Q

.%ciety d Petroleum Engineers

SPE 36525
Robust and Simple Graphical Solution For Wireline Formation Tests: Combined
Drawdown and Buildup Analyses
E. Kasap, SPE, Western Atlas Logging SefWes,
Western Atlas Logging Services

%@ght

1993. Socii

d Patmlwm

K. Huang, SPE, The University of Tulsa, T. Shwe, and D. Georgi, SPE,

graph of pressure vs. formation flowrate, from which both

near-wellbm permeability and P are readily determined.

Enginrnm, k.

7hii Ppa was pfwpared for pfesentarbn at the 1990 SpE Annual Technical Canferenca nd
Exhiblbon Md in Cwrvw, CMxada, U S.A , 6-S Cktnber 1S98

Three numerical simulation cases are set to test the

theories of spherical, cylindrical, stabilized drawdown and the
newly introduced pressure vs. flowrate analysis techniques.
Occurrence of these flow regimes are tested by comparing
their predicted slopes with the slopes of simulation run data.
Conventional and new analysis techniques are applied to two
field-measured data sets and the results are compared.

~is P*I
WS added
ti Mmenbation by an S#E Program -mitten
following _
C4
informabon ccmtained in w! absbad submitted by ma author(s). Cardsnts d ma pqw, as
presented nd been rdmvod by tie %cii
d Purdeum Engirmers and m subject to
axraction by tho wthor(s). h
material, as pfosemled, does not nOcessanly Ierlecl any
postion d me society d Petroleum Engineers, b dficers, w members Paps
p+esented at
SPE mee&?gs are wbject to pubkati
rmoew by Ed-l
Commit&m d h
S.oxdy d
Petm!am Engitwer8. Pcnnission to copy m restricted to an bslmc+ d nd mwe lhan YM
words. Illustrations may not b
copied The abstract should contain ConsrAcuwc
Ammdedgmenr
of vthera andty niwn thepaper was presented Writs Librarian, SPE, P 0.
Sax S33S3S, R!chafdson, TX 7SC43-3S3S, U. S. A., fax 01-214-9S2443S.

Abstract

Background

Wireline Formation Testers (WFT) can provide valuable,

cc&effective information on undisturbed resavoir pressure
(P*), vefiical pressure gradients, in addition to formation
fluid samples, and an estimate of near-wellbore permeability.
Various analysis techniques have been borrowed from the
well testing studies and adapted to analyze WFT-measured
drawdowmand buildup data.

A wireline formation test is initiated when a probe from the

tool is set against the formation. A measured volume of fluid
is then withdrawn from the formation through the probe. The
test continues with a buildup until the pressure stabilizes,
Pressure in the tool is continuously monitored throughout the
test.
WF1sprovide formation fluid samples and produce highprecision pressure and permeability profiles and vertical
pressure gradients, whic~ in turn, can be used to locate fluid
contacts. Wireline formation testing is much faster compared
with the regular pressure transient testing. Total drawdown
time for a formation test is just a few seconds and buildup
times vary from less than a second (for permeability of
hundreds of mD) to half a minute (for permeability of less
than 0.1 MD), depending on the ratio between drawdown
volume and formation permeability. Wireline formation
testing can also generate detailed profiles of formation
heterogeneity (degree of damage to the formatio~ existence
of thin shale laminations, and natural or induced fractures).
Because the investigated volume can be small (a few cm3 ),
the details of resewoir heterogeneity on a fine scale are given
with better spatial resolution than is possible with
conventional pressure transient tests. Furthermore, WFfs
may be preferable to laboratory core permeability
measurements because WFfs are conducted at resexvoir insitu conditions and provide formation fluid samples.

Spherical-flow analysis utilizes early-time data and

usually gives a reliable estimate of permeability. For P*
determination, cylindrical-flow amlysis is preferred because
However, the
it focuses on late-time buildup data.
cylindrical-flow analysis has its drawbacks. Late-time data
crucial for eylindricrd-ftow analysis, especially in lowpermeability formations, but long testing periods are not
desirable because of potential tool sticking problems. Even
on long tests, the cylindrical-flow period may not occur or
may not be detectable on WFTs. When it dces occur,
permeability estimates derived from the cylindrical-flow
period may be incorrect and their validity is diffkult to judge.
We introduce a new analysis technique that simplifies the
interpretation of WIT pressure-transient data. The theory is
based on the geometric factor concept, which is equally valid
for drawdown, stabilized flowrate, and buildup data. The
technique is less sensitive to data quality than other methods,
does not require long buildup periods for low-permeability
formation testing, and can be implemented with a simple

