Use of Analytical Solutions To Improve
Simulator Accuracy
J.K. Jasti, Mobil E&P Technical Center, V.R. Penmatcha,* SPE, Stanford U., and D.K. Babu, SPE,
Mobil E&P Technical Center
Summary
Analytical solutions previously developed for wellbore design and
scoping analysis were utilized in this study to benchmark and
modify the existing wellbore models in the reservoir simulator.
The analytical solutions were developed for single phase oil or gas
flow problems, and they are currently being used for well perfor-
mance studies covering a wide range of well configurations: ver-
tical, horizontal, deviated, and arbitrary well geometry, and frac-
tured completions in single or multilayered reservoirs. In this
paper, some of the analytical solutions are utilized for benchmark-
ing the existing well models in the reservoir simulator. Alternative
well models are proposed for improving the accuracy of simulator
predictions. Two methods of calculating gridblock-wellbore-
connection factors are described. Results show that the new meth-
ods impact the simulator accuracy significantly for three-
dimensional flow cases and for highly deviated wells.
Introduction
Flowing bottomhole pressure and flow rate are the two important
parameters computed by reservoir simulators. It is essential that
these quantities are estimated accurately, especially in view of
increased application of complex well trajectories for exploiting
oil and gas reservoirs. A relationship between wellblock pressure
and wellbore pressure is utilized in the reservoir simulators to
determine the wellbore pressure if the flow rate is specified, or to
determine the wellblock flow rate, if the wellbore pressure is
given. Accurate evaluation of ‘‘connection factors,’’ defining the
relationship between the simulator-generated wellblock pressure
and the wellbore flowing pressure, therefore becomes an impor-
tant item. Peaceman, through his landmark publications,1,2 estab-
lished a mathematical relationship between wellblock pressure
and wellbore pressure for a fully penetrating vertical well. Babu3
et al. extended this work for the case of a fully penetrating hori-
zontal well in a slablike drainage area. This topic continues to
generate interest and attention by various investigators:4–11 Kim’s
work on nonsquare gridblocks; the work of Morita et al. on fine
mesh and finite element three-dimensional ~3D! simulators;
Peaceman’s work on off-centered and multiple wells in a single
gridblock; Lin’s work on partially penetrating vertical wells, het-
erogeneous media, and nonuniform grids; Ding’s work on double
layer potentials with transmissibility adjustments; Sharpe and
Ramesh’s publication on orthogonal grid generation, nonuniform
grids and 3D flow aspects; the work of Chen et al. on productivity
index calculation in reservoir simulators, etc.
In this paper, we present results from our attempts to increase
simulator accuracy when solving problems connected with the
production from a system of wells. The wells can be partially
penetrating ~allowing for 3D flow around the wellbore!, and hav-
*Now with Mobil E&P Technical Center.
Copyright © 1999 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 55225) was revised for publication from paper SPE 38887, first presented
at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas,
5–8 October. Original manuscript received for review 21 October 1997. Revised manu-
script received 23 November 1998. Revised manuscript approved 11 December 1998.
SPE Journal 4 ~1!, March 1999 1086-055X/99/4~1!/47/10/$3.5010.15
ing arbitrary trajectories. A sequence of analytical and numerical
procedures is outlined here to better estimate the relationship be-
tween the wellbore and wellblock pressures.
Methodology
The rate-pressure relationship can be summarized using a
wellbore-to-gridblock connection factor F ci as
q i 5F ci~ p block,i 2p w f ,i ! for wellblock i. ~1!
Explicit formulas for the connection factors for homogenous me-
dia with uniform grids can be found in previous publications by
Peaceman1,2 for vertical wells, and Babu3 et al. for horizontal
wells. Whereas the previous formulas covered essentially two-
dimensional flow, the present work is applicable to fully three-
dimensional problems, and is designed to handle arbitrary well
trajectories in three-dimensional space.
Two methods are presented for computing the connection fac-
tors. The first method applies when a uniform grid is employed in
the simulator. In this approach, the connection factors are deter-
mined from direct analytical solutions. For locally refined grids,
and for arbitrarily structured grids, a second method is developed.
Both methods are applicable for homogenous and anisotropic me-
dia with either one well or multiple wells being active. The res-
ervoir region is assumed to be rectangular box shaped, with all six
faces being closed to flow. The connection factors are determined
in a two step procedure: in the first step an analytical single phase
solution is used to determine production rates q i and wellbore
pressures p wf,i ; the second step involves computation of the
p block,i .
Step 1: Determination of Flow Rates and Wellbore
Pressures. All expressions are derived as solutions to the general
diffusion equation
]2p ]2p ]2p
kx 1k y 1k z
]x2 ]y2 ]z2
]p
5 fm c t , where p represents pressure ~psi!. ~2!
]t
For purposes of completeness, we indicate briefly a procedure to
solve Eq. ~2!. The methods used are standard, and combine ana-
lytical and numerical techniques to obtain the solution, as indi-
cated in Refs. 12–17.
The pressure change at location (x i ,y i ,z i ) due to unit rate of
production at location (x j ,y j ,z j ) at time t is represented by
C i j (t). The production at location (x j ,y j ,z j ) could be due to any
of the following types of completions: a line sink ~representing
horizontal, vertical, or inclined wells!, or a planar surface sink
~representing hydraulic fractures!.
Thus, C i j 5p initial2p ~~ x i ,y i ,z i ! ; ~ x j ,y j ,z j ! ;t ! , ~3a!
where p((x i ,y i ,z i );(x j ,y j ,z j );t) denotes the pressure being ob-
served at time t, location (x i ,y i ,z i ) due to unit rate of production
at location (x j ,y j ,z j ).
By using the principle of superposition in space, the pressure
drop observed at location (x i ,y i ,z i ) due to simultaneous produc-
47
tion from several completions or wells located at (x j ,y j ,z j ), each We choose equal time steps (Dt), and separating the contributions
producing at time-independent rates q j , j51,2,3,...,n w , can be at time level t k , we rewrite Eq. ~9! to obtain
expressed as
nw
D p i 5 @ p initial2p @~ x i ,y i ,z i ! ; ~ x j ,y j ,z j ! , j51,2,3,...,n w ;t ## D p o~ t k ! 5 ( q ~ t !@ C
j51
j
k
i j~ t
k
2t k21 ! 2C i j ~ t k 2t k !#
nw

