SPE

Society of PetroIeurn Engineers

SPE 19817
Use and Misuse of the Superposition
Time Function in Well Test Analysis
H. Cinco-Ley and F. Samaniego V., Pemex/UNAM
SPE Members
Copyright 1989, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 64th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in San Antonio, TX, October 8-11, 1989.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex. 730989 SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
The superposition time function has been
used as a tool to analyze transient pres
sure data measured under the influence of
a variable flow rate. This function is
usually defined assuming that radial flow
equations are valid, however, in practice
there are cases that exhibit several flow
regimes (i.e. fractured wells, partially
penetrating wells, etc.). The present work
examines the limitations of the superposi
tion time concept as applied to buildup
tests. It appears that, regardless of the
flow regimes exhibited by the well reser-
voir system the derivative function with
respect to the radial flow superposition
time for a buildup test follows, at early
time, the drawdown curve for the pressure
first derivative function t*dp/dt, then,
after a transition period, it follows the
drawdown curve for the pressure second
derivative function t
2
* abs(d
2
p/dt
2
).
INTRODUCTION
Well testing has proved to be one of the
most reliable tools to evaluate flow
characteristics of a well-reservoir flow
system
1
.
2
A large number of publications
on this subject was presented in the last
four decades.The original theory for pres
sure transient test analysis in the petrol
eum industry was developed for constant
well flow rate conditions
3
.
4
Later several
authors
5
-
12
presented methods to take into
account the rate variations in well test in-
terpretation. More sofisticated techniques
of interpretation were developed recently13-
16 to take advantage of advances in the
technology to measure flow rate and pressure
simultaneously with good resolution.
477
The application of the pressure derivative
17
function t*dp/dt for type curve matching
1S
-
20 and flow regime identification
20
-
22
has
become a standard for well test interpreta-
tion in the last few years. Several pressure
derivative type curves are now available;
most of them were developed for drawdown
tests and are applied to the analysis of
pressure buildup tests through the use of
the superposition time concept. It has
been suggested that this concept can take
into account the variation of the flow
rate before shut-in; however, experience
has shown that this technique produces
distortions in the calculation of the
derivative function when the pressure data
are under the influence of a flow regime
other than radial.
The objective of the present work is to
examine the advantages and limitations of
the application of the superposition time
concept on the interpretation of pressure
build-up tests through the use of specific
graphs of analysis (pws vs f(q,t)) and type
curve analysis of the derivative function.
ANALYSIS OF VARIABLE RATE PRESSURE DRAWDOWN
DATA.
Let us consider a pressure drawdown test
under variable flow rate conditions (Fig.l)
where the flowing bottomhole pressure is a
function of both flow rate and time. As men-
tioned before, the original theory for inter
pretation assumes constant flow rate condi-
tions; hence it is necessary to take into
consideration the variation of the flow rate.
Generally speaking, the methods of interpre
tat ion for a test with variable rate involve
a correction of pressure (Fig.2) or/and a
2
USE AND MISUSE OF THE SUPERPOSITION TIME FUNCTION
IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS
SPE 19817
correction of the time scale (Fig.3).
types of corrections are based on the
ciple of superposition and be referred
as deconvolution and
tively. The former represents a
that does not assume the flow model ,and the
later is a method based on a re-
servoir model.
In cases where there is a skin effect a co-
rrection is necessary in both pressure and
time. For this case a graph of
vs L is used as shown in Fig. 4
and Table 1; here the reservoir parameters
and well condition (damage) are determined.
The function f depends on the reservoir flow
model, that is, it is represented by log(t),
t
1
/
4
, t
1
/
2
, 1/t
1
/
2
, for radial, bilinear,
linear and spherical flows, respectively
or more general the function f can be repre
sented by a Po-to relationship corresponding
to a given reservoir system.
A general approch for the analysis of draw-