343

E, KASAP, K. HUANG, T. SHWE, AND D. GEORGI,

SPE 36S2S

Formation heterogeneity such as damage, and lamination

and formation anisotropy and its depositional dip can make
the analysis dtikult and render nonunique solutions. In
many instances, fluid type (mud, filtrate, oil, water, or gas),
its viscosity, and total system compressibility further
complicate the analysis. Nonuniqueness in the calculated
parameters requires advanced analysis studies.

where
k = drawdown permeability, mD
q = flowrate, cm31s
p = viscosity, cp
AP = stabilized pressure drop, psi
ri = radius of probe-packer orifke, in.
C = flow model factor, dimensionless (0.75 used)

New concepts and analysis techniques, combined with 3D numerical studies, have recently been reported in the
literature. Kasap et al. showed a simple plotting technique
to obtain permeability and P* based on geometric factor
concept3 . Huangd et al. derived dimensionless parameters
for a WFf buildup test. Sarnahas et al. showed with their
experimental studies that this concept is valid for damaged
formations. Waid et aL,6 Kasap et al., and Proett et al.
studied WFT with 3-D numerical simulations, which have
contributed to the diagnosis of WIT-related problems and the
improved analysis of WFT data.

Although this technique is valid only for flow that has

stabilized during a drawdown tes~ it is often used to
qualitatively estimate permeability from the dmwdown rate
and the difference between the pressures at the beginning aad
end of the buildup period. Reaching a stabilized flow
requires a certain pressure drop in the system (drawdown
chamber and flow lines), which will depend on the formation
permeability. Since a priori information on formation
permeability is limit~ repeated tests are conducted. For a
fixed drawdown volume, piston rote, and compressibility,
there is a critical permeability above which it is possible to
reach stabilized flow. Piston rate and drawdown volumes
may VW, yet it should always be possible to reach a
stabilized flow condition.

This study extends the technique presented by Kasap et

al.] for WFf buildup data to the entire WFT where a single
plot for both drawdown and buildup periods renders straight
lines with identicat slopes. Numericat simulation studies
were used to generate data to test both the conventional and
the new analysis techniques. The numericat simulation data
are ideally suited for such studies because the correct answer
is known (e.g., the input data). The new technique and the
conventional analysis techniques are ah applied to the field
review the themy
data and the results are compared. We first
of conventional analysis techniques, then present the
combined new analysis for drawdown and buildup data.
Finally, a discussion of the applications to the numericat and
field data are followed by the conclusions.

Spherical Flaw, f+essure Buildup. After the drawdown

period, a pressure buildup occurs. This pressure buildup is
recorded as pressure-transient data. It is customarily assumed
that the pressure disturbance associated with the buildup
initially propagates spherically. The analysis of data obtained
during this pxiod is modeled with the spherical-buildup
equation.891011
,
.
\

P(l)=

It has been industry practice to use three conventional

techniques; i.e., pseudo-steady-state pressure drawdowq
spherical- and cylindrical-flow analyses, to calculate
permeability and P*.

Conventional Techniques
Pseuda-Steady-SYate Drawdown.

A plot of

When drawdown data

are analyzed, it is assumed that late in the drawdown period,
the pressuredrop stabilizes and the system approaches a
pseudo-steady state. Drawdown permeability is calculated
from Darcys equation with the stabilized pressure drop and
flowrate resulting from the piston Withdrawal.s

4)
~
I

4[-WH7%-TH
2)

where
P(t) = measured pressure, psi
P*= undistudwd formation presswe, psi
lG= spherical permeability, mD
q = flowrate, cm3/s
p = viscosity, cp
Ct = system compressibility, psfi
t = drawdown flowing time, s
$ = porosity, fraction
At= shut-in time, time after buildup begins.

Analysis Techniques

kd=921

P8XI0

(3)

mutts in a straight line with a slope m, from which the

spherical permeability, h, can be C-alculatd, i.e.,

(1)

344

SPE m%

ROBUST

AND

SIMPLE

GRAPHICAl

SOLUTION

FOR

WIRELINE

FORM4TION

TESTS:

qf =

(4)

()

P(f) vs. log,. ~

(,1

q,,

()

kGoq(P*-P(I))

AN4LYSES

(8)

and drawdown rate of the pump.

(9)

qac=%d-qf.

Eq. 9 requires that both drawdown and formation rates have

positive values.