5 (C i j~ t !q j , ~3b!
k21 nw
j51 1 ( ( q ~t
m51 j51
j
m
!@ C i j ~ t k 2t m21 ! 2C i j ~ t k 2t m !#
where n w is the total number of sinks ~wells or completions!.
For the case of variable ~transient! production rates from each for i51,2,...,n w ; k51,2,3, . . . . ~10!
completion, q j (t), the pressure drop at any location (x i ,y i ,z i ) can
be obtained by applying Duhamel’s theorem Noting that C i j (0)50, C i j (t k 2t k21 )5C i j (Dt), and D p o
5p initial2p(t k ), Eq. ~10! can be written as

E( F G
nw
t dC i j ~ t2 t !
D p i5 q j~ t ! 2 dt, i51,2,...,n w . ~4! nw
0 j51 dt
(qC
j51
k
j i j ~ Dt ! 1p
k

Equation ~4! can be solved when the total production rate is speci-
k21 nw
fied, or when the wellbore pressure is specified as a function of
time. The solution for the former case is described below. This 5p initial2 ( ( q ~t
m51 j51
j
m
!
total rate can be constant, or a known function of time t:
nw 3 @ C i j ~~ k2m11 ! Dt ! 2C i j ~~ k2m ! Dt !#
q t5 ( q ~ t !.
j51
j ~5! for i51,2,...,n w , and k51,2,3, . . . ~11!

The unknowns are: Dp j (t), and q j (t), j51,2,...,n w ; resulting in a In matrix notation, Eqs. ~11! and ~8! can be written as

4F G F G
total of (2n w ) unknowns.

3
C 11 C 12 ... C 1n w 1
The total number of unknowns in Eqs. ~4! and ~5! is (2n w ), q k1 r k21
1
whereas the number of equations is only (n w 11). An additional C 21 C 22 ... C 2n w 1 k21
(n w 21) relationships are required to achieve the closure of the q k2 2
system of equations. If frictional losses are neglected within and ... ... ... ...
... 5 ...
between wells, then the following (n w 21) relationships can be ... ... ... ...
q nk w r nk21
used for closure of the system: C nw1 C n w 2 ... C nwnw
w
1
Pk q kt
D p 1 ~ t ! 5Dp 2 ~ t ! 5...Dp nw~ t ! 5Dp 0 ~ t ! 5p initial2p ~ t ! , say. 1 1... 1 0
~6!
Equation ~6! represents the case wherein all wells are producing at for time levels k51,2,3, . . . , ~12!
the same flowing bottomhole pressure p(t). Thus the set of equa-
where r k21
i represents the terms on the right-hand side of Eq. ~11!.
tions can be rewritten as
We have described the basic theoretical framework in which

E( F G
nw
t dC i j ~ t2 t ! the general well performance problem can be tackled. A variety of
D p o5 q j~ t ! 2 dt for i51,2,...,n w , ~7! well geometries, well groups, fractured and unfractured wells,
0 j51 dt
single and multilayered formations, etc., can be handled by con-
nw structing the appropriate coefficient matrix C i j (t). The coeffi-
q t5 ( q ~ t !,
j51
j ~8! cients are derived by integrating the Green function solution along
the surface of the production elements: wells are approximated as
where the unknowns are Dp o ;q 1 ,q 2 ,...,qn w . Equation ~7! is dis- line sources, fractures are approximated as planar sources. The
cretized at time level k as expressions for the coefficients are not included here for the sake
of brevity and they can be found in the literature.16–20 However,
k nw
as an illustration, a procedure for the construction of C i j ’s for a
Dp o ~ t k ! 5 ( ( q ~t
m51 j51
j
m
!@ C i j ~ t k 2t m21 ! 2C i j ~ t k 2t m ! , horizontal well segment is presented in Appendix A.
By setting (n w ) as the number of gridblocks containing well-
i51,2,...,n w . ~9! bores, we can solve the system of Eqs. ~12! to determine the

TABLE 1– EFFECT OF PARTIAL PENETRATION ON THE PRODUCTIVITY INDEX ERROR BETWEEN THE TWO WELL MODELS

Well Length/ Drawdown

Reservoir Pressure
Thickness p wf (psi) p wf (psi) p̄ 2 p wf % J Error
Ratio from 2D from 3D Well from 3D Model Between the Two
Case (l/h) Well Model Model (psi) Well Models

1a 1 3628.0 3627.89 319.7 0.03

1b 0.5 3400.1 3440.94 506.7 28.1
1c 0.2 2718.3 2930.39 1017.2 220.85
1d 0.1 1584.5 2216.45 1731.2 236.5