down tests is presented in Table 2 and in-
cludes, first, the estimation of the unit
flow rate pressure response (influence func-
tion) through the deconvolution process
(Table 3) followed by a diagnostic of flow
regime based on the pressure derivative
functions (Figs. 5 and 6 and Table 4) and
finally the application of the specific
graph of analysis, (pi-pwf)/qn versus
Lqi*f(t-ti). The last step is well docu-
mented in references 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13-16.
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BUILDUP DATA.
The pressure buildup is the most frequently
used test because the bottomhole pressure is
measured under constant flow rate (q=O)
conditions (Fig. 7), theoretically. It can be
shown
17
that, for a buildup test, the early
shutin time pressure data are dominated by
the last flow rate, the middle time data
depend on both flow rate variation and pro-
ducing time and the long time data depend ex-
clusively on the cummulative production du-
ring the flowing period (Fig. 8). Hence the
need to know the flow rate history before
shut in for a proper analysis.
Conventional Techniques of Analysis.
Conventional methods of interpretation (Hor-
ner and M-D-H) assume that the flow rate be-
fore shut in is constant and the flow regime
exhibited by the reservoir system is radial.
For an infinite acting reservoir the M-D-H
method produces a straight line in a graph of
pws versus Log t at the beginning of the
test, then the data deviate because this
technique does not take into account the
effect of producing time (Fig. 9). ,The Horner
method considers the effect of t
p
such a
way that a graph of versus Log
produces a straight line that goes through
all of data free of wellbore storage effects.
In other words the Horner time includes a
"correction" for the producing time effect.
other types of graph also have been to
consider flow regimes other than rad1al, such
as vs - , vs (tp+
vs 1/2
for linear, bilinear and spherical flow, res-
pectively. However, a flow
must be carried out for a proper app11cat10n
of any of these types of graph.
The Superposition Time Graph.
For the case of variable flow rate before
shut in the buildup pressure can be expressed
as:
qh) f' dT
( 1 )
where f'is the time derivative of the unit
flow rate pressure response of the well-reser
voir system. If the flow rate history is dis-
cretised Eq.1 becomes:
N
= - L -
i=l
the summation is called "superposition time"
t sup and depends on the flow regime that dom-
inates the pressure behavior of the system.
Sometimes the summmation of the superposition
time includes the flow rate ratio and
the simplified form of the function f (See
Table 5), in such a way that Eq.2 is given by:
N
= - m(qN) L
i=l qN
)
(3 )
This equation shows that a graph of pws ver-
sus the summation yields a straight line of
slope -m and intercept (Fig.10). The slope
is a function of the last flow rate qN and
and depends on the reservoir The
Horner method is a special case of graph,
that is the superposition time reduces to the
Horner time group when the flow is radial and
the flow rate before shutin is constant.
It was mentioned that the determination of
the nature of the function g (i.e. log(t),
t
1
/
2
t
1
/
4
t-
1
/
2
) requires a flow diagnosis
the first or second deriva-
tive functions. The beginning and the end of
the proper straight line can be found as
shown in Fig. 11. Let us assume that a flow
regime j detected, begins at time and ends
at time The start of the straight line
portion in the superposition time graph occurs
at t sup correspontig to and
cally ends at t sup for Th1S last
point will depend on both the flow rate his-
tory and the flow model exhibited by the re-
servoir.
The superposition time can also be defined by
using a Po-to reservoir mode1
13
, thus:
478
SPE 19817
CINCO-LEY AND FERNANDO SAMANIEGO-V.
3
Hence the derivative of pressure with respect
to t aup can be expressed as:
dp_s
N
= Pi - mpo E qi
i=1
dP""a
t
(4) =
Here mpo comes from the definition of Po dt aup
(see Table 5). The application of the super-
position time graph requires a trial and error
procedure to find the relationship between to
and t that produces a straight line.
N qi.
E ----
i=1 qN
1 1
{-------- - ----------}
t",-+:6 t-t:i._1
(6 )
At early shutin times this equation becomes:'
At large values of shut in time Eq.6 reduces to
where Q is the cummulative production during
the flow period. According to the instantaneou!
source theory17 the time derivative of the pre
sure buildup at long times is: .
(8 )
( 7 )
dP_a

