Equivalent Wellblock Radius for Partially
Perforated Vertical Wells—Part I:
Anisotropic Reservoirs With Uniform Grids
Ali H. Dogru, Saudi Arabian Oil Company
Summary
The well index in a numerical reservoir simulator relates the flow
rate to the difference between well flowing pressure and simulator
gridblock pressure. The standard method for computing well index,
Peaceman’s formula (Peaceman 1978), requires an equivalent
wellblock radius at which the gridblock pressure is equal to the
pressure from an analytical solution for steady-state single-phase
flow. Although Peaceman’s formula is accurate for fully penetrat-
ing vertical wells, it fails to account for the effect of vertical flow
in partially penetrating wells.
In this paper, we present a new analytical expression for the
equivalent wellblock radius in a homogeneous, anisotropic reser-
voir with a uniform square grid around the well path. The new
equation has the same structure as Peaceman’s equation but adds
one new parameter to account for partial penetration and for verti-
cal flow. The new formula reduces to Peaceman’s formula when
the well is fully penetrating. Model simulation study showed that
the new method reduced the error in the calculated flow rates from
30% to less than 1% at minimal cost.
Introduction
In numerical reservoir simulators, the flow rate for a perforated grid-
block for a uniform grid is calculated from the product of a well
index, and a pressure difference between well pressure and well-
block pressure for the constant unit fluid viscosity is given by
( )
qk = WI k Pk − Pwf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
In Eq. 1, WIk is the well or perforation index for the gridblock k
and is defined by
2 K z
WI k = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
⎛r ⎞
ln ⎜ o ⎟
⎝ rw ⎠
In Eq. 2, ro is called the equivalent wellblock radius (shown in Fig. 1)
and is calculated using Peaceman’s formula (Peaceman 1978) for
a square uniform grid:
 yield results closer to that of a fine-grid model in rate and pres-
−
ro = xe
2
≈ 0.2x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
In Eqs. 1 and 2, Pk is the pressure for the gridblock k, Pwf represents
specified flowing bottomhole pressure, and z is the thickness of
the gridblock. The other variables are defined in the nomenclature.
We need to note that Eq. 3 was developed for a homogeneous,
isotropic reservoir for a single well producing at the center of the
gridblock. It is also assumed that there are no neighboring wells
and that the well is located away from the boundaries.
Eq. 1 is derived for radial flow with no vertical-flow effects.
Therefore, using ro defined by Eq. 3 in Eq. 2 for the rate calculations
Copyright © 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 137051) was revised for publication from paper SPE 118845, first
presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, USA,
2–4 February 2009. Original manuscript received for review 14 August 2009. Revised
manuscript received for review 13 January 2010. Paper peer approved 28 January 2010.
1034
is expected to yield erroneous rates where vertical flow is impor-
tant. The magnitude of the errors depends on the magnitude of the
vertical flow based on the vertical permeability and location of
the perforation. For high-permeability, thick reservoirs with only
partial perforation of the formation, such as those in the Middle
East, the effect of vertical flow on the perforation indices will be
pronounced.
Peaceman (1978) introduced the concept of equivalent wellblock
radius as the radius at which the computed steady-state flowing pres-
sure from a continuum model is equal to the calculated pressure for
the wellblock. Peaceman’s derivation is based on the assumption of
radial single-phase flow to a vertical well. The original formula was
later extended to account for nonsquare (but uniform) gridblocks and
anisotropic permeability (Peaceman 1983).
Lin (1995) introduced a new method to calculate equivalent well
radius for the partially penetrating wells that are heterogeneous res-
ervoirs for isotropic, anisotropic, or 3D. His method agrees with
the fine-grid results within 1% error. However, his method requires
a fine-grid simulation run to generate the parameters used in the
calculations. Ding (1995) and Muggeridge et al. (2002) addressed
the problem of scaleup procedure in the vicinity of the wellbore,
which would yield better values for the productivity indices. Ding
(1995) implemented his technique for 2D, 3D, horizontal, and
deviated wells. Wolfsteiner et al. (2000) developed a semianalyti-
cal method in which Green’s functions are used to solve single-
phase-flow equations along the well for a homogeneous reservoir.
Reference well rates are determined for each block, after which
block pressures are computed using a single-phase reservoir flow
simulator. The well index is then computed from the relationship
between flow rate and block pressure. Aavatsmark and Klausen
(2003) developed a technique for the calculation of well index for
slanted and slightly deviated wells for 3D grids.
In this paper, our objective is to obtain an approximate but
simple formula and procedure similar to Eq. 3 for the effective
wellblock radius and perforation index for vertical wells that are
partially perforated. We aim to show that the new method is easy
to implement in a reservoir simulator and is cost effective. Specifi-
cally, we target full-field simulation models using large gridblocks.
It is expected that the new method of using large gridblocks would
sure prediction around the wells. The new method is not exact, yet
offers accuracy improvement at minimal cost.
First, we will present a formula similar to Peaceman’s (Peaceman
1978, 1983) but with one additional parameter to be computed for
the equivalent wellblock radius. Initially, we will present the formula
for a single perforation and later for multiple perforations. Deriva-
tions will be made for the homogeneous, anisotropic formation with
square uniform grids. Nonsquare grids will follow. Then, we will
develop a simple numerical method for calculating the equivalent
well radius and the well index for a heterogeneous and anisotropic
reservoir with square and nonsquare blocks. A sector from a full filed
simulation model will be used to demonstrate the new method. All
the derivations are placed in Appendix A for convenience.
Rate Equation for a Partially Penetrating
Vertical Well
We begin by deriving a simple formula for the well index that is
suitable for partially perforated vertical wells, as shown in Fig 2.
December 2010 SPE Journal
 y