(6)

Theory Appfied to Entire WFT Here, the simplified analysis

approach reported previously is extended 10 the entire WFT
data analysis. The pressure-tmnsient thcxxy for slightty
compressible liquids can be expressed with the definition of
isothermal compressibility,

is plotted, a straight line with a slope of rm is obtained. From

the slope of the straight line, eylindncal permeability, k, is
calculated.

m?P

BUILDUP

rate, ga, is the difference between the formation flowrate,

(%j+glo(%?)

f+fu

kC= 88.4
m~

AND

During the drawdown period, fluid will be withdrawn at a

rate of qti, which need not be constant. The accumulation

The parameters have the same definitions as in the

spherieal-flow case, and B. is the formation volume factor.
When

DRAWDOWN

where, q, is the volumetric flowrate into the probe from the

formation, P* is the formation pressure, and P, is the pressure
in the probe. The dimensionless Go replaces the factor 27r,
that would apply for true semi-inlkite, hemispherical-flow
geometry.

At some point during

the buildup, the spherieat pressure disturbance will likely
encounter the vertieal bed boundaries or other permeability
barriers. At this pint, the flows contlgurmion changes from
sphericat to cylindrical.10 The Homer-plot equation is used
for the analysis, assuming cylindrical tlow.9.
Cylindrical Flow, Res.rure Buildup.

P(z) = P * -88.4

CCMBINED

ac

c,=
Pv,
8P(f)

(7)

Eqs. 5, 6, and 7 are used for cylindrical-flow analysis. In a

real test, cylindrical flow may never be established unless the
entire cireurnfercnee of the wellbore is covered with the probe
or the thickness of the tested formation is comparable to the
probes internal diameter.

(10)

in which VW is the volume in the tool including the probe,

The derivative
flow lines and drawdown chambers.
c? ~/%(1)
is the reduction in the volume of liquid that
fills V_v,as the pressure there increases during a pressure
buildup period or an increase in the volume oeeupied by the
fluid instantaneously. This deerease or increase in the liquid
volume tilling VV,permits an equal volume to flow into it
through the prob.
Eq. 9 can be rewritten to allow for
variation with time; i.e.,

Formation Rate Analysis

The geomctnc factor coneept23is the foundation of the new
pressure vs. formation rate analysis, from which we obtain
both P* and permeability. ] The hemispherical-flow geometry
more closely conforms to the physical setting of wireline
formation testing. WFT. However, its strict application
requires a hemispherical cavity in the formation immediately
under the probe tip, with a radius equal to the inner radius of
the packer. It also requires a plane, no-flow boundary of
infinite extent (exeept through the probe and hemispherical
cavity), perpendkular to the axis of the probe, To circumvent
these unrealistic restrictions, geometric factors, Go, are
calculated for mwMied hemispherical-flow geomeUy, which
does nor require a cavity in the formation, nor a probe seal of
Darcys equation with this modilied
infinite extent.
hemispherical geomeuy for isothermal, steady-state flow of a
liquid when inertial flow (Forchheimer) resistance is
negligible,

~v
=
d~
1 +J r?t

8P(I)
/

(11)

i?t

The terns C,VV,is called the compressive storage Of the

measuring system. Since 8 ~/df is equal to the liquid
accumulation rate into the probe, qae then,
(12)
Bceause the portion of the formation volume that affeets the
permeability measurement is small, the compressive storage
in the liquid-filled portion of the volume is negligible
compared to that of the measuring Syste% and q- for all
practical purposes, is equal to the difference between ~, the
volumetric rate flowing through the rock adjacent to the
packer prObe and qdd,the drawdown rate Ofthe pump.

345

E. K4SAP, K. HUANG, T. SHWE, AND D. GEORGI,

formations), a set of goodquality test data will exhibit two

straight-line segments.

By substituting Eqs, 8 and 11 into Eq. 9,

(5P(2)

=qti

~v
W

(P*-P(/))

(71

()

kGOq

Speciaf Cases. Eq. 13 applies to all stages of WFT (nonstabilized drawdown, stabilized drawdown, and buildup). To
analyze a nonstabilized drawdown te~ all terms in Eq. 13 are
utilized. However, Eq. 13 can be simplified for stabilized
drawdown and buildup periods.

and rearranging, we obtain

P(()= P*

( )(
*

c,v~

01

SPE 36S25

C3P(t)
+ qdd

(13)

Stabilized Drawdown. When the drawdown period is

extended, the pressure difference between the formation and
the system increases such that the formation will supply an
amount of fluid equal to the fluid withdrawn by the pump.
Stabilized drawdown is established easily if formation
permeability is high or drawdown rate is small. During the
stabilized drawdown period, all P(t) vs. qf plot on a single

Note that the terms within the last parentheses in Eq. 13

correspond to accumulation and drawdown rates, respectively.
Since they act against each other and the difference, in
essence, is the flowrate from the formation, Eq. 13 provides a
means to estimate formation permeability and P* from
drawdown or/and buildup data. A plot of P(t) vs. Formation
Rate, which is given in Eq. 13 as

point. TNs is due to the fact that rate is constant and the

dP

pressure does not change with time. When

is zero, Eq.

dt

13 becomes+
should approach a straight line with a negative slope and
intercept P* at the P(t) axis. The absolute value of the slope,
m, is

(15)
which is identical to Eq. 1 except that the constant C of Eq. 1
has been replaced by the geometric factor, GO, Note that
every parameter on right-hand side of the Eq. M is constant
which means P(t) is constant. Note also that qti must be
constant to achkve stabilized flow.