24 Q

t
24 Q
------
=
=
dtaup
d p_a
Thus, as mentioned by Bourdet et al.
23
, the
derivative of the shutin pressure with respect
to the superposition time approaches the first
derivative function t plfor pressure drawdown
corresponding to the last flow rate.
Drawdown Type Curve Matching.
The application of the type curve analysis
technique as a diagnostic process allows the
analyst to determine the start of the semi log
straight line and the detection of reservoir
heterogeneities1S, 19. Usually, drawdown type
curves (pressure drop and time derivative of
are used to analyze pressure buildup
data because of its simplicity as compared to
a buidup type curve that involves the
time as an additional parameter match. The ap-
plication of drawdown type curves is valid un-
der certain condition, that is, the producing
time must be large as compared to the shut in
time
20
(tp>10 if this limitation is not
satisfied then data should be co-rrected. To
match the drawdown type curves a correction
on the time scale can be made by using the
"effective time" teff defined by Agarwal
21
based on the radial flow equations.This correc- dtsup
tion is similar to the one involved in the
Horner graph and yields excellent results if
the drawdown data before shut in are free of
wellbore storage and the flow exhibited by the
reservoir is radial. It should be mentioned
that the effective time method can not be used
for the pressure derivative analysis to correct
the time scale. d p_a
( 9 )
here P(qN) is the pressure drawdown correspo
ding to rate qN. A combination of Eqs. 8 and 9
gives:
The first and second derivative functions for
different flow regimes in terms of real varia-
bles are as follows
17
:
( 10)
---------- =
d P_s
Equations 7 and 10 are valid for any flow re-
gime, thus, it can be stated that the super-
position time pressure derivative of buildup
data behaves, at early time, as the drawdown
first derivative function and at large shutin
times follows the drawdown second derivative
function.
Therefore, it appears that the superposition
time derivative of the pressure buildup at
large values of time approaches the drawdown
second derivative function defined in refer-
ence 17.
I dt
sup

