You are on page 1of 9

Steady-State Flow Capacity of Wells With Limited

Entry to Flow
A. S. O D E H
MEMBER AlME
I MOBlL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CORP.
DALLAS, TEX.

ABSTRACT Magnitude o f the l o s s depends on the fraction o f


the formation open to flow, on the thickness o f
T h i s paper analyzes the effect of limited entry the sand, on the location o f the open interval and
to flow at the wellbore on the steady-state prdduc- on the ratio o f ~ / r , , where rW i s well radius and
tivity of a well. Wells that have been opened to rd i s the drainage radius o f t h e well.
flow along a fraction of their productive interval T h e u s e o f pressur; buildup data on producing
are termed w e l l s with limited entry. .Previous work wells to calculate the condition o f the formation
treated the c a s e s of a partially penetrating well, a around the wellbore i s an accepted practice. van
well producing from the central portion of the Everdingenl and Hurst2 introduced the concept o f
productive interval and a well in which several h e skin factor s considered to be due to a thin
intervals equally spaced were open to flow. In layer o f different permeability immediately around
t h i s paper the open interval can be located any- the wellbore. T h e s e authors dealt with the c a s e
where within the productive interval. ,Thus, in a o f a well o f complete radial geometry, i-e., a well
sense, it generalizes previous work. with open-hole completion that completely pene-
T h e finite cosine transform w a s used to arrive trates the formation. T h e presence o f a low-
at a solution for steady-state flow of a slightly permeability skin results in a l o s s o f productivity,
compressible fluid. The solution was programmed a s does limited entry. Therefore, i f pressure buildup
for a CDC 1604 computer. i%imerical values for data obtained on a well with limited entry are used
rd = 660 ft, r, = 1 / 4 ft, and range of sand thick- to establish the presence or absence o f skin (i.e.,
n e s s o f 20 to 200 ft are presented in graphical form. formation damage), and a correction i s not made
T h e effect of r d and rw values on the result i s for this l o s s o f productivity, the calculations
shown in a table. T h e correct calculation of would result in an erroneous skin value. They
s k i n and damage ratio in the presence of limited might indicate the presence o f formation damage
entry to flow is explained and illustrated by when in reality there i s none, or they might indicate
examples. Moreover, the paper shows how to cal- a value larger than the true value. T h i s could lead
culate the net decrease i n productivity due to the to an incorrect basis for planning remedial measures.
combined e f f e c t of limited entry and perforations. Muskat3 studied the problem o f partially pene-
trating wells for the case o f incompressible flow.
INTRODUCTION He presented equations and figures which allow
estimation o f l o s s in productivity. Brons and
In some wells only a fraction o f the productive
Marting,4 using equations based on Nisle's work,=
interval i s open to flow. Location o f this fraction
studied the l o s s o f productivity for three cases.
i s usually dictated b y formation characteristics
T h e first was for a partially penetrating well; the
and reservoir behavior. For instance, if a gas
second w a s for a well producing from only the
cap e x i s t s , the open interval i s located away from
central portion o f a productive interval; and the
the gas-oil contact to prevent any possible gas
third was for a well in which several intervals
coning. Wells that intentionally have been opened
equally spaced were open to flow. Their work
to flow alona a fraction o f their productive formation
was for steady-state depletion-type reservoirs
are termed -wells with limited entry. Obviously,
wherein the well radius o f drainage i s established
unintentional completions o f this type also exist.
and the fluid i s considered to be slightly com-
Limi ted entry to flow decreases well productivity.
pressible.
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum
Considered in this paper i s the problem o f
Engineers office J m e 12, 1967. Revised manuscript received wells with limited entry in which the open intervals
Feb. 2, 1968. Paper (SPE 1797) was presented at SPE 42nd
Annual Fall Meeting held in Houston, Tex., Oct. 1-4, 1967. are located anywhere within the productive sand.
@Copyright 1968 American Institute of Mining. Metallurgical. T h e finite cosine transform i s used to arrive at a
and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This psper will be printed in Transactions volume 243,
which will cover 1968. l ~ e f e r e n c e sgiven at end of paper.

