 'D- O I

Rocks in Order to Increase the Strength and Imperviousness to Water and lim Pv =0. . .............................. (A-6)
of the Foundations of Hydrotechnical Installations," lsvestia Alwdemii 'D-Of> 2
Nauk SSSR Odt. Tehn. Nauk (1952) 5, 674-87 (in Russian).
12. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Approximate Solutions for Unsteady State Liquid Moving-boundary conditions:
Flow in Composite Reservoir," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jan.-March 1970)
32-37. PVI =Pv , rv=rv ............................ (A-7)
2 BL
13. Woodward, O.K. and Thambynayagam, R.K.M.: "Pressure Buildup
and Falloff Analysis of Water-Injection Tests," paper SPE 12344 avail- apvI 1 apV2
able from SPE Book Order Dept., Richardson, TX. and F } . . - - = - - - , rv=rv .................. (A-8)
arv M arv BL
14. Barkve, T.: "Nonisothennal Effects in Water-Injection Well Tests,"
SPEFE (June 1989) 281-86. All variables and parameters are dimensionless. Pv and Pv are
15. Bratvold, R.B. and Home, R.N.: "An Analytical Solution to a Multiple-
the pressures in the invaded and uninvaded regions, Irespecti~ely.
Region Moving Boundary Problem-Nonisothennal Water Injection Into
Oil Reservoirs," Proc., Second Annual Joint IMA/SPE European Con- rVBL is the position of the moving interface between the two re-
ference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Cambridge U. (July 1989). gions. A second moving discontinuity-the temperature discontinu-
16. Corey, A.T.: "The Interrelation Between Gas and Oil Relative Per- ity-exists in the reservoir. In the above model, this is accounted
meabilities," Producers Monthly (Nov. 1954) 19, No. 11, 34-41. for through the time- and space-dependent total mobility, F}.,.
17. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well TestAnaiysis, Monograph Ser- From the Buckley-Leverett 5 theory, we know that the satura-
ies, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5. tion profile is defined by the frontal-advance (mass-conservation)
18. Benson, S.M. and Bodvarsson, G.S.: "Nonisothennal Effects During equation
Injection and Falloff Tests," SPEFE (Feb. 1986) 53-63.
19. Weinstein, H.G.: "Cold Waterflooding a Warm Reservoir," paper SPE [rv(drvldtv)]s =Ef'l s , ........................ (A-9)
w w
5083 presented at the 1974 SPE Annual Meeting, Houston, Sept. 30-
Oct. 3. where E=[(qcto)/(21r~oh)], and where f'=dfldS w denotes the
20. Sosa, A., Raghavan, R., and Limon, T.J.: "Effect of Relative Penne- slope of the fractional-flow curve. By integrating Eq. A-9, we obtain
ability and Mobility Ratio on Pressure Falloff Behavior," JPT (June
(rv2Itv)s =2Ef'ls = constant. . .................. (A-lO)
1981) 1125-35. w w
21. Kazemi, H., Merrill, L.S., and Jargon, J.R.: "Problems in Interpretation Hence, by transforming the problem from the independent vari-
of Pressure Fall Off Tests in Reservoirs With and Without Fluid Banks," ables rv and tv to the Boltzmann variable y=rjy/4tv, we fix the
JPT (Sept. 1972) 1147-56. moving interface and transform the moving-boundary problem into
22. Streltsova, T.D.: Well Testing in Heterogeneous Formations, John Wiley a composite problem in one variable.
& Sons, New York City, Exxon Monograph (1988).
23. Barkve, T.: "A Study of the Verigin Problem with Application to Analy-
sis of Water Injection Wells," PhD dissertation, U. of Bergen, Bergen, d ( dPvl) Y dpVI
- F}..y-- +---=O,O<Y<YBL' ......... (A-II)
Norway (March 1985). dy dy '1/ dy
24. Stehfest, H.: "Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transfonns," Communi-
cations of the ACM (Jan. 1970) 13, No.1, Algorithm 368.
-
d (YdPv2) dpV2
- - +Y-- =0, YBL <y < 00, •..••..•... (A-12)
Appendix A-Injection Solution dy dy dy
We will derive the injection solution in an infinite reservoir with lim y(dpv/dy) = -V2, ........................ (A-l3)
the similarity-transform approach. The disadvantage of this approach y-O
is that, although it is exact for a given saturation distribution, it
lim PV =0, ................................ (A-14)
is limited to a line-source well, and hence, wellbore-storage effects y-oo 2
cannot be included. To include wellbore-storage effects, the solu-
tions obtained by the quasistationary approach 3,\5 should be used. PVI =Pv , Y=YBL' ............................. (A-15)
2
We limit our discussion to cold-water injection into a hot-oil reser-
voir. The procedure, however, applies to any system for which the dpvI 1 dpv2
and F } . , - - = - - - , Y=YBL' .................. (A-16)
saturation profile can be described a priori. dy M dy
where YBL = V2Efk = constant. . .................... (A-l7)
Infinite Reservoir. Assuming that the reservoir consists of two
different regions separated by a moving discontinuity in fluid satura- The problem now consists of two ordinary linear differential equa-
tion, as outlined in Fig. 1, we obtain the following mathematical tions with variable coefficients. The moving boundary is fixed in
model for an infinite system with a line-source well. terms of Y, and the solution is obtained by integration.
Governing equations:
dY")
1
a ( ap vl ) I apvI
pv (y)=1hj
l
YBL dy'
--,exp
(
-j y' --
- - F}..rv-- =---,O<rv<rv ...... (A-I) Y F}..y 0 F}..'I/
rv arv arv '1/ atv BL
+ M exp(YBL _ j YBL dy )E\(YBL), O:SY:SYBL ..... (A-IS)
I a ( ap V2 ) apV2 2 0 F}..'I/
and - - - r v - - = - - , rV <rv<oo, ....... (A-2)
BL
rv arv arv atv
M
andpv 2 (y)=-exp ( YBL - JYBL -dy- ) E\(y), YBL:SY:Soo.
where rV BL =rv BL (tv),
2 0 F}..'I/
'I/[Sw(rv,tv)] ='I/(rv,tv) = M(ctolc t ), " ................................ (A-19)
ct=Swcw+(I-Sw)co +cf' Eq. A -18 is singular at the line source Y = O. This singularity is re-
moved by adding and subtracting:
and F}..[Sw(rv,tv)] =F}.,(rv,tv)=(ho +hw)/~w'
1h rB\e-Y'hIIY')dY', . ........................... (A-20)
Initial conditions:
Y
PVI =Pv =0, tv=O, ............................ (A-3)
2 Furthermore, for a typical water-injection test, ttie reservoir and
and rV BL =0, tv =0. . ............................. (A-4) fluid parameters are such that E is small and YBL = Ef'/2 is of order

