SPE-178274-MS

Computation Of Dimensionless Pressure In A Vertical Well Using

Gauss-Chebyshev Quadrature, Gauss-Kronrod Quadrature And
Runge-Kutta Fourth Order
O. J Oloro, Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria; E. Okoh, Petroleum and Gas Engineering Department

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 4 – 6 August 2015.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The determination of pressure distribution in a vertical well using analytical methods have posed a
problem to petroleum engineers due to its cumbersome equations and difficulty in programming in
computer system. In this paper three numerical methods are used to determine dimensionless pressure,
which are (Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature, Gauss-Kronrod quadrature and Runge-Kutta fourth order).
There results were compared with the analytical solutions based on the following assumptions: (1) An
infinite acting reservoir (2) the well is producing at constant flow rate (3) the reservoir is at a uniform
pressure when production begins (4) the well is centered in a cylindrical reservoir at radius re and (5)No
flow across the outer boundary. The result shows that as rD increases, PD decreases, this indicate that when
the radius of the wellbore is increasing, productivity decreases for a vertical well. This work also show
that the accuracy of the quadrature methods depends on the nth terms used and also increases with rD. That
is at higher rD the quadrature methods approximate to the exact solution. Runge-Kutta fourth method was
found to give exact solution at lower step time but required high computation time.

Introduction
Over the years, analytical methods such as Laplace transformation, Bessel theory function and Boltzmann
transformation have been used to solve partial differential equations which is a differential equation that
depends on or is function of time and space, the solution derived from their methods(analytical methods)
are very cumbersome and complex mathematical functions that are difficult to compute.
In this paper three numerical methods will be used to compute pressure distribution of a vertical well
and they are: Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature method, Runge-Kutta Fourth order method and Gauss-
Kronrod quadrature method.

Aim and Objective

The aim and objective of this research work is to
➢ Compare three numerical methods for the determination of pressure.
➢ Use numerical methods to determine the pressure distribution for radial flow in vertical wells.
2 SPE-178274-MS

➢ To compare different numerical methods and their approximate solutions to the exact solution
(Analytical method).
➢ To determine how pressure varies in the reservoir at different radius and time.

Relevance
The relevance of this study is numerous but only few will be listed.
● It helps in the study of pressure distribution in the reservoir at any point in time.
● It is also of great help to petroleum Engineers in carrying out well testing analysis.
● It can be used to analyze steady, transient and pseudo-steady state of a reservoir.

History of Pressure Distribution in Vertical Well

The Advent of well testing analysis started when Everdingen and Hurst (1949) published solutions for the
problem of water influx into a cylindrical reservoir. This equation was called the diffusivity equations
which has been the bed rock of all pressure analysis. Chata later worked on Everdingen and Hurst
publication and presented a tabulation of the results.
Theis (1935) presented a governing equation for the line solution. Mathew, Brons and Hazebroek
(1954) demonstrated that the solution to pressure distribution can be superposed to generate the behavior
of a bounded geometric shapes that is, the behavior of a bounded single well system can be calculated by
adding together the pressure disturbance caused by the appropriate array of an infinite number of wells
producing from infinite system. These wells were referred to as image wells. Mathews, Brons and
Hazebroek considered systems containing a single well producing at a constant rate and they presented
their results graphically for a wide variety of reservoir shapes (Squares, Rectangles, etc.).
Miller (1962) presented the first solution to water influx in a linear aquifer. It was followed by another
investigation by Nutakki and Matter (1982) for infinite channel reservoir using a vertical fracture
approach with a pseudoskin factor. Ehlig-Economides and Economides (1985) presented an analytical
solution for linear flow to a constant planar source solution in drawdown test, Raghavan and Shu (1996)
presented method to estimate average pressure when radial flow conditions are non-existent for linear and
bilinear flow regime which can be applicable to channel reservoirs. Massonat et al (1993) presented the
results of flow simulation in geological complex channelized reservoirs. Their well test analysis was
performed via pure flow simulation and no proposed interpretation technique was presented. Wong et al
(1986) presented new type curves to interpret pressure transient analysis of rectangular reservoir. They use
type curve matching and conventional techniques on actual field data.
A modern technique known as Tiab’s direct synthesis technique (1995) employs the pressure and
pressure derivatives curve to interpret pressure buildup and drawdown tests without type-curve matching.
Odeh and Jones (1965) presented a theoretical development that provides a straight forward method of
handling the drawdown analysis for both oil and gas wells flowing at variable rates. A short coming of
this method is that it cannot be used to analyze early time region (ETR) and middle time region (MTR).
Mc Edward (1981) presented a computer-based non-linear square method of matching pressure in
multi-well variable rate well test analysis. Gringarten and Ramey (2003) presented various type curve for
homogeneous infinite acting reservoir.
Bensadok Abdelaziz et al (2004) presented a paper on pressure behavior of a well between two
intersecting leaky faults using an extension of the well imaging method. Freddy H. Escoba et al (2004)
presented pressure and pressure derivatives analysis for linear homogeneous reservoirs without using
type-curve matching in a SPE conference. M.C Nnadi (2004) used numerical method in well test analysis.
Engr. Dr. Oloro. J. (2012) presented a work on pressure distribution in vertical wells using a new
numerical method called Gauss-Laguerre Quadrature method.
In this research a numerical method will be used in determination of pressure distribution.
SPE-178274-MS 3