. P
kGOq
and permeability is calculated from

k=L

GOqm

Buildup Test. During a buildup period, the drawdown

(14)

te! %J, is zero. Eq. 13 yields the buildup equation

reported in our previous work.1

We note that Eq. 13 does not require a constant drawdown

rate.

P(/)= P*-

Fig. 1 shows an ideaI theoretical plot of P(t) VS. Qy.

Theoretically, both drawdown and buildup should have the
same slope and should go through the same straight line.
However, during the early stages of the drawdown period
when the flow is being established and during the early stages
of the buildup period when the flow is adjusting to the
changing flow conditions, actual pressure vs. rate plot may
deviate from the ideal theoretical plot.

(16)

(%71WY)
r?P

The above equation indicates that plotting P(t) vs. ~

should yield a straight line, where C and V,w are now

factored into the slope of the straight line.

Ideal but more realistic data then are expected to generate

a loop that should have two straight-line segments with
identical slopes. Fig, 2 depicts such a plot with straight lines
and the deviations from the straight lines at early buildup and
drawdown periods. A plot of field data may differ from Fig. 2
due to various test parameters (i.e., temperature change,
starting with hydrostatic wellbore pressure, formation
damage). However, when a drawdown test is extended and a
stabilized period has not been reached (low-permeability

Application To Simulation Data

Three simulation cases are used to assess the accuracy and the
applicability of the conventional and new pressure vs. rate
analysis techniques. The three cases correspond to three
formation permeabilities 1, 10, and 100 mD. Fiti we
describe the simulator used to generate the simulation data
sets.

346

SPE 36s2S

ROBUST

AND

SW4PLE GRAPHICAL

SOLUTION

FOR WIRELINE FORM4T}O14 TESTS: CCMSINED DRAWDOWN AND BUILWP ANALYSES

Simulator Description
Near-wellbme transient-pressure distribution during the flow
of slightly compressible fluids is modeled with the diffusivity
equation. A 3-D finite+lement version of this equation in
Cartesian coordinates is used to represent the flow in the
cylindrical region in the near-weIlbore porous medium.

The simulated pressure transients for these three eases are

shown in Figs. 3a and .b. Pressm continuously decreased
during the drawdown period in the 1 rnD ease (Fig. 3a).
Stabilized drawdown pcncxis are reached in the cases of 100
and 10 mD (Fig. 3b). Figure 3a shows that in the l-mD ease,
although the pressure dropped more than 120 atm at the end
of drawdown, the drawdown did not reach stabilized flow.
Nevertheless, the pressure vs. rate data fall on straight lines at
the end of the drawdown and buildup periods. Buildup and
drawdown permeabilities for the 1-rnD ease are 1.05 and
0.997, respectively. The industry praetiee however has been
to apply Eq. 1 direetly without considering the fact that the
required stabilized flow regime was not established. When
Eq. 1 is used for l-mD simulation daa a permeability of 1.52
mD is erdculated. This example shows that if the stabilized
drawdown equation is used for nonstabilitzed tests, gross
errors in calculated permeability will be introduced. The
magnitude of the introduced error depends on how far off the
final drawdown pressure is from the expeeted stabilized
drawdown pressure.

When the simulator is used, numerous formation zones

with different anisotropic and tensoriat permeability, porosity,
viscosity, and compressibility ean be defined. Any two zones
em be eonncctcd or disecmneetedat their commonboundary.
The probe and the comected drawdown chamber are each
modeled as a zone with unit porosity and ve~ high
permeability (in general, 10,000 times that of the formation).
Separate initial pressures ean be speeified for each zone
within the formatio% and they em differ from the initial
system pressure. Generally, the initial chamber and probe
pressures are set to the wellbore pressure, which is typically
higher than the formation pressure.
Generally, we use a no-flow boundary condition at the
wellbore to simulate impermeable mud cake. In the radial
diredion, external boundaries are assumed 10 be at constant

pressurrx this assumption is justifkd when the external

boundaries are far from the wellbore and the region being
investigated is small compared to the reservoir. The top and
bottom (i.e., zdirection) boundaries are also assumed to be
constant-pressure boundaries, although no-flow boundaries
representing shale barriers, in the zdireetion, are permitted.
The drawdown and buildup processes can be simulated
By applying a boundaryseparately or sequentially.
production rate for a given time step corresponding to the
volume increase provided by the pump movement, the
drawdown prwess can be simulated.