Ln {-------------}

N qi
t sup = E
i=1 qN
The definition of the superposition time, as
suggested by Bourdet et al., is based on the
radial flow equations and is given by:
A proper application of some of the methods
already discussed requires a diagnosis of the
flow regimes exhibited by the reservoir during
the test. The process becomes complex if the
flow rate changed during the producing period.
There are two techniques that allows the flow
regime identification under these conditions:
a) the superposition time pressure derivative
23 and b) the instantaneous source method
17
.
Although the application of these techniques
is well documented, there are some aspects
related to the first method that deserve to
be analyzed.
Another method used in the analysis of pressure d t
buildup data to match the drawdown pressure
drop type curves involves the desuperposition
of the drawdown effects as suggested by Ragha-
van
22
. This technique assumes constant flow
rate during the producing period and requires
the inital pressure and the bottomhole flowing
pressure before shutin.
( 5 )
479
4
USE AND MISUSE OF THE SUPERPOSITION TIME FUNCTION
IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS
SPE 19817
Wellbore Storage and Pseudo-steady State Flow
CONCLUSIONS
From the material discussed in this work the
following conclusions can be presented:
1. The interpretation of pressure buildup data
can be carried out through the use of both
specific graph of analysis and type curve
matching.
'The duration of the transition period between
the first derivative behavior and the second
derivative behavior depends, according to Eq.
5, on the flow rate history and producing time
The deviation from the first derivative behav-
ior occurs at approximately 6.t= 0.05 t
p
Here
a 5% difference between the curves is consid-
ered. The superposition time derivative fOllOWJS
the second derivative curve after 6. t= 2tp
Hence, the transition period lasts for about
two log cycles.
ype curves involving a combination of the fir t
and the second derivative functions can be de-
veloped. Figures 12 and 14 show this type of
graph for a well with wellbore storage and skit
effects and for a well with an infinite conduc
vertical fracture, respectively. SimilaI
type curves can be constructed for finite con-
ductivity fractures and double porosity reser-
voirs.
(11 )
(12)
(14)
(13)
(15) o
t 6. p' = AJ. t 1 / 2
Linear Flow
t 6. p' = A",s t
Radial Flow
Spherical Flow
Bilinear Flow
t 6. p' = A
sph
t-
1
/
2
3
t
2
abs{6.p' ') = --- Asph t-
1
/
2
4
t
2
abs{6.p")
't 6. p' = A r
t
2
abs{6.pll) = A
r
2. The application of the drawdown pressure
derivative type curves has limitations in the
in the analysis of pressure buildup data at
intermediate values of shut in time.
3. It appears that, regardless of the reser-
voir model, the superposition time pressure
derivative of buildup data follows, at early
time the behavior of the drawdown pressure
function and after a transition
period follows the behavior of the drawdown
second derivative function.
According to Eqs. 11 through 15 the first de-
rivative is, in general, not equal to the sec-
ond derivative function, except for the radial
flow case.
As a consequence of the above discussion it
can be said that, regardless of the flow model
the analysis of pressure buildup data can be
performed through the use of type curve match-
ing of the superposition time derivative; how-
ever two sets of drawdown type curves are re-
quired: the first and the second derivative
function type curves.
Figure 12 presents the first and the deriva-
tive type curves for radial flow 4. The superposition time based on radial flow
der the 1nfluence of wellbore storage sk1n'
can
be applied to analyze data measured after
It can be seen that they are completly d1ffer- a variable rate flowing period.
ent at early time, but both sets of type
a single line when 5. A general approach involving a combination
effects d1ssapear. If the produc1ng t1me of sets of first and second derivative func-
large, it is expected. that the pressure bU1ld ,tion type curves can be used to analyze an en-
up data the type Itire buildup test . This approach is on
however, 1f the produc1ng t1me 1S small (1.e. the superposition time derivative of bU1ldup
flowing pressure before shutin is data.
ted by wellbore storage) the superpos1t10n
time derivative follows at ,early time New type curves for the superposition time
derivative type curve and after a trans1t10n pressure derivative are presented.
period follows the second derivative curve (see
Fig.13 ).
NOMENCLATURE
rate
unit flow rate pressure response
time derivative of the unit flow
pressure response.
function, Eq. 3
slope in a variable rate test.
dimensionless pressure
initial pressure