q
Pk ro
Δy kz
x
hp
kr

H
∆x

Δx

Fig. 1—Definition of wellblock radius for horizontal flow (Peace-

man 1978).
rw re

The derivation is similar to Peaceman’s (Peaceman 1978) but

requires a new steady-state flow-rate equation that accounts for the z
effects of flow restriction around the wellbore and vertical-flow effects
instead of the radial flow (Eq. 1) used by Peaceman (1978). Two basic Fig. 2—Partially-penetrating-well model.
forms of the rate equation can be used for partially penetrating wells.
We will start with a steady-state-flow formula suggested by
Kozeny (1953) and Craft and Hawkins (1959):
The term hp fp in Eq. 7 represents the effective formation thick-
⎡ r ⎛  h p ⎞ ⎤  e −  wf
q = 2 Kh p ⎢1 + 7 w cos ⎜ ⎥
(
. . . . . . . . . . (4)
) ness, the portion of the total formation thickness H that contributes
to flow. Using the Kozeny/Craft-Hawkins (Kozeny 1953; Craft and
⎢⎣ 2h p ⎝ 2 H ⎟⎠ ⎦⎥ ⎛ re ⎞ Hawkins 1959) model, the partial-penetration factor fp becomes
ln ⎜ ⎟
⎝ rw ⎠
rw ⎛  hp ⎞
In this expression, q is the flow rate, the potential (datum corrected) fP = 1 + 7 cos ⎜ ⎟ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
at re is e, the potential at the wellbore is wf , hp is the length of
2h p ⎝ 2 H⎠
open perforated interval, and H is the total formation thickness.
The fluid potential  is defined by Because the skin factor Sc can be obtained from a well test or
can be estimated by formulas (Odeh 1980; Brons and Marting
 = p −  gz , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) 1961), Eq. 6 can also be written in the form of Eq. 7 by simply
equating Eq. 6 to Eq. 7 and solving for fp:
where  represents the average fluid density, g is the gravitational
constant, and z is the vertical distance from a reference depth, which H ln ( re / rw )
fp = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
is usually the top of the formation. Muskat (1937, 1949) also studied h p ln ( re / rw ) + Sc
the steady-state flow-rate model for partially penetrating wells.
In this paper, we will use a more general equation for a steady- In Eqs. 8 and 9, it is seen that, for a fully penetrating well, hp = H,
state-flow model that includes skin factor: Sc = 0, and, thus, fp = 1. Therefore, fp varies between 1 and a larger
positive number b, 1 ≤ fp ≤ b, where b assumes values based on

q = 2 KH
( e −  wf ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
⎛r ⎞
ln ⎜ e ⎟ + Sc
⎝ rw ⎠
In Eq. 6, Sc is called completion (perforation) skin factor. Comple-
tion skin factor can be calculated from well tests or formulas. Sev-
eral authors have suggested different formulas for the completion
skin. We will use skin factors suggested by Odeh (1980) and Brons
and Marting (1961). The expression for flow from restriction can
have a more complicated form than Eqs. 4 and 6; however, our
objective is to provide a reasonable approximation that can correct
the radial-flow model presented by Peaceman (Eq. 1).
Comparing the flow-rate equation proposed by Kozeny (1953)
and Craft and Hawkins (1959) (Eq. 4) with Eq. 6, we see that Eq. 6
includes the effect of vertical permeability Kz through the skin fac-
tor expressed by Odeh (1980) and Brons and Marting (1961) .
In this paper, for convenience, we will use the form suggested
by Eq. 4 by introducing a new parameter called fp, the partial-
penetration factor. With the new parameter, Eq. 4 becomes
parameters in Eq. 8 and the value of skin factor obtained from the
well test or by formulas (Odeh 1980; Brons and Marting 1961).
Implementation in a Reservoir Simulator. For a gridblock k,
which contains a perforation of a partially penetrating vertical
well, we can write the rate equation using the form suggested in
Eq. 7 rather than Eq. 1:
qk = 2 K z k f
( k −  wf ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
pk ⎛r ⎞
ln ⎜ o ,3 D ,k ⎟
⎝ rw ⎠
In Eq. 10, zk is the thickness of the gridblock containing the
open perforation and fpk is the partial-penetration factor for the same
gridblock, which can be calculated by Eq. 8 or Eq. 9. The term k in
Eq. 10, fluid potential for gridblock k, is calculated by the simulator,
and ro, 3D, k is the unknown equivalent wellblock radius on which k
resides. The flow rate qk, calculated by Eq. 10, assumes that comple-
tion k, in addition to horizontal flow, receives vertical flow from
above and below. Therefore, the term zk fpk is the effective gridblock

q = 2 Kh p f p
( e −  wf ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
thickness that accounts for both horizontal and vertical flow; hence,
zk fpk > zk for partially penetrating well with fpk > 1.
⎛r ⎞ Rearranging Eq. 10, the new well index or perforation index
ln ⎜ e ⎟
⎝ rw ⎠ for a vertical well becomes

