SPE 81043
Exact Solution of Two Layer Reservoir with Crossflow under
Constant Pressure Condition
HeDong Sun, SPE, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China; Lei Liu, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China; Fangde Zhou, SPE, Xi’an
Jiaotong University, China; Chengtai Gao, SPE, Xi’an Petroleum University, China
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies, 27–30 April 2003.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The max effective hole-diameter mathematical model
describing flow of slightly compressible fluid through two-
layer reservoir with crossflow is solved rigorously. The model
considers all layers open to a single well that flows at a
constant wellbore pressure. The effect of formation damage is
included in the model. The exact solutions are expressed in
terms of ordinary Bessel functions by using the method of
Laplace transform. The numerical computation of these
solutions is made by Stehfest numerical inversion method. The
new model is numerically stable when the skin is positive and
negative. The effect of the reservoir parameters such as
permeability, vertical permeability, skin, outer boundary
conditions and storativity on the layer production rate and total
rate were investigated. These results can be used to analyse
unsteady flow test of production under the constant
pressure condition.
Introduction
Most well test analysis methods assume constant rate
production, but constant pressure production conditions are
not uncommon. Examples of conditions under which constant
pressure production is maintained at a well include production
into a constant pressure separator or pipeline, open flow to the
atmosphere or production from a low permeability reservoir1.
Van Everdingen and Hurst2 published analytical solutions
for radial flow under constant pressure conditions. Gao3
examined the unsteady flow with crossflow in a n-layer
reservoir when each layer produces under a constant wellbore
pressure. Simple theoretical expressions for the asymptotic
crossflow and the total flow rate were developed and
compared with the numerical simulations results.
Many reservoirs are stratified in nature due to the varying
energy level of the original depositional environment. The
transporting medium sorts the source material depositing one
layer at a time in any given environment. When the
depositional energy levels changes the subsequent overlying
layers may be different in composition and texture forming a
series of dissimilar units of strata. Such formations are called
multilayered systems. These reservoirs are usually divided into
two groups: (1) Reservoirs without crossflow, where layers
communicate only through wellbore, such systems are termed
as commingled, (2) Reservoirs with crossflow, where layers
communicate throughout the reservoir, this type of system is
termed as multi-layer with crossflow.
The earliest rigorous study of pressure behavior of
layered reservoirs was performed by Lefkovits4 in 1961. This
study addressed commingled flow in a stratified system with
an arbitrary number of layers. Lefkovits’s solution served as
the basis for much of the work that followed. Bourdet5
presented an analytical solution to describe pressure response
of layered reservoirs with pseudo steady-state crossflow.
Ehlig-Economides6 presented an analytical model that is a
generalization of Bourdet’s two-layer model with pseudo
steady-state crossflow.
Gao7 developed a very useful idea (semi-permeable
model) to reduce the dimension of the governing equation by
one. The terms for the vertical movement were represented by
the pseudo-steady state approximation analytical solutions for
the wellbore pressure and formation crossflow.
Unfortunately, the exact solution of wellbore pressure is
not convergent when the skin factor is negative8. In this paper,
a new development of double layers crossflow reservoir model
is presented by application of the max effective hole-diameter
concept. The exact solutions for pressure and the production
rate from layer j obtained are expressed in terms of ordinary
Bessel functions. The new model is numerically stable when
the skin is positive and negative.
Max Effective Hole-Diameter
The improper drilling and wellbore completion
technology causes serious damage around the well, especially
in the near wellbore zone. Later in the life of the well, the
production, the injection and the stimulation also can cause
some damage around the well that will reduce the production
of the well. Usually, the boundary condition at the well is
2 SPE 81043

given by the following equation which account for skin factors:  ∂p 

 ∂p j D  p 2D (1, t D ) = 1 + S '2  2D  ( 11 )
p wD = p jD − S j  
 (1)  ∂rD  rD =1
 ∂rD  rD =1
where
As Agarwal8 pointed out that exact solution for wellbore
pressure is not convergent when the skin factor is negative.
j : jth layer, 1, 2
pi − p j p i − p wf
We define the max effective hole-diameter as follows p jD = p wD = =1
p i − p wf p i − p wf
rwe = rw e −Smin (2)
r r re
Where S min is the minimum skin factor in an oilfield, it is rD = R eD = e =
rw e −Smin rwe rw e −Smin
negative. The skin factor of layer j can be written as:
2.637 × 10 −4 ∑ kh
S 'j = S j − S min (3) tD = ⋅t
We can find that all the skin factors are not negative. ∑ (φhC )µr t
2
w