48 Jasti, Penmatcha, and Babu: Improve Simulator Accuracy SPE Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1999
common wellbore pressure p wf , and individual block production
rates q i at any given time. However, we still need to determine the
p block,i to find the wellbore connection factors.
Note: The system of Eqs. ~12! needs to be solved speedily.
Much of the computational effort in solving Eqs. ~12! is spent in
generating the coefficient matrix C i j . Algorithms are available for
generating these coefficients extremely rapidly, requiring negli-
gible amounts of time on PC machines.
Step 2: Determination of Wellblock Pressures. Two methods
are proposed for determining the gridblock pressures. The first
method uses an analytical solution that is applicable to the uni-
form grid system with a central finite difference scheme. The
second method applies to general grid systems—uniform and non-
uniform.
Method 1. For the case of a uniform grid system (Dx,Dy,Dz)
using a central difference scheme, the original partial differential
equation can be written in the discretized form as ~large time,
post-pseudo state behavior; subscript k represents here vertical
coordinate!
S D S D
kx ky
~ p i21,j,k 22p i, j,k 1p i11,j,k ! 1 ~ p i, j21,k 22 p i, j,k
Dx 2 Dy 2
S D
kz
1p i, j11,k ! 1 ~ p i, j,k21 22p i, j,k 1p i, j,k11 !
Dz 2
S D
887B 0 m 0
5 ~ N x N y N z •q i jk 2q t !
abh
for i50,1,...,~ N x 21 ! ; j50,1,...,~ N y 21 ! ;
k50,1,...,~ N z 21 ! ;
the grid dimensions are (N x ,N y ,N z ) so that
a[N x Dx; b[N y Dy; h[N z Dz.
Here q t is the total production rate, and q i jk is the production from
the gridblock ~i,j,k!. Obviously, q i jk 50 for all gridblocks wherein
no active wells are present. It is possible to derive an exact solu-
tion to the system Eq. ~13a!. In this sense, the simulator can be
bypassed and yet the solutions that would have been gener-
ated by the simulator can be obtained. The above finite differ-
ence equations are solved by adopting the same techniques as
described in the Appendices A and B ~SPE No. 23525! to Babu
et al.’s paper on wellblock radius.3 However, here the methodol-
ogy is generalized with the formulas relevent to handling 3D
problems.
The solution to the system of finite difference equations ~FDE!
@Eqs. ~13!# is written in terms of the average reservoir pressure p̄,
and the block pressure p i jk for any gridblock as
~ 2 p !~ 141.2! B 0 m 0
p i jk [p̄2
abh
3 ~ S i 1S j 1S k 1S i j 1S jk 1S ki 1S i jk ! .
Explicit formulas for the S i ..S i jk are given in Appendix B. By
setting the (i, j,k)[(i w , j w ,k w ) in Eq. ~14!, the wellblock pres-
sure p i jk can be determined. The procedures for determining the
connection factors are: solve Eq. ~12! to find p wf ,q i ; substitute
q i 5q i jk values in Eq. ~14! to determine p i jk ; finally use Eq. ~1! to
find the connection factors (F ci). ~Index i in Eqs. ~1! and ~12! is
identical to the block index (i jk) in Eqs. ~13! and ~14!!.
Method 2. If the grids used by the simulator are nonuniform or
irregular, as in the case of local grid refinement schemes, Eq.
Jasti, Penmatcha, and Babu: Improve Simulator Accuracy
TABLE 2– FLOW RATE DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE WELL AS
CALCULATED BY THE TWO WELL MODELS „REPRESENTS
CASE 1b AS SHOWN IN TABLE 1…
Flow Rate Calculated Flow Rate Calculated
Grid by the 2D Model (STB/D) by the 3D Model (STB/D)
(5,5,1) 998 944.6
(5,5,2) 999 950.8
(5,5,3) 1000 965.9
(5,5,4) 1001 999.5
(5,5,5) 1002 1139.1
~13a! needs to be modified to accommodate such geometries. In
such cases, analytical solutions to the modified finite difference
schemes cannot be derived. Therefore simulators are used directly
to determine the wellblock pressure p i jk . Once again, the analyti-
cal solution is used to determine the p wf ,q i . The connection fac-
tors are then determined using Eq. ~1!.
Results and Discussion. Several simulations were performed to
quantify the differences in simulator predictions generated by us-
ing the existing models, and those resulting from use of the new
revised well models. The existing well models are based on the
earlier work of Peaceman1,2 for vertical wells, and Babu3 and
co-workers for the horizontal wells. Since the major difference
between the earlier well models and the new model introduced in
this paper is the ability to handle 3D flow, and complex wells,
comparisons are made only for these two cases. For each case, the
simulator was run until pseudosteady state was achieved, and the
wellbore pressure ( p wf), gridblock flow rate q i , and average res-
~13a! ervoir pressure for the drainage area p̄ were recorded at a given
time. The discrepancy between the earlier well model and the new
model was quantified using the productivity index J. J is defined
~13b! as the ratio of total well flow rate to the drawdown pressure. The
new model described in this paper is identified as the 3D model,
whereas the existing well models in the simulator are labeled as
the two-dimensional ~2D! model.
3D Flow Effects. Production from a partially penetrating vertical
well was simulated to quantify the differences in J between the
two well models. All cases are simulated under single phase flow
conditions with no gravity effects. The common parameters used
are: Bo51 RB/STB; oil viscosity51 cp; porosity50.2; initial res-
ervoir pressure54000 psi; total compressibility53.0e-05/psi.
Drainage area dimensions are: 6000 ft39000 ft3200 ft. The well
was located at x52700 ft, y54050 ft; permeability in the three
principal directions was: kx5ky5kz5100 md. Total well pro-
duction rate was set at 5000 STB/D; Uniform grid of 10310
310 was utilized. The extent of well penetration ~well length/
reservoir thickness! was varied by anchoring the well at the top of
the reservoir. The results are presented in Table 1. As expected,
when the well is fully penetrating, the discrepency between the
two models is negligible, since the flow is two-dimensional. How-
~14!
ever, as the well is shortened relative to the reservoir thickness,
the error in J increases to as high as 36.5% at 10% penetration.
Results also show that when a well is completed in more than
one gridblock, discrepancy between the two well models was ob-
served in flow distribution along the well. Production profiles
computed by using the two well models for case 1b ~as shown in
Table 1! are presented in Table 2. Results clearly show that the
simulation done using the 2D well model did not adequately re-
solve the 3D flow near the wellbore.
Three-dimensional flow around the wellbore can be more ac-
curately captured by grid refinement. A limited number of simu-
SPE Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1999 49
 TABLE 3– THE EFFECT OF GRID REFINEMENT ON THE J ERROR BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS

p wf (psi) % J Error Simulation

from 2D P wf (psi) from 3D Between the Two Time
Case Nx Ny Nz Well Model Well Model Well Models (hr)