M A R C H , 1968
solution for steady - s t a t e flow of a slightly
compressible fluid. The resulting equation allows
calculation of l o s s of productivity a s a function of
location and length of the open interval, the
thickness of productive sand, the value of rd and
the ratio of rd/rw. Solution of the equation in
graphical form is presented for the c a s e of rd. =
660 ft and rw = 1/4 ft, and for a range of sand
thicknesses from 20 to 200 ft. A comparison
between a few results for values of rd and rw
different from the above is given in tabular form.
Also, the paper shows how the n e t decrease in
productivity due to the combined effect of limited
entry and perforations is calculated.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
It is assumed that a well of radius rw penetrates
an isotropic medium of thickness ht. ,The interval
open to flow a t the wellbore is h, where h ht. <
The formation is bounded externally by a circle
of rd radius. The well is centrally located. Top
and bottom boundaries of the formation are
impermeable to flow. The well i s producing a t a where r d =~ (rd/ht), T w = ~ (rw/ht), Z D = (Z/ht),
constant rate q. The fluid is slightly compressible, hD = (h/ht), lo and I1 are modified Bessel functions
and the reservoir i s in semisteady-state. of the first kind of zero and first order, and KO
Mathematically, this problem could be stated a s and K are modified B e s s e l functions of the second
that of finding a solution to the equation kind of zero and first order.
If the entire productive interval is open to flow,
then

with the following boundary conditions

Thus, Eqs. 3 and 4 permit calculation of the l o s s


of flow rate a s a function of ht, Z D * rd/rw and
h D In Eq. 3, ZD1 = Zl/ht, where Z 1 is the
distance in feet between the top of the productive
2n h r ~ = q = rate of fluid flow interval and top of the open interval. In Eq. 4,
q, is the flow rate under radial geometry.
Eq. 3 assumes that the open interval produces

zk . . . . . . . . . . (2)
a through perforated casing with flow resistances
=0 ,
equivalent to those of an undamaged open-hole
= 0 and 4 interval. This means that the number of perforations
per foot a r e large enough s o a s not to cause
where D = - [q/(nrd 2ht& and @ is the velocity appreciable impediment to flow. If this c a s e does
potential given by @ = (k/~*)(p - P ~ Z ) . not obtain, then a correction factor must be applied
In the foregoing equations, p is pressure, p i s to the results. Modifying results to account for
fluid depsity, Z is the vertical coordinate positive the increase in resistance due to perforations i s
downward, k is formation permeability to the fluid, discussed under "Perforated Wells".
p is fluid viscosity, r is radius from the wellbore
and g is the gravitational constant. NUMERICAL COMPUTATIONS
Applying the finite cosine transform to Eqs.
1 and 2, solving the resulting differential equation Eq. 3 gives the potential drop A@ for a constant
and inverting ( s e e Appendix), the following rate of production q. Superposition must be used
solution is obtained. to obtain an exact q for a constant A@ using Eq.
3.
Muskat6 solved the problem of a partially
penetrating well under steady - s t a t e and in-
compressible flow. His solution was developed
q t i s recognized that the exact boundary condition should
for a constant potential drop. He pointed out that
to calculate the average production rate per unit
= q. However, Muskat6 showed that the ermr introduced in assuming the simpler
boundary condition i s negligible. of time using the constant potential drop c a s e

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL


TABLE 1 - BUILDUP DATA FROM STEADY-STATE FLOW TABLE 2 - VARIATION OF q/qr WITH ZD

Shut-in Time Pressure Shut-in Time Pressure


(hours) (psi) (hours) (psi)
0 1,190 4 1,970
1 1,938 5 1,973
1 1/3 1,947 6 1,978
2 1,957 7 1,980
3 1,965 8 1,980
9 1,980