Model Description φ1 h 1c t1
ω= ω2 = 1 − ω
The reservoir model for the double layers system is φ1 h 1c t1 + φ 2 h 2 c t2
shown in Fig. 1. We consider a two layers reservoir that is rw2 k 1h 1
enclosed at the top and bottom and at the outer radius by an λ= ⋅ AA γ=
impermeable boundary/constant pressure boundary or infinite (k 1h 1 + k 2 h 2 ) (k 1h 1 + k 2 h 2 )
boundary. It is drained by a well located at its center that γ2 = 1− γ Q D = Q1D + Q 2D
penetrates the reservoir completely. The reservoir is
homogeneous in the radial direction and heterogeneous in the
141.2q j Bµ
Q jD =
vertical direction and is filled with a slightly compressible (k 1h 1 + k 2 h 2 )(p i − p wf )
fluid of constant viscosity. Gravity effect is assumed to be
neligible. The initial pressure is identical in both layers. The Derivation of Solution for Pressure and Rate
well is produced at a constant pressure. Wellbore storage Equations (4-11) are transformed into Laplace domain
effects are not considered. In describing the formation
with respect to t D .
crossflow between two adjacent layers, the semi-permeable
wall model7 is selected. _
ωs _
_ _

The dimensionless governing equation is γ∇ 2 p1D = p1D − λe − 2Smin  p 2D − p1D  ( 12 )
e 2Smin  
ω ∂p1D
γ∇ 2 p1D = − λe − 2Smin (p 2D − p1D ) ( 4 )
e ∂t D
2Smin
_
ωs _
_ _

γ 2 ∇ 2 p 2D = p 2D + λe − 2Smin  p 2D − p1D  ( 13 )
e 2Smin  
ω 2 ∂p 2D
γ 2 ∇ 2 p 2D = + λe − 2Smin (p 2D − p1D ) ( 5 ) The solutions for this system are the modified Bessel
e 2Smin
∂t D
function K 0 and I 0 . The dimensionless pressure can be
Initial condition written as follows:
p jD (rD ,0) = 0
p jD = A j K 0 (σ j rD ) + B j I 0 (σ j rD )
(6) _
( 14 )
Infinite outer boundary condition
p jD (rD → ∞, t D ) = 0 (7) where σ j is the function of ω j , S min , γ j and laplace space
Constant pressure outer boundary condition variable s . Substitution of (14 ) into ( 12-13 ) results:
p jD (reD , t D ) = 0 (8)  2 ωs − 2S _ − 2S
_

No-flow outer boundary condition  γσ − 2Smin − λe min  p1D + λe min p 2D = 0 ( 15 )

 e 
 ∂p jD 
  = 0 (9)
 ∂rD  ωs _
_
 reD λe − 2Smin p1D +  γσ 2 − 2Smin − λe − 2Smin  p 2D = 0 ( 16 )
Wellbore boundary condition  e 
 ∂p  For the system to have a nontrivial solution, the matrix
p1D (1, t D ) = 1 + S1'  1D  ( 10 ) 2
must be zero. Two σ solutions are:
 ∂rD  rD =1
SPE 81043 3

2
σ1,2 =
1
(a + b ± ∆ ) ( 17 ) A =
2 (1 − a 1 )X1 + (S1' − a 2S'2 )Y1 ( 27 )
2 1
( )( )
a 2 X 1 + S1' Y1 X 2 + S '2 Y2 − 
s 
where
( )( )
a 1 X 1 + S 2 Y1 X 2 + S1 Y2 
' '