P(t) vs. qJ plots are generat~

as suggested by %

13,

for 1-, 10-, and 100- rnD eases and shown in Figs. 4,5, and 6,
respxtively. The figures show narrow loDps with straightline segments for buildup and drawdown data. The figures
also reveal the expected deviations from the theory for early
drawdown and early buildup times. Fig. 4 indicates for the 1mD case that the early-time drawdown and buildup data
deviate from the theoretical straight line, but that the latetime data for both drawdown and buildup have identical
slopes. Figures 5 and 6, however, indicate that for these tes@
the drawdown straight lines do not exist due to the early
establishment of stabilized drawdown period (although the
data indicate that the 10 rnD ease is very close 10,but has not
quite reached stabilized flow). he figures also show that the
density of the plotted points increases towards the end of the
drawdown (buildup as well), and finally plot on top of each
other when the drawdown flow is stabilized. Calculated
permeabilities (from Eq. 1) for both 10- and 100 mD eases
are 9.4 and 91.5 rnD. respectively. By using Eq. 15, these
results more closely approximate the correct penneabilities
(e.g., 10.4 vs. 10 and 101.3 vs. 100 mD).
Buildup
permeabilities for 10- and 100 mD eases (Figs, 5 and 6) are
9.54 and 105.3 mD, respectively.

Numerical Cases
Three simulation eases are designed to assess the accuracy

and the applicability of the new and conventional analysis

techniques under various flow conditions. Three cases
correspond to three permeabilities of 1, 10, and 100 mD.
The rates used in those cases are 24., 2.4, and 2.4 cm3/s,
respectively. For simplicity, a constant drawdown rate is
impscd in all simulations, although imposing a variable rate
is also permitted. Other relevant simulation parameters used
to generate the test data are given in Table 1.
Table 1- Numerical Simulation Parameters

We applied conventional spherical and cylindrical flow

analysis techniques to the above numerieal data wts. First
diagnostic log-log plots are constructed (Fig. 7) to determine
the time periods of the corresponding flow regimes. Fig. 7

347

E. KASAP, K HUANG, T. SHWE, AND D. GEORGI,

buildup periot$ we used Eq. 16 to generate pressure VS.

pressure derivative plot shown in Fig. 16. From the last &ta
points with a nonzero dp/dt (late-buildup period), we drew a
straight line and calculated a permeability of 66.3. We used
thk permeability and a constant average rate of 2.55 cm3/sfor
the simulations. The match between the field data and the
numerical simulation data is ve~ good. Some discrepancy
between the field data and simulated data is expected at early
and late periods of the test due the constant flowrate
assumption. In the field tests, the rate gradually increases to
a constant value and then gradually decreases. Conventionat
drawdown analysis @q. 1) results in a Permeability of 58.6
mD and the new atabilid drawdown analysis @q. 15)
results in a permeability of 67.8 rnD.

shows that the log-log plot for the 100 mD case terminates
with a slope of -2.62 when the buildup test shows a final
pressure that is the initial reservoir pressure. On the other
hand the slopes are -2.25 and -1,8 for late-time buildup data
for the 10- and 1 mD cases respectively. The terminat slopx
are not indicative of either spherical or cylindrical flow (-0.5
and Oslopes are requiredll or these regimes, respectively).
Often, spherical and cylindrical flow regimes are forced
on to the field data. We plot pressure vs. sphericat or
cylindrical time functions and draw a straight line through
the late buildup data points. Figs. 8-13 show pressure vs.
sphericat and cylindrical time function plots for 1-, 10-, and
100 mD data. The straight lines are drawn on the latebuildup data points. The calculated permeabilities from
spherical flow analysis, Eq, 2, are 0.5, 4.17 and 175,5 mD for
the 1-, 10-, and 100-mD cases, respectively. The cylindrical
flow analysis yields 3.17-, 20.7-, and 3979.6-mD
permeabilities for the numerical data generated with 1, 10
and 100 mD, respectively. Also shown on the figures is the
fact that very few data points are utilized to draw the straight
lines. Little differences in the slopes of straight lines will
make large dMferenms in calculated permeabilities because
very few data points are utilized for the straight lines and
straight line slopes are too small. Thus, small errors are
amplified by the conventionalanalysisprocedures.

Figures 17-19 are the log-log diagnostic, sphericat- and

cylindrical-flow analyses plots, respectively. As shown in the
figures, slopes are ve~ small and are very sensitive to small
errors. The calculated permeabilities are 47.37 for spherical
and 828.07 mD for cylindrical-flow analyses. The calculated
permeabilities for Test A64 are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3- Summa~ of Calculated Permeabilities for Test A6-4
:::<
Eq; (13>.~:~, ::
g.ti::??%j:
.,....... ...........,
rqi:rffiw:j
Y<;F?.*@~~E
E~*{l@~:~< i~:&*3;$?~gj;
g#$@@@@ @i$f:@@$&
Spiiemas
<;:47;32! $:!
~fi$ffica~
w;%i#:ti8&@N

Calculated permeabilities for the three sets of numerical

data are summarizes in Table 2.