solution, strictly speaking, one must superpose


variable increments of fluxes. This was done for
one c a s e and compared with a c a s e where an
average A@ was used, and the fluxes were taken Integrated average ,3786 Integrated average ,5749
to be uniform along the interval. The difference
between h e exact and the approximate solution
Eq. 3b was programmed for the CDC 1604
was negligible. Thus, Muskat showed that h i s
computer to obtain numerical answers. For each
solution, which was developed for a constant A@,
open interval h D q / q , was calculated a t nine
can be used with good approximation for a constant
points equally spaced. The nine q / q , values were
q case.
integrated numerically using the trapezoidal rule
Nisles investigated variation in pressure a t
to obtain the average value reported in this paper.
different levels below the formation top for a c a s e An example of q / q , a s a function of ZD is given
of partially penetrating well and a constant q.
in Table 2. In arriving at the answers, the summa-
Results showed that the variation was small.
tion of Eq. 3b was accepted when
Preliminary investigation by the author verified
Nisle's results. This was accomplished by solving
Eq. 3 for A@ a s a function of ZD.
Based on the above, i t was decided that solution
Eq. 3 can be used interchangeably, realizing that Numerical results for several values of rd and
small variations in A@ and q a s a function of r,, a range of ht = (20 to 200) ft and for various
ZD exist when the solution is used a s a constant values of h D and Z D 1were obtained. The ratios
rate c a s e and a s a constant A@ case, respectively. of q / q , for rd = 660 ft, r , = W ft, a range of hi
For a constant A@ case, solution Eq. 3 can be = (20 to 200) ft and for various values of hD and
rearranged to read Z D 1 are presented in graphical form in Figs. 1
through 8. Also, a comparison between a few results
for values of rd and r , different from the above
is given in Table 3.
I

where indicates the summation term in solution APPLICATIONS


Eq. 3. The interest was to determine the average
q / q , a s a function of the open .interval and thick- I t was stated that Figs. 1 through 8, strictly
ness. For a chosen A@, q, is given by Eq. 4. speaking, apply for a value of rd and r , equal to
Thus, for the same A@, and using Eqs. 4 and 3a, 660 and % ft, respectively. From Table 3 it may
be seen that Figs. 1 through 8 may be used for a
range of rd/rW of 1,320 to 5,280 ft, with a maximum
error of about 20 percent. This maximum error
occurs for an open interval of 10 percent or l e s s
in a formation of 20 ft or l e s s thickness. The

TABLE 3 - E F F E C T OF rd AND rw ON RESULTS


ZD 1 q/qr 4 %
Start of Top of ht = 20 ft, Open Interval = 2 ft ht = 40 ft, Open Interval = 4 ft
Open Interval, rd= 1,320 ft rd= 660 ft rd=660 ft rd=1,320ft rd=660ft rd=660ft
in Fraction
of Thickness rw: a ft
.278
rw= ft
-
.254
rw= $ ft
-
.299
rw=aft

.232
--
rw=aft

,212
rw=fft

.242
,320 .301 .352 .263 .246 .280
,325 ,309 ,364 ,269 ,252 .288
.332 ,312 .368 .271 .254 ,292
.333 .313 .370 .272 ,255 .293
.332 ,312 .368 .271 .254 .292

M A R C H , 1968
error d e c r e a s e s rapidly a s the open interval open interval and for various sand thicknesses.
i n c r e a s e s and a s the total formation thickness The ratio q/q, i s the ratio of the rate of flow
increases. T h u s , from a practical viewpoint, the obtained with the specific open interval to the
figures could be u s e d for the majority of rd/rw rate of flow when the total productive interval i s
values encountered in field operations. open to flow; Z p l i s the fraction of the formation
above the open mterval.
EXPLANATION O F
FIGS. 1 THROUGH 8 The following example illustrates the u s e of the
figures. A well h a s 12 ft out of 40 ft open to flow.
Each figure g i v e s q/q, v s Z D 1 for a specific The interval s t a r t s 4 ft from the top, rd/rw = 2,640
ft and r , = ft. Determine the fractional l o s s in
productivity caused by the restricted entry to flow.
The fractional l o s s in productivity f i s defined
a s the l o s s in productivity divided by the unimpaired
productivity. Thus, f = ( q , - q)/(q,) = 1 - (q/q,).
The open interval expressed in fraction i s 12/40
= 0.3; ZD1 = 4/40 = 0.1. From Fig. 3, q / q , for a
sand thickness of 40 ft and ZD1 = 0.1 i s 0.49.
Therefore, f = 1 - 0.49 = 0.51.
E F F E C T O F ANISOTROPY

Eq. 3 and Figs. 1 through 8 a r e for an isotropic


porous medium. Decrease in vertical permeability
1;wers q/q, and i n c r e a s e s f . As a limit when the
vertical permeability i s zero, q / q , = h D or f =
1 - h D , where hD i s the fraction of the thickness
open to flow. Since some degree of anisotropy i s
the usual condition, productivities calculated on
the b a s i s of complete isotropy usually will b e
higher than actual productivities. T h i s i s true
since vertical permeability generally i s l e s s than
horizontal permeability. The calculated v a l u e s

FIG. 1 - P E R F O R A T E D I N T E R V A L 0.1 O F THICK-


NESS.