ωs ω 2s
2Smin
+ λe − 2Smin 2Smin
+ λe − 2Smin (1 − a )X + (S − a S )Y ' '

a= e e =−
1 2 2 1 2 2 2
A ( 28 )
a (X + S Y )(X + S Y ) − 
b= 1 ' '
γ γ2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
s 
( ) a (X + S Y )(X + S Y ) 
' '
− 2Smin 2
∆ = (a − b ) + 4 λe
2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2

γγ 2 Production rate of layer j is

Once all the eigenvalues are found, the solution for the
( )
_

dimensionless pressure in layer j can be expressed as Q1D = γ A 11 Y1 + A 12 Y2

_ 2
p jD = ∑ A mj K 0 (σ m rD ) + B mj I 0 (σ m rD ) ( 18 )
( )
_
m =1 Q 2D = γ 2 A 11a 1 Y1 + A 12 a 2 Y2 ( 29 )
According to（15-16）,
A m2 = a m A 1m ， B m2 = a m B1m ( 19 ) Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transform and
Discussion of Results
where
For numerically inverting the Laplace transform of
1  ωs 2  petroleum engineering problems probably Stehfest’s
a 1,2 = 1 +  2Smin − γσ1,2  ( 20 )
λe − 2Smin e  algorithm9 is the most common. Stehfest algorithm is simple
and easy to use.
According to outer boundary condition, the relationship of Fig.2 shows how the flow rate of each layer changes with
A mj and B mj is time in a two-layer reservoir. The flow rate diminishes very
quickly at first and diminishes slower and slower when time
increases. When the wellbore pressure are the same,
B mj = b m A mj , j = 1,2, m = 1,2 ( 21 )
Q jD Q D , the ratio of the rate for layer i to the total rate,
For infinite outer boundary condition( 7 ): changes with time when time is small and converges to the
bm = 0 ( 22 ) productivity ratio γ and γ 2 when time is larger enough.
Fig.3 shows how the Q jD Q D changes with semi-
For constant pressure outer boundary condition( 8 ):
permeability. Three different regimes occur in a two-layer
K (σ R ) reservoir. At early time, before crossflow is established, the
b m = − 0 m eD ( 23 )
I 0 (σ m R eD ) response is the same as that for two-layer without crossflow.
At later time, Q jD Q D converges to the productivity ratio
For no flow outer boundary condition ( 9 ):
γ and γ 2 . At an intermediate time, a transition behavior
K (σ R ) appears. For smaller vertical permeability, the transition
b m = 1 m eD ( 24 )
I1 (σ m R eD ) occurs later.
Fig.4 shows how the Q jD Q D changes with skin of
Dimensionless pressure in layer j can be expressed as:
_ layer 1. Q jD Q D converges to a constant when time is large
p1D = A 11 X 1 + A 12 X 2 enough. If S1 = S 2 , Q1D Q D will converge to γ . If
_
p 2D = a 1 A X 1 + a 2 A X 2
1 2
( 25 ) S1 ≠ S 2 , Q1D Q D doesn’t converge to γ . We can find that
1 1
where if S1 > S 2 , constant of layer 1 will be more than γ . If

X 1,2 = K 0 (σ 1,2 rD ) + b1,2 I 0 (σ 1,2 rD ) , S1 < S 2 , the constant of layer 1 will be less than γ .
Fig.5 shows how the flow rate of each layer changes with

Y1,2 = σ 1,2 [K 1 (σ 1,2 rD ) − b1,2 I1 (σ 1,2 rD )]

storagivity. When the wellbore pressure are the same,
( 26 ) Q jD Q D , the ratio of the rate for layer j to the total rate,
According to skin factor inner boundary condition: changes with time when time is small and converges to the
productivity ratio γ and γ 2 when time is larger enough. For
smaller storagivity of layer 1, the transition occurs early.
4 SPE 81043