1d 10 10 10 1584.5 2216.5 236.5 0.16

1e 10 10 20 1584.6 2216.5 236.5 0.2
1f 30 30 20 1904.5 2216.5 218.0 0.7
1g 30 90 20 2013.1 2216.5 211.7 2.0

lations was carried out to quantify the effect of grid refinement on
the simulations with the 2D well model and the results are pre-
sented in Table 3. The case with well penetration of 10% ~case 1d
in Table 1! was used as the base case over which additional re-
finements are made. Since the base case had high error, due to
predominantly 3D flow near the wellbore, intuitively it may be
desirable to put more grids in the vertical direction. Results in
Table 2 show that increasing the number of grids in the vertical
direction had no impact on accuracy. This is mainly due to the
isotropic permeability. The length scales as @li/sqrt~ki!# and, due
to the large aspect ratio, more grids are needed in the lateral
direction to capture the 3D effects and to minimize the error in J.
Table 3 shows that error indeed decreases with increased grid
resolution but at an expense of computational time. This is not a
problem for simulations with the 3D model, since it can still be
used only with a 10310310 grid system.
Slant Well Model Results. Highly deviated wells or wells with
principal direction not parallel to any of the grids are generally
approximated as staircase of horizontal or vertical segments or a
combination of the horizontal and vertical well components.
Among these methods, staircase of horizontal well segments is the
most popular one. The validity of such ad hoc well modeling is
examined using analytical models. Several runs were performed
using the following parameters:
drainage area dimensions:
3000 ft33000 ft3150 ft;
permeability: kx5ky5kz5100 md;
and kx5ky5100 md with kz510 md;
Bo51.2 RB/STB; viscosity51.0 cp, porosity50.2;
total compressibility51.0e-05 psi;
production rate: 1000 STB/D.
Slant wells or highly deviated wells are increasingly coming
into use worldwide. It is generally perceived that high angle wells
have higher productivity than vertical wells since high angle wells
can have longer contact through the pay zone. Fig. 1 shows the
effect of the angle of deviation on wellbore productivity. In order
to separate the length effects from the angle of deviation effects,
the well length was fixed at 150 ft in Fig. 1. The pseudosteady
state productivity index was normalized by the vertical well pro-
ductivity index. Fig. 1 shows that for isotropic reservoirs, the
angle of deviation has no effect on well productivity. As the ver-
tical permeability is reduced, well productivity decreases with the
angle of deviation. Productivity is the lowest for horizontal wells
since their performance is most susceptible to vertical permeabil-
ity. At the other extreme, for a vertical well, the vertical perme-
ability does not effect the productivity unless the penetration ratio
is small.
Fig. 2 shows the results for the fully penetrating well case. The
well length increases as inverse cosine of the angle of deviation
except when the well is horizontal, at which orientation the well
length was arbitrarily set at 2000 ft. The productivity results pre-
sented in Fig. 2 represent the combined effects of wellbore devia-
tion and changing well length. Results clearly show that perme-
ability anisotropy plays a dominant role. Errors resulting in
staircase approximation are evaluated using the analytical model.
The error is quantified as the discreprency in J between the slant
well and the staircased well. Figs. 3 and 4 show the errors for
isotropic and anisotropic drainage areas. Results show that, as
expected, the error in staircase approximation is negligible if the
permeability is isotropic. On the other hand, large errors in J
could result by using the staircase approximation for anisotropic
media. The error does not rapidly diminish as the number of stair-
case segments is increased. Conversely, we can conclude that
fairly large numbers of vertical gridblocks are needed to accom-
modate large number of staircase segments and to minimize the
error in staircase approximation.

Fig. 1–Effect of angle of deviation on productivity ratio, constant well length.

50 Jasti, Penmatcha, and Babu: Improve Simulator Accuracy SPE Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1999
 Fig. 2–Effect of angle of deviation on productivity of a slant well, fully penetrating well.

Fig. 3–Productivity index error in staircase approximation for isotropic reservoir.

Fig. 4–Productivity index error in staircase approximation for anisotropic reservoir.