Stages in Pressure Distribution in Vertical Well

Pressure distribution in vertical wells undergo three (3) stages. These stages will be explained below.
Steady-State Flow
When the pressure at every point in a system does not vary with time, the flow is said to be steady state.
In reservoir, steady-state flow can occur only when the reservoir is completely recharged by a strong
aquifer or when injection and production are balanced. Muskat (1949) relates flow rates to interwell
pressure drop for several flooding pattern and his equation are easily converted to the dimensionless
pressure approach. The most useful off his work is the five-spot flooding pattern at steady state with unit
mobility ratio and with radius the same in all wells.
Transient Period
This type of flow occur when the pressure changes at the wells are not influenced by the nature of the
boundary for example, if you drop a little stone into a bowl containing water, concentric waves will move
outwards until they hit the side of the bowl. The waves get distorted and become less orderly. The period
during which the waves have not hit the boundary can be likened to transient state phase because the effect
of the boundary has not been felt. Mathematicians describe this phase as period when the rate of pressure
change with time neither zero nor constant.
Pseudo Steady-State Flow Period The pseudo steady-state flow followed the transient flow regime
when the pressure change with time , is constant at all point in the reservoir. This flow period

occasionally has been mistakenly called steady-state, although at true steady state pressure is constant with
time everywhere in the reservoir.
Methods in Determination of Pressure Distribution
There are several methods in determining pressure distribution from the diffusivity equation that was
presented by Everdingen and Hurst in 1949. These methods will be explained briefly.
Analytical Method
This method involves the use of mathematical formulas such as Laplace transformation, Bessel function
theory, Boltzmann transformation etc. These equations gives exact solution to the diffusivity equations
and they are very cumbersome to program in computer system these equations were used in the past to
determine the pressure distribution. Ehlig-Economides and Economides (1985) used analytical method to
determine solution for linear flow to a constant planar source solution in drawdown test. Everdingen and
Hurst (1949) also applied this techniques in their solution.
Type Curve Matching
Gringarten (1987) defined a type curve as a graphic representation of the theoretical solution of the fluid
flow equation used in representing the test well and the reservoir being tested. Type curves are derived
from solutions to the flow equation under specific initial and boundary conditions for the sake of
generality, type curves are usually presented in dimensionless terms such as dimensionless pressure vs. a
dimensionless time. It involves finding a type curve that matches the actual response of the well and the
reservoir during the test.
Tiab (1976) first developed a comprehensive pressure derivative type-curve matching technique for
interpreting the pressure transient behavior. Chen and Bringham (1978) emphasized the importance of (1)
type curves in analyzing the early-time data of a test, (2) the size of the drainage area and the wellbore
storage in defining the straight line on the Horner plot. Proano and Lilley (1978) considered the use of the
derivatives in so called “pattern recognition” process of identifying the bounded reservoir behavior
considered the effects of the wellbore storage and skin. Hsing (1979) used similar type-curve matching
method for analyzing the flow and mixed rectangular bounding systems.
4 SPE-178274-MS

Tiab and Kamar (1980) applied the pressure derivative function in studying the interference test data.
Bourdet el al (1984) presented a method for interpretation of well test data using pressure and pressure
derivative type curve.