300 SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1990

10 - 2 to 10 - 3 , while FA 7J > 1. This makes the exponential terms most region approaches zero while its interface is kept at reD' The
in the solution close to one after the first few seconds of injection, approximate closed-outer-boundary solution is given by Eqs. 5
and the fluids in the invaded region essentially behave as if they and 6.
were incompressible. Because The constant-pressure outer-boundary approximation is obtained
y=rj)4tD=c/>cor2/4>"ot=lhEI', .................. (A-21) by taking the limit as the mobility in the outermost region approaches
infinity. The solution to this problem is given by Eqs. 5 and 6
we can change variables to obtain the solution in terms of radius without the exponential terms.
and time (note that YBL is constant):
PD 2(rD,tD) = (MI2)E I (rji 4tD)' tD S, rji4YBL ........ (A-22) Appendix B-Falloff Solution
In the paper we show that the falloff problem can be approximated
and PDI (rD,tD) = '12E I (rlJl4~tD) -'12E I (YBL/~)
by a linear, variable-coefficient problem. This variable-coefficient
S f"
+1/2J BL -
(1 )
- - 1 dSw+-EI(YBL)
M
problem can be solved by dividing the invaded region into (n+ 1)
regions where the coefficients are evaluated at the average satura-
I-SarI' FA 2 tion of each region. The governing equations and boundary condi-
tions in dimensionless form for the (n+ I)-region composite
+'l2] I-Sor f"(I)
- - - 1 dS w '
r2
tD?~' ......... (A-23) reservoir follow.
Governing equations:
Sw(rD,ID) I' FA 4YBL