Jasti, Penmatcha, and Babu: Improve Simulator Accuracy SPE Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1999 51
Conclusions
1. A procedure for the accurate calculation of pressure and rate
distribution along the wellbore, in single phase flow problems, is
outlined in this work.
2. Numerical simulators often use rectangular grids to compute
the wellblock pressures and wellblock rates. For the special case
of a homogeneous reservoir with uniform rectangular grids, it is
possible to solve analytically the finite difference system of equa-
tions. Analytical formulas for the general wellblock pressures,
p i jk , are derived in this paper.
3. Utilizing analytical solutions to single phase oil flow prob-
lems, this paper identifies errors in computing p wf and q by simu-
lators that routinely employ 2D flow based formulas. Illustrative
examples indicate that errors increase as the partial penetration
ratio decreases, confirming that existing 2D formulas in simula-
tors are in need of modification when 3D flows dominate.
4. This work suggests alternative approaches to rectify such
errors. The suggested techniques attempt to modify the way the
connection factors (F ci) are hardwired into simulators.
5. Staircase approximations of deviated wells are shown to
lead to errors. Errors are seen to increase with increasing perme-
ability anisotropy. Local grid refinement does not necessarily im-
prove accuracy; global refinement does reduce errors, but at a
price of increased computational time.
Nomenclature
a 5 length of reservoir, ft
A lmn 5 general coefficient in the finite Fourier expansion
of the variable f i jk , associated with the node
~i,j,k!
b 5 width of reservoir, ft
B o 5 formation volume factor for oil, rb/stb
c t 5 total compressibility of formation, 1/psi
C i j 5 matrix element: pressure drop observed at loca-
tion i due to unit production at location j, psi/
bbld
F ci 5 connection factor for block i, bbld/psi
h 5 thickness of reservoir, ft
(i w , j w ,k w ) 5 nodal coordinates of a typical wellblock
J 5 productivity index, @ q/(p̄2p wf) # , bbld/psi
(k x ,k y ,k z ) 5 permeability in three spatial directions, md
l 5 well length, ft
L 5 gridblocks in I direction
M 5 gridblocks in j direction
n w 5 total number of wells, completions, etc.
N 5 gridblocks in k direction
(N x ,N y ,N z ) 5 grid dimensions; number of gridblocks in each
direction
p 5 pressure, psi
p̄ 5 average reservoir pressure, psi
p initial 5 initial pressure, psi
p block,i 5 block pressures, psi
p wf 5 wellbore pressure, psi
Dp i 5 pressure drop observed at location i, psi
Dp o 5 common pressure drop at the wellbore, in the
absence of frictional losses, psi
p i jk 5 pressure measured at block ~i,j,k!, psi
q i 5 production rate at location i, psi
production from wellblock i, psi
q t 5 total production from all completions, wells,
bbld
r ki 5 right-hand side terms in the matrix equation, at
location ~block! i, and time level k, psi
S i ,S i j ,S i jk 5 partial trigonometric sums: single, double, and
triple sums
52 Jasti, Penmatcha, and Babu: Improve Simulator Accuracy
t 5 time, days
t k 5 time, at level k(t k [k.Dt), days
Dt 5 uniform time step, for computing transient val-
ues, days
(x i ,y i ,z i ) 5 general observation point coordinates at which
pressures are measured, ~ft, ft, ft!
x i ,y j ,z j 5 general point coordinate at which production
takes place, ~ft, ft, ft!
f 5 porosity
m 5 oil viscosity, cp
Subscripts
i 5 block index
(i, j,k) 5 block index
i, j,k,l,m,n 5 summation indices
0<i,l,l 8 <L21;0< j,m<M 21;0<k,n<N21
v 5 vertical
h 5 horizontal
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Mobil management for permission to publish
this material. Helpful comments from Mobil colleagues Ilhan
Sener, Myung Hwang, Pramod Bansal, ~late! Jack Harper, Hong
Chan, Marty Cohen, Usuf Middya, Bob Jones, and Peter Dzurman
are gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Peaceman, D.W.: ‘‘Interpretaton of Wellblock Pressure in Numerical
Reservior Simulation,’’ SPE J. 18, 183 ~June 1978! Trans., AIME
265.
2. Peaceman, D.W.: ‘‘Interpretation of Wellblock Pressures in Numeri-
cal Reservior Simulation With Nonsquare Grid Blocks and Aniso-
tropic Permeability,’’ SPE J. 23, 531 ~June 1983!.
3. Babu, D.K., Odeh, A.S., Al-Khalifa, A.J., and McCann R.C.: ‘‘The
Relationship Between Wellblock and Wellbore Pressures in Numeri-
cal Simulation of Horizontal Wells,’’ SPE Reservoir Eng. 6, 324
~1991!.
4. Kim, D.: ‘‘Well Correction Factor for Three-Dimensional Reservoir
Simulation with Non-Square Grid Blocks, and Anistropic Permeabil-
ity,’’ MS thesis, Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas ~May 1988!.
5. Morita, N. et al.: ‘‘Three-Dimensional Well Model Preprocessors for
Reservoir Simulation With Horizontal and Curved Inclined Wells,’’
paper SPE 20718, Presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 23–26 September.
6. Peaceman, D.W.: ‘‘Interpretation of Wellblock Pressures in Numeri-
cal Reservoir Simulation: Part 3—Off-Center and Multiple Wells
Within a Wellblock,’’ SPE Reservoir Eng. 5, 227 ~1990!; Trans.,
AIME 289.
7. Lin, C.Y.: ‘‘New Well Models for Partially Penetrating Wells in Het-
erogeneous Reservoirs Using Non-Uniform Grids,’’ paper SPE
29122, Presented at the 1995 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simula-
tion, San Antonio, Texas, 12–15 February.
8. Ding, Y.: ‘‘A Generalized 3D Well Model for Reservoir Simulation,’’
SPE J. 1, 437 ~December 1996!.
9. Peaceman, D.W.: ‘‘Representation of a Horizontal Well in Numerical
Reservoir Simulation,’’ SPE Advanced Technology Series 7 ~April
1993!.
10. Sharpe, H.N. and Ramesh, B.A.: ‘‘Development and Validation of a
Modified Well Model Equation for Nonuniform Grids With Applica-
tion to Horizontal Well and Coning Problems,’’ paper SPE 24896,
Presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Washington, DC, 4–7 October.
11. Chen, G., Tehrani, D.H., and Peden, J.M.: ‘‘Calculation of Well Pro-
ductivity in a Reservoir Simulator,’’ paper SPE 29932, Presented at
the 1995 SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering,
Beijing, 11–14 November.
12. Muskat, M.: ‘‘The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids through Porous Me-
dia,’’ I.H.R.D.C., Boston ~1982! 209.
SPE Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1999
13. Gringarten, A.C. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: ‘‘An Approximate Infinite a lmn cos~ p lx i /a ! cos~ p lx j /a !
Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating Line-Source Well,’’
SPE J. 15, 140 ~April 1975!; Trans., AIME 259.
Pi j[ (
l,m,nÞ0 b lmn