Numerical Method
This method involve the use of finite difference, finite element method, and Quadrature methods to
determine the pressure distribution in vertical wells. This methods gives approximate solution to the
diffusivity equation and are easily programmed in computer system as simulator.
Adewole.E.S presented a numerical method called Our Algorithm for the determination of pressure.
Oloro J et al (2012) presented a new approach to the determination of pressure by the used of
Gauss-Laguerre quadrature method. Earlougher et al (1968) provides a means for simplying calculation
in bounded systems. Jargon and Van pollen (1965) presented a feasible approach for hand calculations for
a single well with multiple rate changes.
Aronofsky and Jenkins (1954), Bruce, Peaceman, Rachford, and Rice (1953) and West, Carvin, and
Sheldon (1954) presented numerical method using reservoir simulation to determine pressure. Many facet
of reservoir simulation using finite difference or finite element methods were summarized by Van poollen,
Bixel, and Jargon (1969, 1970, 19710).

Summary
The determination of pressure distribution in vertical wells has moved extensively from analytical
approach which are cumbersome to a modern sophisticated numerical approach. With this, the growth of
well testing is dynamics and changes over time with the introduction of fast sophisticated mathematical
approach and computer system.

Methodology
Gauss-Chebyshev Quadrature Method. Gauss-Chebyshev Quadrature: is an extension of Gaussian
quadrature which is use for numerical estimation of integrals. It uses weighting function in
the interval [⫺1, 1] and forces all the weights to be equal. The general formula is

Where the abscissa zi are the roots of Chebyshev polynomials. And wi are the weights.
Chebyshev Nodes (Z) In numerical analysis, Chebyshev nodes are the roots of the Chebyshev polyno-
mial of the first kind, which are algebraic numbers. They are often used as nodes in polynomial
interpolation because the resulting interpolation polynomial minimizes the effect of Runge’s phenomenon.
For a given natural number n, Chebyshev nodes in the interval [⫺1,1] are

(www.keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1329114617)(2014)
Chebyshev Weight (Wi) The weights are numbers used in approximating the functions. They can be
obtained from Abramowitz and Stegun mathematical tables for different nth terms.
Using this equation the solution to the dimensionless pressure can be
calculated by using Gauss-chebyshev quadrature
SPE-178274-MS 5

From Abramowitz and Stegun mathematical tables using 4-point quadrature, Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4 are
(0.382683, -0.382683, 0.92388,- 0.92388) respectively and the weights, W1⫽ W2⫽ W3⫽ W4⫽0.785398
and .

(www.keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1329114617)(2014).
Gauss-Kronrod Quadrature It is also an extension of Gauss Quadrature rules generated by adding n⫹1
points to an n-point rule in such a way that the resulting rule is of order 3n⫹1. This allows for computing
higher-order estimates while re-using the function values of lower-order estimate. The difference between
a Gauss-Quadrature rule and its Kronrod extension are often used as an estimate of the approximation
error, it has a limit of [⫺1, 1] and it has a general formula as
Using this equation
1

the solution to the dimensionless pressure can be calculated by using Gauss-kronrod quadrature
2

From Abramowitz and Stegun mathematical tables using 3-point quadrature, Z1, Z2, Z3, are
(⫺0.774597, 0, 0.774597) respectively and the weights, W1, W2, W3 are (0.555556, 0.888889, 0.555556)
respectively and . (www.keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1329114617)(2014)

Runge-Kutta Fourth Order Method Is a method of numerically integrating ordinary differential equa-
tions by using a trial step at the mid-point of an interval to cancel out lower-order error terms. The fourth
order form is given as

For the pressure derivatives formula

6 SPE-178274-MS

(4)

It is sometimes known as RK4. This method is reasonably simple and robust and is a good general
candidate for numerical solution of differential equations when combined with an intelligent adaptive
step-size routine.
Here pn⫹1is the RK4 approximation of p(tn⫹1), and the next value (pn⫹1) is determined by the present
value (pn) plus the weighted average of four increments, where each increment is the product of the
interval, h, and an estimated slope specified by function t on the right-hand side of the differential
equation.
● k1 Is the increment based on the slope at the beginning of the interval using .
● k2 Is the increment based on the slope at the mid-point of the interval using