Evaluating the pressure at the wellbore, we note that for late times
Sw(l,tD)-I-S op and the last integral in Eq. A-23 becomes
negligible. At these times, we can also use the approximation
................................... (B-1)
-EI(x)",dnx+" and obtain the wellbore pressure as
pwD=1/2(ln tD+0.80907)+sa+s, ................. (A-24)
where sa is given by
................................... (B-2)
Sa = '12 j SBL 1': (_1_ -I )dSw+ '12(ln YBL +,,)(l-M). .. (A-25)
I-Sor f FA Initial conditions:
Therefore, the wellbore pressure is given by the familiar Theis =v" I (rD)' tD =0 ............................. (B-3)
PD Jj
solution 17 plus an apparent skin factor caused by the saturation
gradient and the propagating temperature and phase discontinuities. and PD 2 = v" 2 (rD), tD=O, ........................... (B-4)
In this expression for the well bore pressure, we have added a me- where v"i(rD) is the injection solution for the appropriate outer-
chanical skin factor, s, to account for formation damage or stimu- boundary condition evaluated at tD =tD '
i
lation near the wellbore.
If the relative permeabilities and viscosities of the fluids are such Inner-boundary conditions:
that the injection results in piston-like displacement, FA = 1, 7J = ~,
and removal of the singularity from Eq. A-18 gives the Verigin (SDIM)(dPwDldtD)-[rD(BPD/BrD)]rD=1 =0 ......... (B-5)
solution 11,23 : and PwD =[PD 1 -srD(BpD/(JrD)]rD=I' ............... (B-6)
PDI = '12E I (rlJl4~tD) -'12E I (YBL/~)
Outer-boundary conditions:
+(MI2)eYBL(l-I/~) E I (YBL)' Os, rD S, rD .......... (A-26)
BL Infinite: lim PD =0. . ......................... (B-7)
and PD2 =(MI2)eYBL(l-I/~) EI (y), rD S, rD < 00. . ..... (A-27) 'D- OO 2
BL
Closed: (JPD/(JrD IreD =0. . ....................... (B-8)
Finite Outer Boundary. During injection into an infinite reservoir,
only the compressibilities in the uninvaded zone are significant. 3 Constant pressure: PD Ir =0. . ................... (B-9)
2 eD
Consequently, it is likely that the outer boundary of a finite cylindri-
cal reservoir will start influencing the wellbore pressure at the time Inteiface conditions:
given by the radius-of-investigation concept 22 :
PD Jj =PD1(i+I)' rD=ai' i=I .. . n-l, .............. (B-lO)
teD = 'Ar~D' ................................... (A-28)
(JPDIi (JPD I(i+I) •
The Buckley-Leverett phase-front position at time teD is given by Mi- - = , rD=ai' /=1 .. . n-I, ........ (B-ll)
(JrD (JrD
rb BL =2EfBLteD=(EfBLI2)r~D' ................... (A-29)
PD 1n =PD 2 ' rD=a n , ............................ (B-12)
Because E is of order 10 -4 to 10 - 5 while filL is of order I, the in-
vaded region is still occupying only a small part of the total reservoir - (JPDln (JPD2
at the end of the infinite-acting period. Hence, it is expected that andF"AnM--=--, rD=a n , .................. (B-13)
the compressibility in the large uninvaded region also dominates (JrD (JrD
after the outer boundary is felt in the wellbore pressure.
where Mi=F).,iIFAi+I'
Verigin 11 and Ramey 12 discussed approximate solutions for
moving-boundary problems in finite domains. Applying their ideas, We now use the average values for F)"i and 7Ji in each of the n re-
we can add an outer region to obtain an additional moving boundary gions. The problem is then a linear, constant-coefficient problem
in an infinite reservoir. The two outer regions have constant, but and can be solved by Laplace transformation. Note that the nonzero
different, mobilities, while the inner region has a saturation gradient initial condition results in a nonhomogeneous problem in Laplace
and a temperature discontinuity as before. The interfaces move ac- space. The two linearly independent, homogeneous solutions in
cording to mass and energy balances and hence the saturation and .haplace space are KoCJ~ rD) and Io(~ rD)' where Ki=(l1
temperature distributions remain constant at any constant value of F).,iT/i·
the Boltzmann variable. An approximation to a closed outer bound- The general solution in Laplace space to the nonhomogeneous
ary can be obtained by taking the limit as the mobility in the outer- problem is then obtained by variation of parameters.