'DI

FIG. 2 - PERFORATED INTERVAL 0.2 OF FIG. 3 - PERFORATED INTERVAL 0,3 OF


THICKNESS. THICKNESS.

SOCIETY O F PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL


a r e u s e f u l s i n c e in m o s t c a s e s they represent CALCULATION O F A P P A R E N T
maxima t h a t c a n b e expected from restricted A N D T R U E SKIN
completions.
Impairment of productivity c a u s e d by r e s t r i c t e d
entry c a n b e e x p r e s s e d a s a n apparent s k i n s,.
For a well producing under s t e a d y - s t a t e
depletion-type mechanism, 4

from which

FIG. 6 - PERFORATED INTERVAL 0.6 OF


THICKNESS.

ZDI
FIG. 4 - PERFORATED INTERVAL 0.4 OF
THICKNESS.

ZDI ZDI

FIG. 5 - PERFORATED INTERVAL 0.5 OF FIG. 7 - PERFORATED INTERVAL 0.7 OF


THICKNESS. THICKNESS.

MARCH, 1968 47
EXAMPLE

Data
A production t e s t w a s N n on a n oil well. T h e
r a t e of flow w a s 103 reservoir B/D. T h e w e l l w a s
c l o s e d after s t e a d y - s t a t e flow obtained, a n d
buildup d a t a shown in T a b l e 1 were collected.
T h e w e l l is perforated 1 0 ft out of a total of
50 ft a n d the perforations s t a r t 20 ft from t h e
top. Determine t h e true skin of the formation,
assuming t h e r e s i s t a n c e to flow c a u s e d by t h e
perforations to b e negligible; q5 = 0.20, c (fluid
compressibility) = 1 5 x vol/vol/psi, p = 0.5
cp, r w = 1/4 ft and rd = 6 6 0 ft.

Solution
Fig. 9 g i v e s t h e normal pressure buildup plot.
Slope m is (-50) psi/cycle. Therefore,
DI
FIG. 8 - PERFORATED INTERVAL 0.8 OF
THICKNESS.

167
k = 7= 3.34 md.
From pressure buildup, one c a l c u l a t e s the s k i n
by
Eq. 6 a l l o w s calculation of apparent s k i n due to
r e s t r i c t e d entry. Therefore, for any s k i n c a l c u l a t i o n s [pwsl - Pwf
s = 1.151
in w e l l s with r e s t r i c t e d entry, s, must b e c a l c u l a t e d
in addition t o obtaining s from flow t e s t data.
T h e true condition of t h e formation will b e described
by st = s - s,, where st is t h e true s k i n of the
formation around the open wellbore, and s i s t h e
s k i n a s c a l c u l a t e d from flow t e s t a n a l y s i s . T h e where pwsl a n d p w j a r e , respectively, the p r e s s u r e s
following example i l l u s t r a t e s t h e point. after 1 hour of s h u t in and t h e flowing bottom-hole
p r e s s u r e prior to s h u t in.