December 2010 SPE Journal 1035

 Z=0 x
y
k=1
ΦB
k=2
ΦB ΦB

x k-1
Δy Φk
k qk
Δx
Δz
k+1
Kz
ΦB ΦB
KX
Δx
k=N-1
Fig. 3—Constant potential boundary conditions in areal direction.
k=N

Δx z

2 K z k Fig. 4—Constant potential boundary, vertical planes.

WI = f pk , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
⎛ ro ,3 D ,k ⎞
ln ⎜
⎝ rw ⎟⎠
where
where ro,3D,k is still unknown and will be developed in the follow-
ing subsection. qh ,k = 4Tx (  B −  k )

Calculation of Equivalent Wellblock Radius. In this subsection, and

we will define the equivalent wellblock radius using a square
uniform gridblock in the areal directions and uniform grid in the qv ,k = Tz (  k −1 −  k ) + Tz (  k +1 −  k ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13b)
vertical direction for an anisotropic reservoir.
Consider a portion of a reservoir where a well is located at the To determine the equivalent wellblock radius ro,3D,k for the
center of the 3D box, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Let this portion gridblock k (Fig. 5), using the flow-rate definition suggested by
of the reservoir be divided into a finite difference grid with x = Eq. 7, we can write the total flow rate into the gridblock k in the
y in the areal directions. The reservoir thickness H can be divided following form:
into Nz vertical layers with constant thickness z. We assume, also,
that Kx and Ky are constants and are equal and that Kz is constant qk = 2 K z f p ,k
( B −  k ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
but may not be equal to Kx (so Kx = Ky ≠ Kz). Porosity is assumed x
ln
to be constant. ro ,3 D ,k
Because horizontal grid scales in reservoir models are typi-
cally much larger than vertical scales, it is common for flow to Next, we solve for (  B −  k ) from Eq. 14 and substitute into
be primarily 2D, even at the column of gridblocks neighboring Eq. 12. The following equation is obtained:
the wellblocks. When this is the case, it is reasonable to assume
that the reservoir potential is uniform in the vertical direction at ⎛ x ⎞  ⎛ qv , k ⎞
ln ⎜ ⎟ = f p ,k ⎜ 1 − q ⎟ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
neighboring gridblocks while still allowing for vertical flow in ⎝ ro ,3 D ,k ⎠ 2 ⎝ k ⎠
the column of wellblocks. In addition, we assume that the time
dependence of potential can be neglected. This assumption is The equivalent wellblock radius for the partially penetrating wells
generally realistic for field-scale simulation models because the can be solved from Eq. 15:
potentials in the neighboring cells do not vary significantly over
the timestep, which is usually a couple of weeks to a month. Also, ⎡  f ⎛ q ⎞⎤
ro ,3 D ,k = x exp ⎢ − p ,k ⎜ 1 − v ,k ⎟ ⎥. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16a)
generally, wells reach pseudosteady state after the initial transient ⎣ 2 ⎝ qk ⎠ ⎦
portion (fluid expansion) of the production. The transient portion
is usually very short compared with the long production lives of
the reservoirs. This assumption is easily realized for high-perme- y
ability, thick, and large oil reservoirs.
We assume then, that the cells neighboring the well cells have
ΦB
constant potential B. The equivalent wellblock radius (Fig. 5) for
2D (horizontal and vertical) flow for the cell k is derived by writing
a steady-state volume-balance equation for the cell k. Assuming
constant fluid viscosity with unit value (1 cp), volume balance for Δy ΦK r o,3D
the cell k becomes x

4Tx (  B −  k ) + Tz (  k −1 −  k ) + Tz (  k +1 −  k ) = qk. . . . . . (12)

The first term in Eq. 12 represents the total horizontal flow rate
∆x
qh,k. The remaining terms in Eq. 12 describe the total vertical-flow
rate qv,k into the gridblock, and qk is the total withdrawal rate form
the perforation.
Transmissibilities Tx and Tz are defined in the Nomenclature. Δx
Eq. 12 can be abbreviated as
Fig. 5—Definition of wellblock radius for the vertical-flow
qh ,k + qv ,k = qk, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13a) effects, areal view.