● k3 Is again the increment based on the slope at the midpoint, but now using

● k4 Is the increment based on the slope at the end of the interval, using

● h Is the step size in the evaluation of the numerical integral It is very important because the
accuracy of the integral evaluation depends on it. In this project the step size was varied from
0.001,10,100 depending on the time limit to determine dimensionless pressure. Using the equation
in the differential form as and using a time step (h) to be 0.01 and starting from tD

⫽ 0, the differential equation can be solved using Runge-Kutta method.

Computation of PD Given that rD⫽1, tD⫽0.001 inserting this value into this is the

value of alpha and putting this value into the equations presented in the Gauss-Chebyshev and Gauss-
Kronrod quadrature with the various values of z and w given in each methods, pD can be calculated.
SPE-178274-MS 7

Result and Analysis

Comparing of the Numerical Methods at Different rD

Analysis of Results
From TABLE 1.0 through to TABLE 4.0 and FIGURE (1.0, 2.0, & 3.0) it can be deduced that
Runge-Kutta Fourth order method gives an exact solution to the Analytical method, while the quadrature
methods only approximate to the Analytical methods. Also, as the rD increases Gauss-Chebyshev and
Gauss-Kronrod quadrature methods begins to get an exact value.

Table 1.0 —Dimensionless Pressure using Gauss-Kronrod quadrature for five point
tD PD(rDⴝ1) PD(rDⴝ5) PD(rDⴝ10) PD(rDⴝ15) PD(rDⴝ20) PD(rDⴝ30)

0.001 5.3173E-112 0 0 0 0 0
0.01 2.67588E-13 2.9399E-275 0 0 0 0
0.1 0.012470047 5.66236E-30 5.3173E-112 4.5438E-248 0 0
1 0.52230546 0.000135379 2.67588E-13 3.25366E-27 1.84205E-46 4.2523E-101
10 1.487133133 0.216254674 0.012470047 0.00027758 2.08038E-06 3.60792E-12
100 1.924157787 1.117503625 0.52230546 0.245378404 0.109772914 0.017398167
1000 1.987761274 1.828915252 1.487133133 1.163519069 0.909117847 0.563833444

Table 2.0 —Dimensionless Pressure Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature method using five point
tD PD(rDⴝ1) pD(rDⴝ5) pD(rDⴝ10) pD(rDⴝ15) pD(rDⴝ20) pD(rDⴝ30)

0.001 5.4047E-112 0 0 0 0 0
0.01 2.71651E-13 2.9885E-275 0 0 0 0
0.1 0.012633599 5.7527E-30 5.4047E-112 4.6189E-248 0 0
1 0.536720451 0.000137191 2.71651E-13 3.30535E-27 2.72479E-45 3.4331E-99
10 1.738884164 0.220083289 0.012633599 0.000281265 5.2072E-06 1.6829E-10
100 2.637581066 1.209472275 0.536720451 0.24990293 0.122872664 0.203019495
1000 2.809840207 2.403752908 1.738884164 1.268469517 0.963022228 1.974824274

Table 3.0 —Dimensionless Pressure using Runge-Kutta fourth order

tD pD(rDⴝ1) pD(rDⴝ5) pD(rDⴝ10) pD(rDⴝ15) pD(rDⴝ20) pD(rDⴝ30)

0.001 5.30E-112 0 0 0 0 0
0.01 2.67E-13 3.07E-273 0 0 0 0
0.1 0.012457 5.66E-30 5.30E-112 4.50E-248 0.00E⫹00 0.00E⫹00
1 0.52214 0.000135 2.67E-13 3.25E-27 1.84E-46 4.30E-101
10 1.56825 0.2164 0.012457 0.000277 2.08E-06 3.61E-12
100 2.70837 1.128455 0.52214 0.24524 1.10E-01 1.74E-02
1000 3.85855 2.2521 1.56825 1.1781 9.11E-01 5.64E-01