S D S D S D
14. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: ‘‘Unsteady-
p my i p nz i p nz j
State Pressure Distributions Created by a Well With a Single Infinite- 3cos cos cos
Conductivity Vertical Fracture,’’ SPE J. 14, 347 ~August 1974!. b h h
15. Rosa, A.J. and Carvalho, R.S.: ‘‘A Mathematical Model for Pressure
Evaluation in an Infinite Conductivity Horizontal Well,’’ SPE Form. ~ sin~ p my 2 /b ! 2sin~ p my 1 /b !!
3 ~A-4!
Eval. 4, 559 ~December 1989!, Trans., AIME 257. p m/b
16. Gringarten, A.C. and Ramey, H.J.: ‘‘The Use of Source and Green’s
and the decaying transient terms T i j are given by
Functions in Solving Unsteady-Flow Problems in Reservoirs,’’ SPE
J. 13, 285 ~October 1973!; Trans., AIME 255.
17. Ozkan: ‘‘Performance of Horizontal Wells,’’ PhD dissertation, U. of Ti j[ (
lmnÞ0
Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma ~1988!.
18. Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S.: ‘‘Productivity of a Horizontal Well,’’
a lmn cos~ p lx i /a ! ¯ ~ sin~ p my 2 /b ! 2sin~ p my 1 /b !!
SPE Reservoir Eng. 4, 417 ~1989!. 3 E lmn ,
19. Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S.: ‘‘Appendices A and B of SPE 18298: b lmn ~ p m/b !
Productivity of a Horizontal Well,’’ paper SPE 18334 ~November ~A-5!
1989!.
20. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C.: Conduction of Heat in Solids, second where
edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K. ~1959!, p. 361.
E lmn [exp@ 2 b lmn ~ t2 t ! / a # , ~A-6a!

Appendix A: Construction of Cij „ t … for a Horizontal

b lmn [ p 2 S k xl 2
a2
1
k ym2
b2
1
k zn 2
h2
D ~ l,m,n ! 5 ~ 0,1,2,3,...! ,
Well Segment ~A-6b!
We outline briefly a procedure for constructing the matrix ele- a lmn 51 for single series,
ments C i j (t) mentioned in the text. A single horizontal well seg-
ment, running parallel to the Y axis, and with the wellbore axis 51/2 for double series, ~A-6c!
defined by x5x j ; y 1 <y j <y 2 ; z5z j , is used here for illustrative 51/4 for triple series.
purposes. For arbitrarily slanted wells, and for fracture surfaces,
etc., the integration ranges would be modified appropriately. We Note: it is understood that when m50 in the series, the term
start with a continuous point source solution ~Green’s function @ sin(pmy2/b)2sin(pmy1/b)#/(pm/b) is absent from the series.
format!, and derive formulas for the pressure drop D p at any
arbitrary point located at (x i ,y i ,z i ) in the reservoir. The well Computational Aspects
segment, located at (x j ,y j ,z j ), is producing at the rate q j bbl/d. Transient terms T i j are computed directly as they are: evaluation
Thus, at time t ~days! of single, double and triple series to a prescribed accuracy. Rapid
exponential decay of the terms assures fast convergence.
D p i j ~ t ! [ ~ p initial2p i j ! Time-independent components Pij present computational chal-

S DE E
lenges. However, as indicated in the publication by Babu and
887B m q j t y2
Odeh,19 double and triple series can be reduced to rapidly con-
[C i j ~ t ! q j [ S x S y S z dy o d t , ~A-1!
abh a 0 y1 verging single and double series, along with evaluation of certain
simple analytical expressions. In this way, the construction of the
where matrix element @ C i j (t) # becomes relatively easy and straightfor-
ward.
S x [S ~ x i ,x j ;a;k x ; ~ t2 t ! ; a !

F
For a Fracture Element. Integrals in Eqs. ~A-1! and ~A-2! are

S D S D
`
p nx i p nx j
(
extended to two dimensions along the plane of the fracture. Ob-
[ 112 cos cos viously, the computational difficulties are less severe for these
n51 a a

DG
cases.

3exp S 2 p 2 n 2 k x ~ t2 t !
aa2
. ~A-2! For a Point Source/Sink Problem. The spatial integration with
respect to y o in Eq. ~A-1! is eliminated. The resulting series are
again handled by algebraic reduction techniques used in Ref. 19.
Similar expressions are used to define S y and S z :
Appendix B: Analytical Formulas for Gridblock
S y [S ~ y i ,y o ;b;k y ; ~ t2 t ! ; a ! , Pressures—General Exact Solution of FDE
~A-2a! The analytical solution to Eq. ~13! is derived along the same lines
S z [S ~ z i ,z j ;h;k z ; ~ t2 t ! ; a ! . as the 2D solutions presented in the paper of Babu3 et al. We
begin by listing a few standard identities ~m, M are integers!
Here, the dimensional constant a is given by a 5158 fm c t , days.

S D
j5i
After multiplying out, and integrating the resultant infinite series pm 1 sin~ p m ~ i11 ! /M !
sums, we obtain (j50
cos
M
j1 5
2 2 sin~ p m/2M !
. ~B-1!

C i j~ t ![ S 887B m
abh DF t
a
1 P i j 2T i j . G ~A-3!
Using product-sum formulas, and Eq. ~B-1!, we get, for 0<l,l 8
<(M 21),

S D
M 21
p l ~ i11/2! p l 8 ~ i11/2! M
Here the time-independent, pseudosteady state components P i j
are given by
(
i50
cos
M
cos
M
5
2
d ~ l,l 8 ! , ~B-2!

Jasti, Penmatcha, and Babu: Improve Simulator Accuracy SPE Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1999 53
where the kronecker delta d (l,l 8 )51, l5l 8 Þ0: Simplifying Eq. ~B-10!, and writing out all the terms, we have

S D S D S D
50, lÞl 8 , pl 1 pm 1 pn 1
52, l5l 8 50.
~B-2a! (
lmnÞ0
A lmn cos
L
i1
2
cos
M
j1
2
cos
N
k1
2
Next, consider a general relationship
L21,M 21,N21
p l ~ i11/2!
3 F S DS
Dx
kx
2 cos
pl
L
21 1 D S DS ky
Dy 2 cos
pm
M
21 D
f i jk 5 (
S DS DG
A lmn cos
l,m,n50 L kz pn
1 cos 21 [ ~ F i jk /2 ! . ~B-12!
p m ~ j11/2! p n ~ k11/2! Dz 2 N
3cos cos
M N
We rewrite Eq. ~B-12!, and solve it by applying Eqs. ~B-4!–~B-6!.
for i50,1,...,~ L21 ! ; j50,1,...,~ M 21 ! ; The solution to Eq. ~B-12! is therefore given by

k50,1,...,~ N21 ! .
By applying Eq. ~B-2! to Eq. ~B-3! in all the indices ~l,m,n! and
~B-3!
A lmn [ S 887B 0 m 0
abh DS D ( S D
22
l lmn i, j,k50
q i jk cos
pl
L
i1
1
2
~i,j,k! it can be shown that