SHUT-IN TIME IN HOURS

FIG. 9 - P R E S S U R E BUILDUP.
SOCIETY O F PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
Thus, where 3R is t h e average s t a t i c pressure of t h e
reservoir, a n d t h e other symbols a r e in md-ft, p s i ,
and cp. T h e a c t u a l flow rate, q, is i n reservoir
barrels per day.
T h e v a l u e of D, may b e l e s s , e q u a l to o r g r e a t e r
than one. T h i s means the flow c a p a c i t y of t h e
formation around t h e wellbore could h a v e been
improved, unchanged or reduced. T h i s is a common
By u s i n g Eq. 6 and Fig. 2, o n e c a l c u l a t e s s, a s procedure u s e d t o e v a l u a t e t h e formation condition
and t h e n e c e s s i t y for remedial work.
Eq. 7 a s s u m e s complete radial symmetry which
m e a n s t h a t t h e whole productive interval a t t h e
wellbore i s open to flow. However, in w e l l s
with limited entry, q, i s obtained through only a
T h u s , st = 10.7 - 11.7 = - 1. fraction of t h e productive interval. Therefore, to
T h i s example i n d i c a t e s clearly t h e importance arrive a t a true value of D,, one m u s t correct for
of correcting for t h e e f f e c t of r e s t r i c t e d entry t o the effect of restricted entry. T h i s is done by
flow. If t h e a n a l y s t d o e s n o t correct for t h e effect multiplying q, of Eq. 7 by the appropriate ratio of
i n t h i s example, h e will c a l c u l a t e a skin factor of (919',) obtained from F i g s . 1 through 8 prior to
10.7, indicating a badly damaged formation calculating Dr. Thus, the correct D, is given by
around t h e wellbore. However, a f t e r correcting
for t h e effect, t h e s k i n factor of t h e formation
becomes (-1). T h i s i n d i c a t e s that the open interval
a c t u a l l y is slightly improved.
Eq. 6 is presented graphically in Fig. 1 0 to
h e l p the a n a l y s t in h i s work. T h i s a n a l y s i s i s
b a s e d on a v a l u e of 2,640 ft for 9 / r w and 1/4 f t
for r,. It i s l e f t to t h e a n a l y s t to d e c i d e whether T h e previous example is u s e d to i l l u s t r a t e
t h e s e d a t a will b e satisfactory if the v a l u e of the importance of correcting q, of Eq. 7 for t h e
rd/rw of i n t e r e s t is different from 2,640. e f f e c t of limited entry. In t h e example, k h = 167
md-ft, rd/rw = 2,640, ,u = 0.5, q, = 1 0 3 reservoir
CALCULATING DAMAGE R A T I O B/D, p, i s 1,190 and F R i s 1,980. T h u s ,
O F T H E FORMATION

T h e damage ratio D, i s defined a s t h e ratio of 7.08 x x 167 (1,980 - 1,190)


4, = 0.5 (In 2,640 - 0.75)
t h e i d e a l productivity to t h e measured productivity
under s t e a d y - s t a t e conditions. Ideal productivity
m e a n s t h e productivity t h a t would b e obtained if = 262 reservoir B/D.
t h e e n t i r e reservoir were of the same flow c a p a c i t y
kh.
Therefore, if one d o e s not correct for t h e effect
Mathematically, D, is e q u a l t o q,/q,, where q,
of restricted entry, Dl will b e 262/103 = 2.54,
is the i d e a l flow r a t e a n d i s given by
indicating a damaged formation. However, b e c a u s e
of the restricted entry, t h e correct D, i s given by
7.08 x k h (?R - p,) 0, = (262/103) (q/q,) = (262/103) 0.379 = 0.96.
9, = , . . . - . (7)
,u (In rd/r,,, - 0.75) A D, of 0.96 i n d i c a t e s a slightly improved permea-
bility in t h e vicinity of t h e perforated interval.
T h i s a g r e e s with the s k i n effect calculations.
P E R F O R A T E D WELLS
Eq. 3 a s s u m e s that there i s no a p p r e c i a b l e
impediment to flow due to perforations in t h e
completed interval. McDowell and ~ u s k a ta n~ d
Harris8 studied the e f f e c t of various t y p e s of
perforations on the s t e a d y - s t a t e productive c a p a c i t y
of the wells. Their r e s u l t s can b e u s e d to deter-
mine the magnitude of t h e r e s i s t a n c e to flow d u e
to perforations. If i t is concluded t h a t t h e
perforations offer appreciable r e s i s t a n c e to flow,
then one must correct the r e s u l t s of t h i s paper
for such effects.
Eq. 3 i n d i c a t e s that the restricted entry to flow
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 i s manifested by a potential drop given by q/(2nht)
FIG. 10 - 4'14';VS S' . [In rd/rw - 1/2 + C1], where C1 i s t h e summation