Fig. 20 shows a plot of the pressure vs. time data from

Test A7-2 and the data from two numerical simulation cases,
while Fig. 21 shows pressure vs. formation rate function as
indicated by Eq. 13. The figure shows reliable buildup data
with a straight-line section. Although not as obvious, the
drawdown data exhibit a similar, nearly parallel line.
Permeability calculated from the buildup section of the teat is
8.5 rnD. Figures 22-24 show log-log diagnostic, sphericaland cylindrical-flow analyses plots, When conventional
drawdown analysis is applied, a permeability of 5,13 mD is
obtained. Spherical- and cylindrical-flow analyses result in
permeabilities of 6.3 and 20.3, respectively.

Application to Field Data

We illustrated the analysis techniques with two field

examples. Test A6-4 was chosen because it shows a

stabilized flow during the drawdown period and Test A7-2
was chosen because it was considered a typical test that is
representative of many wireline formation tests. Fig. 14
shows the pressure vs. time plot for Tesl A6-4, the field dam
and the numerical simulation data. Fig. 15 shows presaurE
vs. formation-rate plot suggested by Eq. 13. The figure shows
that the pressure is stabilized and built up very quickly due to
high formation permeability. In this case, we have very little
chance to analyze the data

SPE 36S2S

To further test the reliability of the analysis technique%

we conducted numerical simulations for Test A7-2. From the
numerical simulations, we found that the total system
compressibility is 1.9E4 /atm. This is very close to the value
we used in earlier numerical simulations (2.E-4/atm). We
used this compressibility and the permeabilitiea obtained fmm
the new and the spherical flow analysis techniques (8.5 and
6.3 rnD, respectively) in the simulations. The results are
compared in Fig, 20. For the simulations, the actual fieldmeasured pump rates were used. Fig. 20 indicates that the
simulation run with permeability from the new analysis

and get correct parametersby

using any analysis technique but stabilized drawdown, Eq.

15. Although there are very few reliable data points from the

348

SPE 365%

ROBUST AND SIMPLE GRAPHICAL

SOLUTION

FOR

WIRELINE

FORM4TION

TESTS:

CC$JIBINED

DRAWDOWN

AND

BUILDUP

ANALYSES

permeability, mD
pressure, psi
volumetric flowrate, cm3/s
packer-probe dim, cm
time, s
system volume, cm3
porosity,~action
viscosity of fhri~ cp

teehnique better matches the field data. The permeability

from spherieal flow analysis results in a por match for the
pressure at the end of the drawdown (simulation pressure is
tea low). This indicates that the permeability value (from the
spherieal flow analysis) used in the simulation is too low.
The results obtained from all anatysis techniques are
summarized in Table 4.

thickness,j?

Table 4- Summary of Calculated Permeabilities for Test A7-2

Eq, (13)

Subscripts
cylindrical
c

8.5

s
Sys

N/A
Eq. (15)
8.5
.E~,(16)
:;::;:;:$:~~w:::
,..,.,.,
,.,,
,,.,,..,
......,........., ,.
:q*:ff):?::Y.:.
Sphe~cal
.... . .. ...
~jf~&jc~ :,,~;g.*;~;,;~:;

Acknowledgments

We gmtetldly acknowledge the financial support Western

Atlas Logging Semiccs and OCAST (Oktahorna Center for
Advancement in Seienee and Technology) provided for this
project. We thank Western Atlas Logging Serviees for
providing the field data and permission to publish this paper.
The assistance of J. Micheals with the preparation of the field
data is gratefully acknowledged. Finally, we wish to thank
M. Moody for providing access to field data.

Conclusions
We have introduced a new, simple, and unified pressure-

transient analysis teehnique for wireline formation tests.

After applying it to three numerical and two field data sets,
we arrived at the following conclusions:
The new pressure vs. formation rate analysis performs as
well or better than conventional spherical-flow,
drawdown, and cylindrical-flow analyses.
2. The new teehnique does not require determination of
flow regimes or even separation of drawdown and
buildup data.
3. The new technique simultaneously provides P* and
permeability that are more consistent than those provided
by the conventional techniques, as indicated by the
analysis of three tests from numerical data sets and field
tests A6-4 and AI-2.
4, The pxnwability obtained from conventional pressuretransient analysis requires extremely carefid examination
of the pressure history and diagnostic plots to properly
seleet start and end times for flow regime determinations.
5. Conventional analysis techniques require identi~ng
straight lines with very small slopes, which makes the
resufis very sensitive to-small data handling errors.
6. The simulator is vexy helpful for claritling the
interpretations of formati-onand fluid properties: 1,

References
1.