Fig.6 shows how the flow rate of each layer changes with Acknowledgement
outer boundary conditions. Q jD Q D , the ratio of the rate for
This project supported by the national science foundation of
layer j to the total rate, converges to the productivity ratio China (No.50206016).
γ and γ 2 for infinite and constant pressure outer boundary
conditions. Q jD Q D converges to a constant , but it is not Nomenclature

equal to γ and γ 2 for no flow boundary . For smaller a : coefficient of solution

boundary, the effect occurs early. A j : coefficient of solution
Fig.7 shows how the 1 Q D changes with time. Three AA: semipermeability of layer 1 and layer 2, md/ft
different regimes occur in a two-layer reservoir. There are 2 b : coefficient of solution
linear segments. For smaller γ , distance between two lines B j : coefficient of solution
closer at early time. For smaller λ , the transition occurs later. B : formation volume factor
At later time, 1 Q D of different parameters will be converge c tj : j th total compressibility, psi-1
to a line.
h j : j th reservoir height, ft
Conclusions
I 0 : modified Bessel function
(1) The max effective hole-diameter mathematical I1 : modified Bessel function
model describing flow of slightly compressible fluid
through a double-layer crossflow reservoir is solved j : layer number
rigorously with consideration of different skin m : integer
factors. k j : j th permeability, md
(2) The exact solutions for pressure and the production K 0 : modified Bessel function
rate from layer j obtained for a well producing at a K 1 : modified Bessel function
constant pressure from a radial drainage area infinite
and const pressure and no flow outer boundary
p i : initial formation pressure, psi
condition are expressed in terms of ordinary Bessel p w : wellbore pressure, psi
functions. The new model is numerically stable when
the skin is positive and negative. p w D : dimensionless wellbore pressure,
p j : j th pressure, psi
(3) Three different regimes occur in a two-layer
reservoir. At early time, before crossflow is p jD : j th dimensionless pressure
established, the response is the same as that for two- _
layer without crossflow. At later time, Q jD Q D p jD : j th dimensionless pressure in laplace space
converges to a constant. At an intermediate time, a q j : j th rate, bbl
transition behavior appears. For smaller vertical
Q D dimensionless total rate
permeability, the transition occurs later. If S1 = S 2 ,
Q jD : j th dimensionless rate
Q1D Q D will converge to γ . If S1 ≠ S 2 ,
r : radial distance, ft
Q1D Q D doesn’t converge to γ . We can find that
rw : wellbore radius, ft
if S1 > S 2 , constant of layer 1 will be more than γ .
rwe : max effective hole-diameter, ft
If S1 < S 2 , constant of layer 1 will be less than γ .
rD : dimensionless radii
(4) Curves of 1 Q D with time have two linear segments, re : reservoir radius, ft
between two linear segments is intermediate regime. reD : dimensionless reservoir radii
For smaller γ , distance between two lines closer at
S j : j th skin factors
early time. For smaller λ , the transition occurs later.
At later time, 1 Q D of different parameters will be S min :mininum skin factor in an oilfield
converge to a line. s : Laplace space varible
t : production time, h
t D : dimensionless time
SPE 81043 5

Greek
Q
φ: porosity
µ : viscosity, cp
γ , γ 2 : dimensionless productivity of layer 1 and layer 2
ω , ω 2 : dimensionless storativity of layer 1 and layer 2 ¦Õ 1, ¦Ì1, Ct 1, h1, S1, k1

λ : dimensionless semi-permeability
σ j : eigenvalue of Eq.12 and Eq.13 ¦Õ 2, ¦Ì2, Ct 2, h2, S2, k2

References
1. S.Berumen-C., et al.: “Transient Pressure Analysis and
Performance of Gas Wells Producing Under Constant Pressure
Conditions,” paper SPE 19098 presented at the 1989 SPE Gas
Technology Symposium held in Dallas, Texas, June 7-9. Fig.1 Schematic of Double Layer Reservoir with Crossflow
2. Van Everdingen, et al.: “The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoir, ” Trans., AIME 10
1
1.0

(1949) 186, 305~324.

3. Chengtai Gao.: “The Determination of Total Productivity By a Q1 D γ =0 . 1 Q1 D γ =0 . 4 0.8
Constant Pressure Flow Test and the Crossflow Behavior in Q2 D γ =0 . 1 Q2 D γ =0 . 4
Multilayer Reservoir,” SPE 12581 unsolicited. 0 ω =0 . 3 λ =1 0 E- 5 S1 =S2 =0
10
4. Lefkovits, H. C., et al.: “A Study of the Behavior of Bounded 0.6
Reservoirs Composed of Stratified Layers,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J.