1036 December 2010 SPE Journal

 The vertical-flow rate qv,k, defined by Eq. 13b, is obtained by
solving a vertical 1D potential equation analytically for (zk). This
derivation is placed in Appendix A.
Eq. 16 with Eq. 11 completely defines the new perforation
(well) index for any perforation for a partially penetrating verti-
cal well.
It is important to note that the new equivalent wellblock radius
described in Eq. 16a reduces to Peaceman’s formula (Peaceman
1978) (Eq. 3) if the vertical-flow rate is zero (qv = 0). For this case,
the partial-penetration factor fp,k = 1, and, hence, Eq. 16 becomes
⎛ ⎞
ro ,3 D ,k = x exp ⎜ − ⎟ ≈ 0.2x . Further examination of Eq. 16 sug-
⎝ 2⎠
⎛ q ⎞
gests that the term ⎜ 1− v ,k ⎟ is a correction to fp,k; hence, we can
introduce ⎝ qk ⎠
⎛ q ⎞
f p ,k = f p ,k ⎜ 1 − v ,k ⎟ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16b)
⎝ qk ⎠
and
⎛ f ⎞
ro ,3 D ,k = x exp ⎜ − p ,k ⎟ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16c).
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ q ⎞
The correction term ⎜ 1− v ,k ⎟ in Eq. 16b varies between unity (no
⎝ qk ⎠
⎛ q ⎞
vertical flow) and zero (purely vertical flow) [i.e., 0 ≤ ⎜ 1 − v ,k ⎟ ≤ 1].
⎝ qk ⎠
Similarly, the new modified partial penetration factor f p ,k varies
between zero and unity (i.e., 0 ≤ f p ,k ≤ 1 with 1 ≤ f p ,k ≤ b, where b
is a real constant).
Effect of Partial Penetration on the Equivalent Well Radius.
As discussed earlier, the equivalent wellblock radius for horizon-
tal flow with square grids is approximately equal to 0.2x. For
partially penetrating wells, this is no longer true. Fig. 6 shows a
numerical experiment carried out using a square grid. The model
was assumed to have three equal-sized grids in the x direction and
three equal-size grids in the y direction, with x = y = 820 ft. In
the vertical direction, the reservoir is 100 ft thick (H = 100 ft) and
is divided into five equal-thickness layers (z = 20 ft). Reservoir
permeability was set to 100 md in all directions. A vertical well
was placed in the center of the central gridblock. Reservoir grid-
blocks surrounding the central cell were assumed to have constant
potential b = 3,000 psi and constant flowing well potential wf =
1,000 psi.
Two cases were considered—a fully penetrating well (1) with
all five layers open to flow and (2) with only the top layer open
to flow.
For both cases, dimensionless potential drop D =
(
2 K z f p ,k  k −  wf )
was plotted against
r
where r ∈( rw ,x )
q x
with at r = x and at r = rw. Here, k is the potential at the top
layer of the central cell. The values of k for all the gridblocks
were obtained from a numerical solution of a 1D potential equa-
tion (see Appendix A).
Results of the numerical experimentation are shown in Fig. 6.
As seen, for a fully penetrating well (blue line), the dimension-
less-pressure-drop line intersects the zero line (D = 0) at r/x =
0.2, indicating that flow is parallel and radial (ro = 0.2x, ro = 164
ft). On the other hand, the partial-penetration case (red) shows that
the pressure-drop line intersects the horizontal line where D =
0 at r/x = 0.6, ro = 504 ft. Similarly, variation of the corrected
partial-penetration factor f p ,k is shown to change from 1.0 for a
fully penetrating well to 0.3 for a partially penetrating vertical well
with hp/H = 0.2. For this case, perforation (well) index calculated
by the new method was 1.5 times the Peaceman well (perfora-
tion) index.
Vertical Profile for Equivalent Wellblock Radius. Equivalent
wellblock radius for a partially penetrating well can show varia-
tion in the vertical direction, depending on the formation proper-
ties and discretization. For good vertical permeability and typical
vertical gridblock sizes, this may be insignificant. Fig. 7 shows the
variation of equivalent wellblock radius with vertical distance and
comparison to Peaceman’s 2D equivalent well radius.
In Fig. 7, the same reservoir model used in the previous
example was used. This time, the reservoir was divided into 11

200
H=100 ft , kx =kz =100 md
Dx=820 ft, Dz=20 ft, b=3,000 psi

Pwf =1,000 psi

100 Partial Penetration: Top Completion open

f p ,k= 1
2 π K Δz fp(Pk –Pw)/q

0
f p , k = 0.3
Fully Penetrating Well

-100
Partially Penetrating Well

-200

ro,2D ro,3D
-300
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0
rw /Δ x
r /Δ x re / Δx

Fig. 6—Effect of partial penetration on equivalent wellblock radius.