flowing bottomhole pressure
shut in bottomhole pressure
=
=
=
=
=
9
m
pD
pi
pwf =
pws =
The analysis of pressure buildup tests through
the aplication of the superposition time deri- f
vative can lead to serious errors of interpre- fl
'tation, such are the cases where the reservoir
exhibits flow regimes other than radial. For
instance, if the system is dominated by linear
flow during the entire test the analyst can
erroneously conclude that the system exhibits
double porosity behavior because the superpo-
sition time derivative shows two parallel
straight lines of half slope.
480
SPE 19817
HEBER CINCO-LEY AND FERNANDO SAMANIEGO-V.
5
REFERENCES
subscripts
b
=
beginning, bilinear
D
=
dimensionless
e
=
end
f
=
flowing
i
=
initial, ith period
1
=
linear
,s
=
shutin
:sph
=
spherical
w
=
wellbore
1. Matthews, C. S. and Russell, D. G.: "Pres
sure Buildup and Flow Tests in wells",
Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum
Engineers,Dallas (1967) 1.
2. Earlougher, R. C., Jr.: "Advances in Well
Test Analysis", Monograph Series, Society
of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas (1977) 5.
3. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Buildup in Wells"
Proc., Third World Petroleum Congress, The
Hague (1951) Sec. II, 503-523.
4. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B. and Hutchinson,
C. A.: "The Estimation of Permeability and
Reservoir Pressure from Bottom Hole Pres-
sure Build-Up Characteristics", Trans.
AIME (1950) Vol.189.
5. Russell, D. G.: "Determination of Formation
Characteristics from Two-Rate Flow Tests",
J. of Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1963)1347-1355.
6. Odeh, A. S. and Jones, L. G.: "Pressure
Drawdown Analysis, Variable-Rate Case", J.
of Pet. Tech. (Aug.1965)960-964.
7. Gladfelter, R. E., Tracy, G. W. and Wilsey,
L. W.: "Selecting Wells Which Will Respond
to Production-stimulation Treatment", Drill
ing and Product. Pract .. API (1955) 117-129
8. Winestock. A. G. and Colpitts, G. P. : "Advan
ces in Estimating Gas Well Deliverability",
J. Cnd. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept., 1965)111-
119.
9. Odeh, A. S. and Jones, L. G.:"Two-Rate Flow
Test, Variable-Rate Case- Application to
Gas-Lift and Pumping Wells", J. Pet. Tech.
(Jan.1974)93-99.
10.Earlougher, R. C., Jr.:"Variable Flow Rate
Reservoir Limit Testing", J. Pet. Tech.
(Dec.1972)1423-1429.
11.0deh, A. S. and Selig, F.:"Pressure Build
up Analysis, Variable-Rate Case", J. Pet.
Tech. (July 1963) 790-794.
12.Bostic, J.N., Agarwal, R.G. and Carter, R.
D.:"Combined Analysis of postfracturing
Performance and Pressure Buildup Data for
Evaluating an MHF Gas Well", J. Pet. Tech.
(Oct.1980)1711-1719.
13.Fetkovich, M.J. and Vienot, M.E.:"Rate
Normalization of Buildup Pressure By Using
Afterflow Data", J. Pet. Tech. (Dec.1984)
2211-2224.
14.Stewart, G., Wittmann, M.J. and Meunier,
D.:"Afterflow Measurement and Deconvolution
in Well Test Analysis", Paper SPE 12174,
presented at the 58th Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition of SPE of AIME, San
Francisco, Ca., Oct.5-8, 1983.
15.Meunier, D., Wittmann, M.J. and Stewart, G.
"Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Test
Using In-Situ Measurement of Afterflow", J.
Pet. Tech. (Jan.1985)143-152.
16.Kucuk, F. and Ayestaran, L.:"Analysis of
Simultaneously Measured Pressure and Sand-
face Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing",
J. Pet. Tech. (Feb.1985)323-334.
17.Cinco-Ley, H. Kuchuk, F., Ayoub, J., Sama-
niego-V., F. and Ayestaran, L.: "Analysis
of Pressure Tests Through the Use of Ins-
tantaneous Source Response Concepts", Paper
SPE 15476 presented at the 61st Annual Tech
nical Conference and Exhibition of SPE of
AIME, New Orleans, LA, October 5-8, 1986.
18.Bourdet, D., Whittle, T. M., Douglas, A. A.
and Pirard, Y. M.:" A New Set of Type
Well Test Analysis", World Oil,
Apr11, 1984.
19.Gringarten, A. C.: "Type Curve Analysis:
What It Can and Cannot Do", J. Pet. Tech.
(Jan. 1987)11-13.
20.Gringarten, A. C., Bourdet, D. P., Landel,
P. A. and Kniazeff, V.: "A Comparison Be-
tween Different Different Skin & Wellbore
Storage Type Curves for Early Time Transien
Analysis", Paper SPE 8205, Sept. 1979.
21.Agarwal, R. G.: "A New Method to Account fo]
Producing Time Effects When Drawdown Type
Curves Are Used to Analyze Pressure Buildup
and Other Test Data", Paper SPE 9289 presen-
ted at the 1980 SPE Annual Fall Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, spt. 21-24.
22.Raghavan, R.: "Effect of Producing Time on
Type Curve Analysis", J. Pet. Tech. (June,
1980)1053-1064.
flow rate
flow rate during Nth rate period
cummulative production
time
producing time
shutin time
q =
qN =
Q =
t =
tp =
t =
481
TABLE 1
SPECIFIC GRAPH OF
ANALYSIS
p Ctl .. QCtl
'"
FLOW MODEL