Table 4.0 —Dimensionless Pressure using Runge-Kutta

rD pD(tDⴝ0.001) pD(tDⴝ0.01) pD(tDⴝ0.1) pD(tDⴝ1) pD(tDⴝ10) pD(tDⴝ100) pD(tDⴝ1000)

1 5.3E-112 2.67E-13 0.012457 0.52214 1.56825 2.70837 3.85855

5 0 3.1E-273 5.66E-30 0.000135 0.2164 1.128455 2.2521
10 0 0 5.3E-112 2.67E-13 0.012457 0.52214 1.56825
15 0 0 4.5E-248 3.25E-27 0.000277 0.24524 1.1781
20 0 0 0 1.84E-46 2.08E-06 0.1097 0.91147
30 0 0 0 4.3E-101 3.61E-12 0.017386 0.5637
8 SPE-178274-MS

Figure 1.0 —PD vs. log tD for rDⴝ1

Figure 2.0 —PD vs. log tD for rDⴝ5

Figure 3.0 —PD vs. log tD (for rDⴝ20)

SPE-178274-MS 9

Figure 4.0 —PD vs. log tD (for rDⴝ1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 using Kronrod)

Figure 5.0 —PD vs. log tD (for rDⴝ1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30) using Chebyshev

Figure 6.0 —PD vs. log tD (for rDⴝ1, 5,10, 15, 20, 30) using Runge-Kutta

Therefore, the accuracy of the quadrature methods depends on the rD and also on the number of nth
term points used.
Results of dimensionless pressure behavior of vertical well PD at a particular tD for both early and late
flow are illustrated as shown in Table4.0 above. As rD increases PD decreases as shown in Table 4 and
Figure 7 This indicate that when the radius of wellbore is increase, productivity decreases for a vertical
well and also at early tD the productivity is very insignificant as shown. The transient condition is only
applicable for a relatively short period after some pressure disturbance has been created in the reservoir.
If pressure is reduced at the wellbore, reservoir fluids will begin to flow near the vicinity of the well. The
pressure disturbance and fluid movement will continue to propagate radially away from the wellbore. In
the time for which the transient condition is applicable, it is assumed that the pressure response in the
reservoir is not affected by the presence of the outer boundary, thus the reservoir appears infinite in extent.
10 SPE-178274-MS

Figure 7.0 —PD vs. rD (at particular tD using Runge-Kutta

Table 5.0 through and Table 8.0 and figure 8.0 through figure 13.0 show the dimensionless pressure
derivatives distribution for a vertical well. It can also be deduced from the tables and figures that the
pressure derivatives (pD‘) accuracy increases with dimensionless radius (rD).

Table 5.0 —Dimensionless Pressure derivative at rDⴝ1

tD pD’(rDⴝ1)(Kronrod) PD‘(chebyshev)rDⴝ1 PD‘(rDⴝ1)(Runge) PD(Analytical)

0.001 1.3346E-106 1.3566E-106 1.33E-106 1.3346E-106

0.01 6.9478E-10 7.05299E-10 6.95E-10 6.94397E-10
0.1 0.410812203 0.416296188 0.41081 0.410424993
1 0.389233417 0.408728524 0.38923 0.389400392
10 0.035142061 0.057744932 4.88E-02 0.048765496
100 0.000677832 0.001762583 4.99E-04 0.004987516
1000 7.36904E-06 2.07896E-05 5.01E-05 0.000499875

Table 6.0 —Dimensionless Pressure derivative results for the four methods (for rDⴝ5)
tD pD‘(rDⴝ5)(Kronrod) pD‘ rDⴝ5(cheyshev) pD’(rDⴝ5)(Runge) Analytical

0.001 0 0 0 0
0.01 1.84E-270 1.8708E-270 1.84E-270 1.8404E-270
0.1 3.59E-27 3.65206E-27 3.59E-27 3.59389E-27
1 0.000966256 0.000979042 9.65E-04 0.000965227
10 0.026772951 0.02739016 0.026763071 0.026763071
100 0.004390075 0.005556275 0.004697065 0.004697065
1000 0.000148746 0.000344909 0.000496885 0.000496885

Table 7.0 —Dimensionless Pressure derivative results for the four methods (for rDⴝ20)
tD pD‘(chebyshev)rDⴝ20 pD‘(rDⴝ20)(Kronrod) pD‘(rDⴝ20)(Runge) Analytical