December 2010 SPE Journal 1037

equal-thickness layers (9.09 ft) and the well was assumed to be ⎡
2 K z r  z ⎞ ⎤
completed in Layers 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which were open to flow. WI k = ⎢1 + 7 w cos ⎛⎜ ⎥. . . . . . . . . . . (17b)
The flow-rate profile is also shown in the figure (edge perforations ⎛r ⎞ ⎢ 2z ⎝ 2 H ⎟⎠ ⎥
ln ⎜ o ,3 D ,k ⎟ ⎣ ⎦
get more flow than the middle ones). ⎝ w ⎠
r
As seen, the Peaceman well radius is approximately 0.2x,
whereas the new well radius averages approximately 0.40x, show- In Eq. 17a, z1 is depth of the perforation and z2 is the depth of
ing slight variation in the vertical direction (higher at the edges; the adjacent gridblock in the vertical direction.
this is exaggerated in the figure to display the concept). For this Kx
The parameter a for a square grid is defined as a = 2 .
case, the new method calculated the well index to be 1.15 times the K z x 2
Peaceman well index. For high vertical permeability and top completions, the parameter
fp,k is calculated from the skin factor obtained from a well test or by the
Analytical Expressions for the Equivalent Wellblock Radius. In formula of Kozeny/Craft-Hawkins (Kozeny 1953; Craft and Hawkins
the next two subsections, we will present analytical expressions for 1959). If the Brons and Marting method (Brons and Marting 1961) is
the equivalent wellblock radius for a single perforation located at the chosen for the calculation of the skin factor, a simple iteration may be
top of the formation or located at any point except the upper and needed because the formula contains weak dependency on the external
lower boundary for the uniform square grids. Analytical expression radius (in this case, the equivalent wellblock radius).
for a single perforation completed at the bottom of the formation For more-general cases, historical production rate of a well can
can be determined easily from the solution presented for the top be used to determine the type of the correlation suitable for the par-
of the formation. ticular well. In this case, the well rate calculated by the new method
Single Perforation Located at the Top of the Formation. Using can be compared against the measured rate by changing the correla-
the analytical solution for the fluid potentials (Appendix A), we tions. The correlation that yields the closest match is chosen.
⎛ q ⎞ Single Perforation Located at Any Point Inside the Formation,
can express the ⎜ 1− v ,k ⎟ term in simple analytical functions that 0 < zs < H. Using the analytical solution presented in Appendix A, we
⎝ q ⎠ k
obtain an expression for the equivalent wellblock radius, zk = zs:
are easy to compute. By substituting the analytical solution in Eq.
16, we obtain the formula for the equivalent wellblock radius for ⎡ ⎛ ⎧ cosh ⎡ a ( z k −1 ) ⎤ ⎫ ⎞ ⎤
perforation k = 1. ⎢ ⎜ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦⎪ ⎟⎥
⎢
⎢
⎜ ⎪
f − cosh az k
⎜ 1 − L ⎪⎨
( ) ⎪ ⎟⎥
⎪ ⎟⎥
⎬
⎡  f p ,k
⎢− 2
⎤
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎜
⎜
z ⎪ asinh az s ⎪ ⎟ ⎥ ( ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎟⎥
⎜ ⎟
⎢ ⎛ ⎧ cosh a ( ) ⎫⎞ ⎥
ro ,3 D ,k
f
= x exp ⎢⎢ − p ,k ⎜
⎪⎩ ⎪⎭ ⎥
⎟ ,
ro ,3 D ,1 = x exp ⎢ ⎜ ⎪ ⎪⎟ ⎥ . 2 ⎜ ⎧ cosh ⎡ a ( H − z k +1 ) ⎤ ⎫⎟ ⎥
⎢ ⎜ ⎪ a z ⎪⎟ ⎥ ⎢ ⎜ ⎣ ⎦ ⎪⎟ ⎥
⎢× ⎜ 1 − ⎨ ⎬⎟ ⎥ ⎪
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎜ ⎪ ( H − z 2 ) − cos h ⎡
⎣ a ( H − z ) ⎤
1 ⎦ ⎪⎟ ⎥ ⎢
⎜
⎜ − f R ⎪ − cosh ⎣ a ( H − z k ) ⎦ ⎪⎟ ⎥
⎪ ⎡ ⎤ ⎪⎟
⎢ ⎜ ⎪
⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎩ sinh aH( ) ⎪⎟ ⎥
⎭⎠ ⎥⎦
⎢
⎢
⎜ z ⎨ asinh ⎡ a ( H − z ) ⎤ ⎬⎟ ⎥
⎜ ⎪ ⎣ s ⎦⎪ ⎥
⎟
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17a) ⎢ ⎜ ⎪ ⎪⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭⎠ ⎥⎦
The perforation (well) index becomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18a)

ro/Δx

4 New Method
5
Peaceman's Method
6

10

11

Fig. 7—Vertical variation of equivalent well radius.

1038 December 2010 SPE Journal

 x Pressure
k=1 q1
4760 4770 4780 4790
k=2

q k-1
qk
Δz
z
q k+1

k=N-1 q Nc

k=N
Δx z

Fig. 8—Multiple well perforations.

where zs is the depth of the perforation. The parameters fL and fR

are defined by Fig. 9—Coarse-grid model with well located at the center.

fL =
sinh ( az ) cosh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z )⎤⎦ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18b)
s s

⎧sinh ( az ) cosh ⎡ a ( H − z ) ⎤ ⎫
⎪
⎨
s⎣ ⎦ ⎪
⎬
s Nc
 t ( z ) = ∑  z ≤ z j ( )⎧
q j sinh ( )
az j cosh ⎡⎣ a H − z j ( )⎤⎦
⎪⎩+ cosh ( az ) sinh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z ) ⎤⎦ ⎪⎭
s s j =1
⎪sinh ( ) (
az j cosh ⎡⎣ a H − z j ⎤⎦ ⎫
⎪ )
⎨ ⎬
and ⎪⎩+ cosh ( )
⎡ ⎤(
az j sinh ⎣ a H − z j ⎦ ⎪
⎭ )
cosh ( )
az s cosh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z s ) ⎤⎦ ×
( az )
cosh
fR = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18c) ⎡ aK x ysinh ( )
az j ⎤⎦
⎪ ( ⎣ )
⎧sinh az s cosh ⎡ a ( H − z s ) ⎤ ⎫
⎦ ⎪
⎣ z