QjD/QD
(Mar, 1961), 43~58. QjD
5. Bourdet, D.: “Pressure Behavior of Layered Reservoir With 0.4
Crossflow,” paper SPE 13628 was presented at SPE 1985 10
-1

Q1 D/ QD γ =0 . 4
California Regional Meeting, held in Bakersfield, California,
March 27~29. 0.2

6. Ehlig-Economides, et al.: “A New Test for Determination of Q1 D/ QD γ =0 . 1

Individual Layers Properties in a Multilayered Reservoir,” -2
10 0.0
SPEFE, (Sept.1987) 22~25. 10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3 4
10 10
5
10
6

7. Chengtai Gao: “Single Phase Fluid Flow in a Stratified Porous tD

Medium with Crossflow,” SPEJ (Feb., 1984) 97~106.
8. Agarwal, R. G, et al.: “An Investigation of Wellbore Storage
and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: 1 Analytical
Treatment,” SPEJ (Sept., 1970) 279-290. Fig.2 Curves of Production Rate and Production Ratio Showing
9. Stehfest, H.: “Algorithm368: Numerical Inversion of Laplace the effect of Heterogenity in Permeability between Layers
Transforms,” Communication of the ACM (Jan., 1970), 13( 1 ):
47~49 0.25 0.95

Q2D/QD
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl × 1.589873 E − 01 = m 3 0.20 0.90

cp × 1.0 E − 03 = Pa ⋅ s λ =1 0 E- 4
ft × 3.048 E − 01 = m Q2D/QD
Q1D/QD

0.15 λ =1 0 E- 5 0.85
λ =1 0 E- 6

psi × 6.894757 E + 00 = kPa

0.10 0.80
γ =0 . 2 ω =0 . 0 1
Q1D/QD S1 =S2 =0

0.05 0.75
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tD

Fig.3 Curves of Production Ratio Showing the effect of

Vertical Permeability
6 SPE 81043

0.35 0.95 8

1: Q1 D/ QD S1 =0 , S2 =0
0.30 2: Q2 D/ QD S1 =1 , S2 =0 7
2 0.90
S1 =- 1 , S2 =0
1 6
0.25
0.85
1 5

Q2D/QD
0.20
Q1D/QD

2 0.80

1 / QD
4
0.15 2

0.75 3
0.10 ω =0 . 0 1 S1 =S2 =0
1 2 λ =1 0 E- 4 γ =0 . 9
0.70 λ =1 0 E- 4 γ =0 . 99
0.05
λ =1 0 E- 6 ω =0 . 0 1 γ =0 . 2 Smi n =- 2 λ =1 0 E- 6 γ =0 . 9
1
λ =1 0 E- 6 γ =0 . 9
0.00 0.65
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
t D
t D

Fig.4 Curves of Production Ratio Showing the effect of Skin Factors Fig.7 Curves of Total Production Ratio Showing the effect of λ、
γ in Infinite Reservoir
0.25 1.00

Q1 D/ QD
0.20 0.95

0.15 ω =1 0 E- 3 0.90
Q2 D/ QD

ω =1 0 E- 2
Q1 D/ QD

ω =1 0 E- 1
0.10 0.85

Q2 D/ QD
0.05 0.80

γ =0 . 2 λ =1 0 E- 5 S1 =S2 =0

0.00 0.75
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

t D

Fig.5 Curves of Production Ratio Showing the effect of

Storativity of Layer

0.25 1.00
I n f i n i t e Bo u n d a r y
Co n s t a n t Pr e s s u r e Bo u n d a r y
0.20 No Fl o w Bo u n d a r y 0.95

0.15 0.90
Q2 D/ QD

Q2 D/ QD
Q1 D/ QD

0.10 0.85

Q1 D/ QD
0.05 0.80
γ =0 . 2 ω =0 . 0 1 λ =1 0 E- 6
S1 =S2 =0 Re D=1 0 0

0.00 0.75
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

t D

Fig.6 Curves of Production Ratio Showing the effect of

Outer Boundary Conditions