Kasap, E., and Gemgi, D,, Micheals J,, and Shwe, T.: A New
Simplified, Unified Technique for the Analyses of Wireline
Formation Test Data, paper presented at the 1996 SPWLA
Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, LA, June 16-I 9.

Dykstia, H. and Parsons, R. L.: The Prediction of Oil

RecQvery by Waterfkmd, Secondary Recovery of 011 in the
United States, 2~ Ed. API, New York, 160, 1950.

3.

Goggin, D. J., Trasher, R. L., and Lake, L. W.: A Theoretical

and Experimental Analysis of Mir@ermeameter
Response
Including Gas Slippage and High Velocity Ftow Effects: hr
Situ 12, No. 1 and 2 (1988) 79-116.

4.

Husng, K., Samr@

A., and Kasap, E.: Dirnensiordess
Parameters for Interpretation of WIT Dahx Simulations and
Experiments, paper presented at the 19% SPWLA Annuat
Logging Symposium, New Orleans, LA, June 16-19.

Samaha, A., Huang, K., Kasap, E., Shwe, T., and Georgi, D.:
Near Wellbore Permeability and Damage Measurements:
Experiments and Numerical Simulations for Interpretation of
SPE 35150 presented at the SPE 1996
WFT Data;
International Synqmsium on Formation Damage Control in
Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A. 14-15 February.

6.

Waid. M.C., Proett, MA., Ch~

CC., and For~ W.T.:
Improved Models for Interpreting the Pressure Response of
Formation Testers; paper SPE 22754 presented at the 1991

Nomenclature

BO
G

Go

spherical
drawdown chamber plus flow line
volume

Formation volume factor, rM/b

compressibility factor, I/psi
geometric factor

349

E. KASAP, K HUANG, T. SHWE, AND D, GEORGI,

SPE Annual Technical Conference rmd Exhibition, Dallas, TX,

Oct. 6-9.
7.

Gocde, P., and Thambynayagam, R.: Influence of an Invaded

Zone on A Multiprobe Formation Tester: SPE Formation
Evaluation, March 1996.

8.

Dussan, F., and Sharma, Y.: An Analysis of the Pressure

Response of a Single-Probe Formation Tester, SPE 1680 I
presented at the 1987 SPE 62nd Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, Tx,

9.

Stewart, G. and Whittman, M.: Interpretation of the Pressure

Response of the Repeat Formation Tester, SPE 8362
presented at the 1979 SPE 54th Annual Teehnical Conference
and Exhibition, Las Vegas, September 26-29.

10. Moran, J. and Finktea, E.: Theoretical Analysis of Pressure

Phenomena Associated with the Wueline Formation Tester;
presented at the 1962 SPE 36th Annual Fall Meeting, meeting
of SPE, October 8-11, JPT (August, 1962).
11. CincMey, H., F. Kuchuk, J. Ayoub, F. Samaniego-V, L.
Ayestaran: Analysis of Pressure Test Through Lhe Use of
Instantaneous Source Response Concepts;
SPE 15476,
Presented at the 1966 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, LA October 5-8.

350

SPE 3652S

SPE 36525

ROBUST AND SIMPLE GRAPHICAL SOLUTION FOR WIRELINE FORM4TION TESTS: COMBINED DR4WOOWN AND BUILDUP ANMYSES

Drawdown
---1

Buildup

Formation Rate

Formation Rate

Fig 1 Schematic of P vs. qr plot for an ideal

theoretical WT.

Fig, 2 Schematic of P vs. qf plot for an ideal realistic

WFT.

202

g
A! lm j
Im

10

170

Time, sac

1
0.0

Case 10 mD

Case 100 mD
I
20

I
e.o

llm~ sec

Fig. 3a Pressure vs. time for numerical

1-mD case.

Fig. 3b Pressure vs. time for numerical 10- and 100mD cases<

351

E. KASAP, K. HUANG, T. SHWE, AND D. GEORGI,

10

SPE 36525

+PF
0.0

0.4

on

tfl

O.a

as

Formation &

2;

F%mation &

Fig. 5 Pressure vs. formation-rate plot of numerical

1O-mD case.

Fig. 4 Pressure vs. formation-rate plot of numerical

1-mD case.

am

d
Case 100 mD
+

zo

Drawdown

E
z
% $=S
2
a

-Im

Caaalolro

caaaloonm

Cyilndlid

siOpD

0.10

lm -

la5
0

I
s

Sphartaai
Wopa

0 ~

o.m

0.10

1,m

Fo%ation <ate

10.00

*mm

&

Fig. 6 Pressure vs. formation-rate plot of numerical

100-mD case.