⎨
( )
⎬
⎪⎩+ cosh az s sinh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z s ) ⎤⎦ ⎪⎭ + z > z j( )⎧
(
q j sinh ⎡⎣ a H − z j ⎤⎦ cosh az j) ( )
( ) ⎡
⎪ sinh az j cossh ⎣ a H − z j ⎦ ⎪ ( ⎤⎫ )
⎨ ⎬
Partial-penetration factor fp,k can be determined by the methods
described earlier in this paper. Our suggestion is to use Odeh’s ⎩⎪ ( )
+ cosh az j sinh ⎡⎣ a H − z j ⎤⎦ ⎪ ( ⎭ )
method (Odeh 1980) for perforations not located at the top or cosh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z ) ⎤⎦
bottom because it yields results closer to the fine-grid numerical ×
{ )}
.
solution. To use the Odeh (1980) or the Brons and Marting (1961) aK z x ysinh ⎡⎣ a H − z j ⎤⎦(
method, we set re = x in Eq. 9.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
⎛ x ⎞
ln ⎜ ⎟ The equivalent wellblock radius ro,3D,k is obtained from Eq. A-24
H ⎝ rw ⎠ q
fp = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19) by evaluating the term v ,k as defined by Eqs. A-27 and A-28 in
z ⎛ x ⎞ qk
ln ⎜ ⎟ + Sc
⎝ rw ⎠ Appendix A. The  in Eq. 21 is the Dirac delta function, which
assumes the value of unity if the argument is true, otherwise zero.
Sc in Eq. 19 is defined by formulas (Craft and Hawkins 1959;
Odeh 1980; Brons and Marting 1961). The perforation index WIk Numerical Experiments and Verification of the New Equivalent
is calculated by Eq. 11. Wellblock Radius. A 3×3×11 test model (Fig. 9) was used to test
For a general case, the measured rate (well test) can be used the new method and compare with Peaceman’s method. A vertical
to select the best correlation for this well by matching the calcu- well was placed in the center of the central gridblock. Gridblocks
lated rate by this method with the measured rate by changing the surrounding the central well were assumed to have constant poten-
correlation. tial, 4,780 psi. In the areal plane, square grids were used with 820-ft
sides. Vertical layer thickness was assumed to be constant for all
Multiple Perforations. The analytical solution for the potential of the 11 layers (9.09 ft).
equation can be obtained by superposing the analytical solution for Two completion scenarios were considered—(1) completion
each perforation (Fig. 8). Let t(z) represent the total potential interval at the top of the formation, Layers 1 and 2, and (2) comple-
drop at location z from multiple sources located at the well qj, j = tion interval at the middle of the formation, Layers 5 and 6.
1, Nc, where Nc is the total number of completions. By superposing The flowing bottomhole pressure was set to 4,424 psi. Reservoir
the potential drops, oil viscosity was 3 cp. Reservoir permeability was set to 500 md in x
and y directions. The vertical permeability was 250 md. A simulator
Nc (Dogru et al. 2002) was run to predict the oil rate for three cases:
( )
 t ( z ) = ∑  z , z j , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20) • Base case, coarse grid using Peaceman’s well index (Fig. 9)
j =1 • Locally refined grids for the central cell where the well is
located (81×81×11 grid with x = 10.12 ft) using Peaceman’s well
where index (Figs. 10 and 11)

December 2010 SPE Journal 1039

 Fig. 10—Locally refined areal grid. Fig. 11—Locally refined vertical grid.

• New method, coarse grid with new well index (Fig. 9) Nomenclature
For the top-completion-interval scenario (1), model runs showed fp = partial-penetration factor
that oil-production rate predicted by the coarse grid, Case 1, was H = total formation thickness, cm
22% less than the oil rate calculated by locally refined grids, Case 2.
k = gridblock index
Coarse grid with new well index, Case 3, yielded rates very close
to the locally refined case, within 0.6% difference. For this scenario, Kx = permeability in x direction, darcies
the new well index was 1.31 times the Peaceman’s well index. We Ky = permeability in y direction, darcies
have used Muskat’s method to calculate the skin factor. Kz = permeability in z direction, darcies
For the middle-completion-interval scenario (2), Layers 5 and N = number of gridblocks
6, the completed interval receives flow from the top and the bottom P = pressure, atm
of the completion interval, and, hence, the effect of vertical flow q = production rate, cm3/s
is more pronounced. re = drainage radius, cm
Model runs showed that the difference between Case 1 and Case 2 ro = wellblock radius, cm
was approximately 30% (29.5%). Case 3 with the new well index rw = well radius, cm
resulted in oil rate very close to that of Case 2, with a difference of
T = transmissibility
0.7%. The new method well index was 1.43 times the Peaceman’s
well index. We have used the Odeh (1980) method to calculate the Tx = Kxyz/x
completion skin factor. Ty = Kyxz/y
Tz = Kzyx/z
Conclusions WI = well index
• A new practical formula and procedure have been developed for  = potential, atm
the equivalent wellblock radius and perforation index for par-
tially penetrating vertical wells for square areal grids. The new Subscripts
formula is easy to implement in a numerical reservoir simula- B = boundary
tor. Analytical solutions developed in this paper can be used for c = completion
homogeneous and anisotropic reservoirs with uniform grids. e = external (drainage)
• The theory presented here is valid only if the potential around f = flowing or fraction
the wellblocks remains constant and approximately steady-state j = completion number
flow conditions exist. Well indices calculated by this method k = cell number (index)
can be repeated at every timestep during the simulation or once
L = left
at the beginning of the simulation, depending on the conditions.
Constant-potential approach for the neighboring gridblocks is p = perforated or partial
generally justifiable for large, high-permeability, thick reservoirs t = total
for full-field-simulation models. w = well
• New formulas for the equivalent wellblock radius and well indi- wf = flowing well
ces depend only on the grid properties and not on the well bound- x = areal x direction
ary condition (specified flow rate or bottomhole pressure). y = areal y direction
• Numerical experiments have shown that Peaceman’s method z = vertical direction
(Peaceman 1978, 1983) underpredicts the well index, while the
new well index can correct the error in flow rates. For a model Acknowledgments
problem, the new method reduced the error from 30% to less than
1%. An alternative to the new method is to use locally refined The author would like to thank Hussein Kazemi and Dean Oliver
grids around the wells. Depending on the degree of refinement, for valuable discussions and suggestions. The author would also
this approach can be very costly for full-field-simulation models like to thank Jorge Pita and Larry Fung for reviewing the manu-
with many wells. script and Tom Dreiman for model building.
• Accuracy of equivalent wellblock radius and perforation indices
calculated by the new method depends on the accuracy of the References
rate formula. If the perforation skin is used in the rate formula, it Aavatsmark, I. and Klausen, R.A. 2003. Well Index in Reservoir Simula-
needs to be calculated accurately. It can be estimated from a well tion for Slanted and Slightly Curved Wells in 3D Grids. SPE J. 8 (1):
test or from correlations. In either case, it is advisable to calibrate 41–48. SPE-75275-PA. doi: 10.2118/75275-PA.
the new rate equation used to existing historical production data. Aziz, K. and Settari, A. 1979. Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. Essex, UK:
Alternatively, published formulas for the skin factor can be used. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.
• The new method can be expanded to horizontal wells or multilat- Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S. 1989. Productivity of a Horizontal Well. SPE
eral wells by following the same methodology of this paper. Res Eng 4 (4): 417–421. SPE-18298-PA. doi: 10.2118/18298-PA.