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1990 301

 Authors
Reldar Brumer
Bratvold Is a
senior scientist +lo(..ru rD)I reD ~1/I2(~)KO(..ru ~)d~
with IBM European
Petroleum Applica- rD

tion Center In
Stavanger, where +X(n+ 1) 1KO(..ru rD)+X(n+ 1)2 I O(..ru rD)' ....... (B-15)
he works with com-
The constants are determined by applying the boundary and inter-
puter applications
In reservoir engi- face conditions. In doing this, we need to solve for the following
neering. He holds a (n + 1) x (n + 1) block tridiagonal system of equations for the con-
Bratvold Horne DH. Ing degree In stantsxil andxn, i=l ... n+l:
petroleum engi-
neering from Rogaland Regional C., an MS degree In petrole- rx=d. ...................................... (B-16)
um engineering from the U. of Tulsa, and an MS degree in The coefficients of matrix r and the right-side vector d depend
mathematics and PhD degree In petroleum engineering from
Stanford U. Bratvold currently serves on the Editorial Review
on the auxiliary conditions given in Ref. 3.
Committee. Roland N_ Horne Is an associate professor of The wellbore pressure in Laplace space now can be obtained by
petroleum engineering at Stanford U. He holds BE and PhD substituting Eq. B-14 and its gradient into Eq. B-6 with rD = 1. The
degrees In theoretical and applied mechanics, and a DSc inverted wellbore pressure for the case where SD=O is given by
degree in engineering, all from the U. of Auckland, New Eq. 7. The last two terms of this solution are inverted numerically
Zealand. His research Interests are computerized well-test anal- with the Stehfest 24 inversion algorithm.
ysis, tracer testing, flow through fractures, geothermal reser-
voir engineering, simulation, optimization, and microcomputer
applications. Horne, the 1982 recipient of the SPE Distin- 51 Metric Conversion Factors
guished Achievement Award for Petroleum Engineering bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol m3
Faculty, has served on various committees and Is currently Btu x 1.055056 E+OO kJ
serving on the Textbook Committee and a Technical Program
cp x 1.0* E-03 Pa·s
Committee for the 1990 Annual Meeting.
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 m3
OF (OF-32)/1.8 °C
fiDIi = KiKO(V;:;;; rD)I rD ~l/Il(WO(V;:;;; ~)d~ md x 9.869233 E-04 p.m 2
ai-l psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
psi- 1 x 1.450377 E-Ol kPa- 1

+KJo(V;:;;; rD) IQi ~1/I2(~)Ko(V;:;;; ~)d~ • Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE

rD
Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 2. 1988. Paper accepted for publication
May 21. 1990. Revised manuscript received March 19. 1990. Paper (SPE 18111) first
presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston.
Oct. 2-5.

302 SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1990