0.001 0 0 0 0
0.01 0 0 0 0
0.1 0 0 0 0
1 1.89039E-44 1.86029E-44 1.86004E-44 1.86004E-44
10 2.30362E-06 2.27214E-06 2.27E-06 2.27E-06
100 0.001872903 0.001840404 0.001839397 0.001839397
1000 0.000510006 0.000443316 0.000452419 0.000452419
SPE-178274-MS 11

Table 8.0 —Pressure derivative results for the four methods (for rDⴝ1, 5, 151, 5, 15, 20)
tD pD‘(rDⴝ1) pD‘(rDⴝ5) pD‘(rDⴝ15) pD‘(rDⴝ20)

0.001 1.3346E-109 0 0 0
0.01 6.9478E-12 1.8404E-272 0 0
0.1 0.04108122 3.59475E-28 2.5604E-245 0
1 0.389233417 0.000966256 1.86218E-25 1.86029E-44
10 0.351420615 0.267729508 0.001805224 2.27214E-05
100 0.067783224 0.439007491 0.284986545 0.184040428
1000 0.007369037 0.14874556 0.434232835 0.443315853

Figure 8.0 —log-log graph of PD’ VS tD (for rDⴝ1)

Figure 9.0 —Log pD‘ vs tD (for rDⴝ5)

12 SPE-178274-MS

Figure 10.0 —PD‘ & PD vs log tD (for rD ⴝ 1))

Figure 11.0 —log-log of PD‘ & pD vs. tD (for rD ⴝ 1)

Figure 12.0 —log-log of PD‘ & pD vs. tD (for rD ⴝ 5)

SPE-178274-MS 13

Figure 13.0 —log-log of PD‘ & pD vs. tD for (rD ⴝ (20)

Conclusion
These methods have ability to handle all homogeneous porous media, ability to handle all shapes of
boundaries, regular or irregular and ability to eliminate trial-and error procedure. The solution gives the
pressure at any point in the reservoir where the influence of the finite wellbore radius is insignificant. The
solution does not account for skin or wellbore storage making it more appropriate for interference test than
a single well test.
Also the accuracy of these Quadrature numerical methods depend on the number of nth term use. So
higher nth term value results to high accuracy.
Runge-Kutta fourth order is more accurate but result to more computation time, in this research a
program using Matlab was develop for this purpose.
Recommendation
The dimensionless pressure (PD) gotten from the numerical methods were compared with the table of
results presented in john lee textbook. It was found to match with the results so it is recommended for
petroleum engineers to use these methods in determination of pressure in the reservoir.
A set back of both Quadrature methods are the inability to approximate the PD at late time so care
should be taken when using these methods to analyze pseudo-steady period in the reservoir at lower nth
term. This problem can be overcome by increasing the nth term of the nodes of the numerical methods
and the value can be gotten from Abramowitz and Stegun mathematical tables.

References
K. Razminia et alet al. (2014): “Analysis of Diffusivity Equation Using Differential Quadrature
Method” Rom. Journ. Phys., 59, Nos. 3– 4, P. 233–246, Bucharest,.
K. Razminia, A. Hashemi, A. Razminia, Iranian J. (2013). Oil & Gas Sci. Technol. 21, 22–32
A.F. van Everdingen, W. Hurst, (1949). AIME 186, 305–324
A.T. Chatas, (1953); A Practical Treatment of Nonsteady-State Flow problems in Reservoir Systems,
Petroleum Engineer Series
Van pollen, H.K (Dec.1965): “Drawdown curves give angle between intersecting faults” oil and Gas
Journal 71
Earlougher, R.J. et al (feb.1968): “T.D pressure distribution in rectangular reservoirs,” JPT 199. Trans
AIME 243
Tiab, D. (1975): A new approach to detect and locate multiple reservoir boundaries by transient well
pressure Data, M.sc Thesis, New mexico institute of mining and technology. Socorro. NM, may.
Tiab, D and Kamar, A (oct.1980): “Application and location of two parallel sealing faults around a
well.” JPT 1701
14 SPE-178274-MS