S D
LM N
A lmn 5 f i jk cos(
pl
i1
1
S D 3cos
pm
M
1
2 S D S D
j1 cos
pn
N
1
k1 .
2
~B-13!
8 i jk50 L 2
Substituting Eq. ~B-13! into Eq. ~B-8!, we obtain the exact solu-
3cos
pm
M
1
j1 cos
2 NS D S D
pn 1
k1 ,
2
~B-4!
tion that a numerical simulator would generate for large times
after pseudosteady state is attained. Thus

S D
LM N
4
A lm0 5
i jk50
f i jk cos(
pl
L
1
i1 cos
2
pm
M
1
j1 ,
2 S D S D p i jk [p̄2
~ 2 !~ 2 p !~ 141.2! B 0 m 0
abh
~B-5!
pl pn pn
S D
LM N
A l005 f i jk cos
pl
(
1
i1 . S D ~B-6!
3 (
cos
L
~ i11/2! cos
M
~ j11/2! cos
N
~ k11/2!

S D
2 L 2
i jk50
l,m,nÞ0 l lmn
Similar expressions and formulas hold for A lon , A oon ; and A omn , L21,M 21,N21
A omo , etc.
Finally, we also have (
i 8 j 8 k 8 50
q i8 j 8k8

S D
LM N
A 0005 f i jk . ( ~B-7!
3 cos
pl
L
1
S D
i 8 1 cos
2
pm
M
j 81
1
2 S D , ~B-14!

S D
1 i jk50
pn 1
We next assume a solution to Eq. ~13a! in the form cos k 81
N 2

S D
L21,M 21,N21
pl 1
p i jk [p̄1 (
l,m,nÞ0
A lmn cos
L
i1
2 where l lmn [
kx
sin2
pl
1
ky
sin2
pm
1
kz
sin2
pn
.
Dx 2
2L Dy 2
2M Dz 2
2N

3cos
pm
M
1
j1 cos
2 S D
pn
N
1
k1 ,
2 S D ~B-8!
Note: We have to attach factors ~1/2! and ~1/4! in the above sum-
~B-15!

where the volumetric average pressure p̄ is defined as mations when dealing with double sums and single sums.
In summary, the solution to the FDE can be written down as
~ LM N !~ p̄ ! [ (
i jk50
p i jk . ~B-9!
~ 2 p !~ 141.2! B 0 m 0
p i jk [p̄2
Substituting Eq. ~B-8! into Eq. ~13a! of the main text, we obtain abh
the following: 3 ~ S i 1S j 1S k 1S i j 1S jk 1S ki 1S i jk ! . ~B-16!

( F S DS S D S D
A lmn
Dx
kx
2 cos
pl
L
i1
3
2
1cos
pl
L
i2
1
2
We set here N x [L, N y [M , N z [N, and obtain

S D(
lmnÞ0
N x 21
cos~ p l ~ i1 21 ! /N x !

S DD S D S D
1
pl 1 pm 1 pn 1 S i[
22 cos i1 cos j1 cos k1 2 l51 l loo

S( S DD
L 2 M 2 N 2

S S D S DD G
pl 1
ky kz 3 q i w j w k w cos i 1 , ~B-17!
1 similar terms with , 5F i jk , ~B-10! iw j wkw Nx w 2
Dy 2
Dz 2

S D(
N y 21
1 cos~ p m ~ j1 21 ! /N y !
where we have written, in place of the right-hand side of Eq. S j[
2 l omo
~13a!: m51

F i jk [ S 887B 0 m 0
abh D
~ LM N•q i jk 2q t ! . ~B-11! 3 S( iw j wkw
q i w j w k w cos
pm
j 1
Ny w 2 S DD
1
, ~B-18!

54 Jasti, Penmatcha, and Babu: Improve Simulator Accuracy SPE Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1999
 S D( pn
N z 21
1 cos~ p n ~ k1 21 ! /N z !
cos~ p m ~ j1 2 ! /N y ! cos
1
S k[ ~ k11/2!
Nz
2 n51 l lmn S jk [ ( l omn

S( S DD
m,n51
pn

S( S D S DD
1
3 q i w j w k w cos k 1 , ~B-19! pm 1 pn 1
iw j wkw Nz w 2 3 q i w j w k w cos j w 1 cos k w1 ,
iw j wkw Ny 2 Nz 2
~B-21!
cos~ p l ~ i1 2 ! /N x ! cos~ p m ~ j1 2 ! /N y !
1 1

Si j[ ( l lmo cos~ p l ~ i1 21 ! /N x ! cos~ p n ~ k1 21 ! /N z !

l,m51
S ki [ ( l lon

S( S D S DD
l,n51
pl 1 pn 1
3
iw j wkw
q i w j w k w cos i 1 cos
Nx w 2
j 1
Ny w 2
,
3 S( iw j wkw
q i w j w k w cos
pl
S D
1
i 1 cos
Nx w 2
pn
k 1
Nz w 2
1
S DD ,

~B-20! ~B-22!

cos~ p l ~ i1 21 ! /N x ! cos~ p m ~ j1 21 ! /N y ! cos~ p n ~ k1 21 ! /N z !

S i jk [2 (
l,m,n51 l lmn

3 S(iw j wkw
q i w j w k w cos
pl
S D
1
i 1 cos
Nx w 2
pm 1
j 1 cos
Ny w 2 S D
pn
k 1
Nz w 2
1
S DD . ~B-23!

Here, l lmn is defined in Eqs. ~B-15!. The indices (i w , j w ,k w ) de- Dp w ~ x w ,y w ,z w !

note wellblocks in which active wells are located.