Fig. 7 Diagnostic

352

log

(alp) vs. log (dt) plots.

SPE ~~

ROSUST

AM)

SIMPLE

GRAPHICAL

SOLUTION

FOR

WIRELINE

FORM4TION

TESTS:

CCf4ElNED

DRAWDOWN

AND

BUILOUP

11

ANALYSES

m.

2C04

an

E
ii
..
2 ~M
*
s
w

\
m

154
lm

t=
i52

xo -

Case 1 mD
k~p = 0.!5 mD

0.0

I
00

Case 10 mD

\
ksP= 47 mD

1
02

02

S~;erical T;;e

Fig. 8 Pressure vs. spherical time for

l-rrdl case and straight line for permeability
calculation.

Fig. 9 Pressure vs. spherical time for

10-mD case and straight line for permeability
calculation.

iI

ml

2co
am

E
z

s ~-
i
n.
lm

Case 1 mD

m -

Case 100 mD

~y = 3.f7 mD

104

k~p = 176.6 mD
,
00

20

I
00

la

,
00

Spheri;al Time

01

01

03

1
O.*

Cylindrical Time

Fig. 10 Pressure vs. spherical time for 100-mD case

and straight line for permeability calculation.

Fig. 11 Pressure vs. cylindrical time for l-mD case

and straight line for permeability calculation.

353

12

SPE S6S25

E. KASAP, K. HUANG, T. SHWE, AND D. GEORGI,

2m

204

200-

i
a

IM -

102
~y

A-rlA
1.0

0,0

la

2.0

Cylindrical Time

Cyllndrlcal

Fig. 12 Pressure vs. cylindrical time for 10-mD case

and straight line for permeability calculation.

111

+
310 1
I
I , I , I
7n

7n

771 no

Flald Data
I 1 I 8 I , I I I , I 11
nf
7U
7s2 794 7s
Time, sec

I
3

nm2

Fig. 13 Pressure vs. cylindrical time for 100-mD

case and its straight line for permeability calculation.

Simulated Date

no

mD

I
1

30

3979.6

:UEL--l

.1

780 7n

Forma\lon Rate~cc/aac

Fig. 15 Pressure vs. formation rate plot for Test

A6-4.

Fig. 14 Pressure vs. time plots for Test A6-4, field

and simulated data.

354

SPE 3652i

ROBUST

AND

SIMPLE

GRAPHCAL

SOLUTION

FOR

WIRELINE

FORMATION

TESTS:

CCMBINED

DRAWDOWN

AND

BUILDUP

93

ANALYSES

i
t .m

314-

a
w

313-

010

Cylindrical Sbpa
O,m ~~

Sta -

k = 66.3 mD
3tt
o

sp,%

0 ~

&

a 10

dpldt

tm

lam

dt

Fig. 16 Pressure vs. dp/dt (Eq, 16) plot for Test

A6-4.

Fig. 17 Diagnostic log (alp) vs. log (dt) plot of Test

A6-4.

4
114

312

kcY =

J-l-lA
00

0,4

O.B

311
1,2

t.9

Spherical lime

OB

82007
D

0.4

I
I,6

,
2,0

Cy~ndrical ;fme

Fig. 18 Pressure vs. spherical time plot for Test A64.

Fig. 19 Pressure vs. cylindrical time plot for Test

A6-4.

355

14

E. W@AP, K HUANG, T. SHWE, AND D. GEORGI,

SPE 3652S

200
MO -

6.

5
!

280-

220252

2401
1

+
I

k=6.3mD
,

I
I

240

1
I

I
o

I
z

FormatkrI

Fig. 20

time plots for Test A7-2, field

and simulated data.

Pressure vs.

RA

I
10

cdaac

Fig. 21 Pressure vs. formation rate plot for Test

A7-2.

&al

Cyllndricai Slope

.x

i~

0.10

f.m

10.00

dl

Fig. 22 Diagnostic log dp VS,log dt plot of Test

A7-2.

04

0.4

12

1A

Spheri&l Time

Fig, 23 Pressure vs. spherical time p!ot for Test

A7-2.

SPE 36525

ROBUST

AND

SIMPLE

GRAPHICAL

SOLUTION

FOR

WIRELINE

FORM4TION

{m

i!

&

lm -

ksp

20.3 mD

Lll
00

02

04
Cylindrical

0s

10

%rne

Fig. 24 Pressure vs. cylindrical time plot for Test

A7-2.

357

TESTS:

CMINED

DRAWDOWN

AND

BUILDUP

AFULYSES

15