Tiab, D (1976): Analysis of multiple-sealing fault systems and closed Rectangular Reservoirs by Type
Curve matching, ph.D. dissertation, the university of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
Chen, H.K. and Bringham, W.E, (Jan.1978): “pressure buildup for a well with storage and skin in a
closed square,” JPT
Proano, E.A and Lilley, I.J. (Jan.1978): “pressure buildup for a well with storage and skin in a closed
square,” JPT
Hsing, H,H. (1979).: Analysis of flow and mixed boundary systems by Type Curve Matching, M.sc.
Thesis, The university of Oklahoma, Norman
Bourdet, D. et al. (1984): “use of pressure Derivatives in well test interpretation,” paper SPE 12777
presented at the 1984 SPE California Regional meeting, long Beach, Apr. 11-13th
Bensadok Abdelaziz et alet al (2004): “pressure Behavoir of a Well Between two intersecting leaky
faults,” paper SPE 88873 presented at the 2004 NAICE Abuja, Nigeria,” Aug. 2nd-4th
Freddy H. et alet al (2004): “pressure and pressure Derivative analysis for linear Homogeneous
Reservoirs without using type-curve matching,” paper SPE 88874 presented at the 2004 NAICE
Abuja, Nigeria,” Aug 2nd-4th
Miler, F.G (1962): “Theory of unsteady-state influx of water in linear Reservoirs,” J. inst. Pet, 48, No
467, pp.365–379.
Nutakki, R. and Mattar, L. (1982): “Pressure Transient Analysis of wells in Very Long Narrow
Reservoirs” Paper SPE 11221 presented at the 57th Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Dallas, TX.
Ehlig-Economides, c, and Economides, M.J. (Dec.1985): “Pressure Transient analysis in an Elongated
Linear Flow Systems,” SPEJ, pp. 839 –847.
Raghanvan, R. and Chu, W. (1996): “on the Determination of Reservoir Pressure when Radial-Flow
Conditions are Nonexistent,” Paper SPE 35619 presented at the Gas Technology Conference held
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 28 Apr. –may 1st,.
Massonet, G.J., Norris, R.J., and Chalmette, J-C, (1993) “Well Test Interpretation in Geologically
Complex Channelized Reservoirs,” Paper SPE 26464 presented at the 68th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of petroleum Engineers held in Houston, TX, 3-6 Oct.,
1993.
Wong, D.W., Mothersele, C.D., Harrington, A.G. and Cinco-Ley, H. (1986): “Pressure Transient
Analysis in Finite Linear Reservoir Using Derivative and Conventional Techniques: Field Exam-
ples,” Paper SPE 15421 presented at the 61st Annual technical conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers held in New Orleans, LA, Oct.5-8,1986
Bendekim, G., Tiab, D., and Escobar, F.H (2002) “Pressure Behavior of a Well in an Anisotropic
Reservoir” Paper SPE 76772 presented at SPE western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint
Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A., 20-22 may 2002.
Babafemi Oluwasegun Ogunsanya (2005): A Physical Consistent Solution for Describing the Tran-
sient Response Horizontal Wells May 2005
Adewole O. A. Olafuyi (2010): The use of Source and Green, s Functions To Derive Dimensionless
Pressure and Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Distribution of A Two-Layered Reservoir Part
II:S-Shaped Architecture, April, 2010.
Tarek Ahmed and Paul D. Mekinney: Advanced Reservoir Engineering.
John Lee: Well testing, SPE, Tesbook series, vol, pp3
Mary Elizabeth Eipper (1985): Standford Geothermal program in Engineering and Earth sciences,
Stanford University, Febuary, 1985, pp 5.
Jain. M. K. and Iyengar. Jain, R.K: Numerical Methods For Scientific and Engineering Computation,
pp(372–375).
(www.keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1329114617) (2014)
SPE-178274-MS 15

Appendix (A)
Derivation of Equation For the Chebyshev and Kronrod Quadrature

Where let x⫽In(y)

Differentiating with respect to y

2

Since x⫽In(y)

Let differentiating y with respect to p (converting the infinite limit to finite limit)

Converting the boundary limit to ⫺1 and 1

Using this formula to convert the limit boundary
10

Where b is the upper boundary a is the lower boundary limit ⫽0

16 SPE-178274-MS

11

12

Let
13

14