M A R C H , 1968
term of Eq. 3. Refs. 3, 5 and 8 a l s o show that the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
perforations cause an additional potential drop,
which could be written a s qC2/2nht. If both effects The author wishes to thank Tom Nash for
programming the calculations, and the management
are present, and since the partial differential
of Mobil Research & Development Corp. for
equation that describes the flow is linear, one may
permission to publish this paper.
write that the total potential drop when the rate of
flow is q is
REFERENCES
1. van Everdingen. A. F.: "The Skin Effect and I t s
Influence on tire P r d u c t i v e Capac'ity of a Well",
Trans.. AIME (1953) Vol. 198, 171-176.
2. Hwst, W.: "Establishment of the Skin Effect and
I t s Impediment t o Fluid Flow into a Well Bore",
Pet. Eng. (1953) Vol. 25, No. 11. B6-B16.
3. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles o f Oil Production.
McGtaw-Hill Book Co., New York (1949).
If the well is completed open hole, then 4. Brons, F. and Marting, V. E.: "The Effect of
Restricted Fluid Entry on Well Productivity",
J. Pet. Tech. (Feb., 1961) 172-174.
5. Nisle, R. G.: "The Effect of Partial Penetration on
Pressure Build-Up in Oil Wells", Trans.. AIME
(1958) Vol. 213, 85-90.
6. Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids
Thus through Porous Media, J . W. Edwards, Inc.,
Ann Arbor. Mich. (1946) 273.
7. McDowell. J. M. and Muskat, M.: LLTheEffect on
Well Productivity of Formation Penetration Beyond
Perforated Casing". Trans., AIME (1950) Vol. 189,
309-312.
From Refs. 7 and 8 and Eq. 3, or Figs. 1 through 8. Harris, M. H.: "The Effect of Perforating on Well
8 for rd/rW = 2,640, one can estimate h e magnitude Productivity ", J. Pet. Tech. (April, 1966) 518-528.
of C1 and C2, respectively, relative to the
magnitude of (In rd/rw - 1/2). From these, a
corrected ( q / q r ) can be calculated that accounts
for the effects of restricted entry to flow and for DERIVATION O F EQ. 3
perforations. Thus, if q / q r read from Figs. 1 The equation that describes the semisteady-
through 8 is X1 and the q/q,read from Ref. 7 or 8 state flow of slightly compressible fluid in an
is x2, then q/qr that accounts for both effects is isotropic medium into a well in which part of
given by the productive interval is blocked off is

where D = - q / ( m d 2 h t ) , q is rate of flow, rd is


If X2 = 1, then = X 1 = q/qr read from external radius, ht is total thickness of the sand

Figs. 1 through 8. This (c)corr is the one to be


used in Eq. 6 and Fig. 10 to estimate the apparent
and @ is the velocity potential given by @ =
(P -LpgZ).
~/C
Eq. A-1 is to be solved for the following
boundary conditions.
skin s a , and in Eq. 8 to calculate the correct D,.
To illustrate the u s e of Eq. 12, assume that q / q r
read from Figs. 1 through 8 is 0.4, and q / q r
read from Ref. 5 is 0.8. Thus,

0.4 = q = constant
= 0.36. W

corr 1 + 0.4
(l
From Fig. 10, sa = 12.5, a s compared to s, of
10.05 if one does not correct for the effect of
perforations . where h is the interval open to flow at the wellbore.

*See footnote on P a g e 44.

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL


Let
- ht
@ = J @ cos a Z dZ, . . . . . . . . . (A-3)

where 5 is the finite cosine transform of @, a


= (n n)/ht and n = 0, 1, 2, ..
.Applying the above
transformation to Eqs. A-1 and A-2 and utilizing
the appropriate boundary conditions, Eq. A-1
--aD2 sin ( a ht), . . . . . .(A-10)
becomes

d25
- -
a2 @ =
1 dzJ D
- sin ( a ht) . (A-4)
z=+rdT a

The solution of Eq. A-4 is

where lo and KO are modified Bessel functions of


the first and second kind of zero order, respec-
tively.. A and B are constants to be evaluated.
The boundary condition The inversion of the finite cosine transform is
given by

$1. = .
d = 0, gives
- m

-
~'Jn=o 2
A@ = 0,-Ow=-
ht
+-
ht ,=I
I:~5c o s (a z).

The boundary condition - =Q.


when transformed and applied t o Eq. A-5 gives

A ll ( a r,) - B Kl(a rJ =
Q [sin ( a Z2)

- sin ( a zl)] (A-7)

From Eqs. A-6 and A-7, one solves for A and B.


Thus,

Q/a 2[sin ( a Z2) - sin ( a Zl)] Kl(a rd) - sin(nnZD1)1 c o s (nnZD ) I


A
- I1 (ard) Kl(arw) '
=
l l ( a 1,) Kl(ard)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-8)
and
where A@I n=O
was evaluated using L2Hospital's
~ l e 1, ? (T,/Q)~ = 1, = 9 /ht, 1 , ~ = 1
, /hi,

ZD = Z/ht and hD = h/ht.


Eq. A-11 is solution Eq. 3 in the text.
***

M A R C H , 1968

You might also like