;
q
E s5L ds
, ~C-3!
Appendix C: Location of the Observation Point on
Wellbore Surface „see Fig. C1…
We generalize the results and formulas given in Refs. 18 and 19
2L s52L
A ~ x w 2x s ! 2
kx
1
~ y w 2y s ! 2
ky
1
~ z w 2z s ! 2
kz
for the location of the point on the well perimeter at which pres-
sure is calculated. This pressure will be identified as the flowing where (q/2L) represents production per unit length of well axis,
bottomhole pressure p wf . We start with a point sink solution in and ds is a small element on well axis. Integrating Eq. ~C-3! and
three dimensional space. By considering the well to be a finite line retaining only the dominant quantities, we get
sink, and integrating along the well axis, we arrive at appropriate
formulas for the well pressure p wf .
We assume that the center of well axis (x c ,y c ,z c ) is known. D p w ;ln@ r 2w M ~ u , f !# , ~C-4!
Polar coordinate representation of a general point Q(x s ,y s ,z s ) on
the well axis is given by
where
x s 5x c 1s sin u A cos f A ,
y s 5y c 1s sin u A sin f A ,
z s 5z c 1s cos u A ,
~C-1!
M ~ u , f ! 5A sin2 u F S cos2 f A sin2 f A
kx
1
ky
1
cos2 u
kz D G
where, s measures the distance of Q from well center (x c ,y c ,z c ).
The well axis is represented by polar coordinates ( u A , f A ), where
u A is the angle between vertical Z axis and the well axis, and f A
F S
2 ~ sin u sin u A !
cos f cos f A sin f sin f A
kx
1
ky D
is the angle between X axis and the well axis projection onto the
XY plane.
1 S DG
cos u cos u A
kz
2
, ~C-5!
An arbitrary observation point (x w ,y w ,z w ) is selected on the
well perimeter in a normal cross section through the center
(x c ,y c ,z c ). We assume that the observation point coordinates are where
given by ~u,f!, so that
x w 5x c 1r w sin u cos f , ~ sin u A cos f A ! 2 ~ sin u A sin f A ! 2 ~ cos u A ! 2
A[ 1 1 . ~C-6!
kx ky kz
y w 5y c 1r w sin u sin f , ~C-2!
z w 5z c 1r w cos u .
In addition to the above relations, we have the orthogonality
From potential theory, we know that the pressure drop experi- property of ‘‘well axis’’ and ‘‘radius vector to the observation
enced at the point P(x w ,y w ,z w ) due to a line sink is given by the point.’’ Thus, vectors (sin u cos f,sin u sin f,cos u) and
dominant component, in anisotropic medium, according to the fol- (sin uA cos fA ,sin uA sin fA ,cos uA) are orthogonal to each other.
lowing rule: Hence, taking their dot product, we get

Jasti, Penmatcha, and Babu: Improve Simulator Accuracy SPE Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1999 55
 M ~ u ! 5A S sin2 u cos2 u
kh
1
kv D
2cos2 u cos2 u A
1
2
1
kv kh S D 2
.
~C-10!
From geometric considerations ~see Fig. C1…, we can show that
u has the range ( p /22 u A )< u <( p /21 u A ).
In Eq. ~C-10!, the Min.Max values (M 1 ,M 2 ) occur at ( p /2
6 u A ) and p/2. By solving the equation M ( u )5 AM 1 M 2 , and
after some algebraic simplifications, we obtain the coordinates of
the observation point ~u,f!:

cosec2 u A
tan2 u 5cot2 u A 1 ~C-11a!
Ak v ~ sin2 u A /k h 1cos2 u A /k v !
Fig. C1–Location of observation point on an inclined well.
and

cos~ f 2 f A ! 1cot u cot u A 50.
Procedure. In order to locate the points at which the maximum
and minimum pressure values occur on the well bore, we elimi-
nate one variable, say f, from Eqs. ~C-5! and ~C-7!, and then
equate to zero the derivative of M with respect to u. Let the
maximum and minimum values of M be given by M 1 and M 2 .
Then, the observation point u at which the average value of Dp
occurs is given by
sec u A
tan~ f 2 f A ! 5 4 . ~C-11b!
~C-7! Ak v ~ sin2 u A /k h 1cos2 u A /k v !
Jay K. Jasti is an Engineering Advisor with Mobil E&P Tech-
nical Center. His primary interests are in the area of Well
Performance. Jasti holds a PhD in chemical engineering
from the U. of Michigan. V.R. Penmatcha is a senior engi-
neer with Mobil E&P Technical Center in Dallas. He holds a
Btech degree in chemical engineering from Andhra U., In-
dia, and a MS degree from the U. of Tulsa and a PhD de-
gree from Stanford U., both in petroleum engineering. He

S D
was 1995–96 President of the Stanford U. Student Chapter.
Dp 1 1Dp 2 1
Dp5 ; @ ln M 1 1ln M 2 # D. Krishna Babu is an Associate Engineering Advisor in the
2 2 Reservoir Engineering Analysis Group at Mobil E&P Techni-
cal Center in Dallas. His interests are in the application of
5ln AM 1 M 2 5ln~ M ~ u !! ~C-8! quasianalytical and numerical techniques to problems in
so that u is determined by solving M ( u )5 AM 1 M 2 . porous media, with special reference to horizontal wells. He
previously was a research engineer in the Civil Engineering
Example. For simplicity, we consider k x 5k y 5k h ; k z 5k v . For Dept. at Princeton U. and on the faculty of City College of
New York. Babu holds a MA degree in applied mathemat-
this case,
ics from Osmania U., India, and a PhD degree in applied

A[ S sin2 u A cos2 u A
kh
1
kv D ~C-9!
analysis from the State U. of New York at Stony Brook. He
serves on the Editorial Review Committee and was a
1991–93 member of the Reservoir Simulation Symposium
and Program Committee.

56 Jasti, Penmatcha, and Babu: Improve Simulator Accuracy SPE Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1999