P
w
US L Q .FCtl
1
SLOPE AND INTERCEPT
WELL AND RESERUOIR PARAMETERS
TABLE 3
ESTIMATION OF THE UNIT
FLOW-RATE RESPONSE
PRESSURE AND FLOW RATE
DATA

DECONUOLUTION
IMPULSE

INFLUENCE FUNCTION
DERIUATIUES
TABLE 5-SLOPE OF THE SUPERPOSITION
TIME GRAPH BASED ON Po -10 MODELS
TABLE 2
GENERAL METHODOLOGY
OF ANALYSIS
-ESTIMATION OF UNIT FLOW-
RATE RESPONSE.
-DIAGNOSIS OF FLOW REGIMES
-APPLICATION OF SPECIFIC
GRAPHS OF ANALYSIS.
TABLE 4
FLOW DIAGNOSIS
INFLUENCE FUNCTION
DERIUATIUES

TYPE OF FLOW
DURATION
TABLE 6. SI PREFERRED UNITS, CUSTOMARY UNITS, AND UNIT
CONVERSION CONSTANTS USED IN THESE SYSTEMS.
Model
Linear
Bi linear
Radial
Spherical
Parameter
or variable 51 Preferred Units Customary Units
MPD
IJm
2
md
"LqN
BIJL
m ft
kbh
q m'/D STB/D Dr Mscf/D
IJ Pa.s cp
B m
3
/m
3
RB/STB
"qN
BIJ

fraction fraction
kh
-1 .-1
CI
Pa ps,
P
KPa psi
hours hours
"spqN
BIJ
"o="OL="ob
1842 141.2
kr -.
-4
W B
3.6x10 2.637x10
482
q
q
Log
t If6p ~
TIM E
Fig. l-Varlable flow rate test.
(6.t)
carr
TIM E
Fig. 3-Time correction for variable rate.
UELL80RE STORAGE
PSEUOO-STEAOY-STATE
LINEAR
8 ILINEAR
--------- RADIAL
~ 1 2
~ SPHERICAL
Log t
Fig. 5-Flrst derivative graph of diagnosis.
483
q
1\
..
..
Q.
'S
tn
III
a:
N
...
[]\
D
.J
TIM E
Fig. 2-Pressure correction for variable rate.
't = f (q.. t
carr
TIM E
Fig. 4-Pressure and time corrections.
LINEAR
8 ILINEAR
--------- RADIAL
~ 1 2
~ SPHERICAL
Log t
Fig. 6-Second derivative graph of diagnosis.
Horner
q

1-------7>-b.t
TIM E
Fig. 7-Pressure buildup for constant rate.
t
corr
Fig. 9-A comparison of Horner and MDH graphs.
q
HQ)
6t >2tp
3 P
ME
Fig. 8-Pressure bUildup for variable rata.
Fig. 10-Superposltlon time graph.
OF UALIOITV OF. THE
ON TIME

Fig. ll-Beglnnlng and end of straight line.
484
10 '
10
10 :a
10 '
to/CD
10 1
CD E
2S

I
'\

1/

I\. r\
10
2
I
, \

\
/-
Vv 10 H7
\ 1\
fIRST DERIVATIVE
IA
v
106
L.'-.
"'ll\.
\ \
,


"
R
I'
,,\


""

f\ 1\
ri
I
iii

, ,
I.J!!
/ iii 1/ SECOND DERIVATIVE
1.1
/{Oll :0
/
10 fII 11
0
I
1i10
6
10
20
" 'I
,
-
o
0..
o
o
.......
en
(01
oct
C'J
*
* o
of-'
Fig. 12-Type curves for radial flow with skin and well bore storage.

dfCt)
6t
Fig. 13-Schematic of match of pressure buildup derivative.
485
10
10 t
10
.-
..-

V

....

/
---
/
,
-
17
,IP
""
'/ I--

.......
I.<'

10 ...
10 -t
10
DtDxf
Fig. 14-Type curve for a well with an infinite conductivity vertical fracture.
486