1040 December 2010 SPE Journal

Brons, F. and Marting, V.E. 1961. The Effect of Restricted Fluid Entry on
Well Productivity. J Pet Technol 13 (2): 172–174; Trans., AIME, 222.
SPE-1322-G. doi: 10.2118/1322-G.
Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F. 1959. Petroleum Reservoir Engineering.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Press.
Ding, Y. 1995. Scaling-up in the Vicinity of Wells in Heterogeneous Field.
Paper SPE 29137 presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium,
San Antonio, Texas, USA, 12–15 February. doi: 10.2118/29137-MS.
Dogru, A.H., Sunaidi, H.A., Fung, L.S., Habiballah, W.A., Al-Zamel, N.,
and Li, K.G. 2002. A Parallel Reservoir Simulator for Large-Scale
Reservoir Simulation. SPE Res Eval & Eng 5 (1): 11–23. SPE-75805-
PA. doi: 10.2118/75805-PA.
Donnez, P. 2007. Essentials of Reservoir Engineering, 201–205. Paris:
Editions TECHNIP.
Kozeny, J. 1953. Hydraulik: Ihre Grundlagen und Praktische Anvendung.
Vienna, Austria: Springler-Verlag.
Lin, C.Y. 1995. New Well Models for Partially Penetrating Wells in Het-
in areal directions (x, y) and constant vertical permeability in the
vertical (z) direction with constant gridblock potential B for the
neighboring cells where the perforation is located, steady-state vol-
ume balance for the cell k, excluding the source term, is given by
4Tx (  B −  k ) + Tz (  k −1 −  k ) + Tz (  k +1 −  k ) = 0 , . . . . . (A-1)
where Tx and Tz (Tx = Kxyz/x, Tz = Kzxz/x) are the transmis-
ibilities between the cell k and its areal and vertical neighbors.
By examining Eq. A-1, we see that potential  varies only in
the z direction. We can rearrange Eq. A-1 by dividing each side
by Kzxy and further dividing each by z; the following equa-
tion is obtained:
( k −1 − 2 k +  k +1 ) − 4 ⎛ Kx ⎞ 4K x
z 2 ⎜⎝ K x 2 ⎟⎠  k = − K x 2 (  B ) .
z z

erogeneous Reservoirs Using Non-Uniform grids. Paper SPE 29122 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)

presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, 12–15 February. doi: 10.2118/29122-MS. Recognizing that
Muggeridge, A.H., Cuypers, M., Bacquet, C., and Barker, J.W. 2002.
Scale-up of well performance for reservoir flow simulation. Petroleum
Geoscience 8 (2): 133–139. lim
( k −1 − 2 k +  k +1 ) = d 2 ,
Muskat M. 1949. Physical Principles of Oil Production. New York: Inter- z → 0 z 2 dz 2
national Series in Pure Applied Physics, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Muskat, M. 1937. The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Eq. A-2 yields a second-order ordinary differential equation for
Media. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. the potential (z):
Odeh, A. 1980. An Equation for Calculating Skin Factor Due to Restricted
Entry. J Pet Technol 32 (6): 964–965. SPE-8879-PA. doi: 10.2118/8879-
d 2
PA. − a = b , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
Peaceman, D.W. 1978. Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numeri- dz 2
cal Reservoir Simulation. SPE J. 18 (3): 183–194; Trans., AIME, 265.
SPE-6893-PA. doi: 10.2118/6893-PA. where
Peaceman, D.W. 1983. Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numeri-
cal Reservoir Simulation With Nonsquare Grid Blocks and Anisotropic ⎛ Kx ⎞
Permeability. SPE J. 23 (3): 531–543; Trans., AIME, 275. SPE-10528- a = 4⎜
⎝ K z x ⎟⎠
2
PA. doi: 10.2118/10528-PA.
Wolfsteiner, C., Durlofsky, L.J., and Aziz, K. 2000. Approximate Model for
Productivity of Nonconventional Wells in Heterogeneous Reservoirs. and
SPE J. 5 (2): 218–226. SPE-56754-PA. doi: 10.2118/62812-PA.
4K x
Appendix A—Derivation of Equivalent b=−
K z x 2
( B ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
Wellblock Radius and Analytical Solutions
for the Potential Equation Analytical Solution. A general solution for Eq. A-3 can be
Analytical Solution for the Potential Equation. Differential written in the following form:
Equation for Potential in Vertical (z) Direction. Our objective is
to derive a 1D potential (pressure) equation in the vertical direction
for the discretized system. Considering the finite-difference dis-
b
 ( z ) = − + C1 exp
a
( az ) + C exp ( − az ).
2 . . . . . . . . . . (A-5a)

cretization shown in Fig. A-1 and assuming constant permeability

The derivative can be obtained by differentiating Eq. A-5 with
respect to z:

∂ ( z )
∂z
= C1 a exp ( az ) − C 2 ( )
a exp − az . . . . . . . . . (A-5b)

ΦN The unknown coefficients C1 and C2 are determined from the

boundary conditions. Two boundary conditions are specified rate
at the perforation and no-flow boundary condition at the bound-
k=1
ΦW Δy ary. We can consider three cases—(1) single perforation located
Φk ΦE Φk−1 at the top of the formation; (2) single perforation located at any
Φk point along the wellbore, away from the boundaries; and (3) single
Φk+1 Δz perforation located at the bottom of the well. The last case can be
Φs z
derived from (1) easily. We will show the first two cases only.
Δx
y Perforation Located at the Top of the Formation, zs = 0. Let zs
k =Nz be the location of the source (perforation).
x Specified Rate.

⎛ ∂ ⎞
q = K z x y ⎜ at z s = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
Fig. A-1—Grid system. ⎝ ∂z ⎟⎠ z = 0
s

December 2010 SPE Journal 1041

 ⎛ ∂ ⎞ where qL and qR are unknowns that are solved by using the fol-
⎜⎝ ⎟ = 0 at z = H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7) lowing two equations:
∂z ⎠ z = H
qL + qR = qk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-17)
Applying Eqs. A-6 and A-7 to Eq. A-5b, we can determine the
two unknowns C1 and C2, and, using the definitions cosh(x) and and
sinh(x), we obtain the complete analytical solution:
 L ( z s ) =  R ( z s ) at z = zs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-18)
b qcosh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z ) ⎤⎦
(z) = − − . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-8)
a aK z x 2sinh aH ( ) Solving Eqs. A-15 through A-18, we obtain

Close examination of the ratio b/a reveals that this term repre- qL =
sinh( az ) cosh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z )⎤⎦ q . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-19)
s s

⎧sinh ( az ) cosh ⎡ a ( H − z ) ⎤ ⎫
k
sents the average potential around the perforation cells:
⎪ s ⎣ ⎦ ⎪ s
⎨ ⎬
b
B = . ⎪⎩+ cosh ( az ) sinh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z ) ⎤⎦ ⎪⎭
s s
a
and
Specified Bottomhole Pressure. In the case of specified poten-
tial at the wellbore wf , the boundary conditions for a single perfo-
ration at the top of the formation will be qR =
sinh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z s ) ⎤⎦ cosh ( az s ) qk . . . . . . . . . . . (A-20)
⎪ ( ⎣ )
⎧sinh az s cosh ⎡ a ( H − z s ) ⎤ ⎫
⎦ ⎪
⎨ ⎬
⎛ ∂ ⎞
K z x 2 ⎜
⎝ ∂z ⎟⎠ z = 0
( )
= WI k  k −  wf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-9) ( )
⎪⎩+ cosh az s sinh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z s ) ⎤⎦ ⎪⎭

Eqs. A-15 and A-16 together with Eqs. A-19 and A-20 com-
Substituting Eqs. A-5a and A-5b into Eq. A-9 and using Eq. pletely define the analytical solution for a single perforation located
A-7, we obtain between the top and bottom of the formation. For convenience, we
⎛ ⎞ will use fL and fR as the fractions of the total rate to simplify Eqs.
⎜ ⎛b ⎞ ⎟ A-19 and A-20. By using this definition, Eq. A-19 and A-20 can
WI k ⎜ +  wf ⎟ be shortened because qL = fLqk and qR = fRqk. Using the definition
b ⎜ ⎝a ⎠ ⎟
(z) = − − ⎜ ⎟ b
a ⎜ ⎧ K z x asinh asinh ( H − z s ) ⎫ ⎟
2 of  B = − , Eqs. A-15 and A-16 can be written as
⎪ ⎪ a
⎜⎨ ⎬⎟
⎜⎝ ⎪+WI cosh ⎡⎣ asinh ( H − z s ) ⎤⎦ ⎪ ⎟⎠
⎩ k ⎭
L (z ) = B −
( az )
qL cosh

⎣ (
× cosh ⎡⎢ a H − z ⎤⎥ .
k ⎦ ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(A-10) aK x sinh ( az )
z
2
s

for 0 < z ≤ zs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-21a)

Perforation Located Away From the Top and Bottom Boundar-
ies, 0 < zs < H. Let qL and qR be the left and right portions (fraction) and
of the total rate q.
Left side of the source,
qR cosh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z ) ⎤⎦
R (z ) = B −
⎛ ∂ ⎞
= 0 at z = 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-11) aK z x 2sinh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z s ) ⎤⎦
⎝⎜ ∂z ⎠⎟ z = 0
for zs ≤ z < H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-21b)
⎛ ∂ ⎞
qL = − K z x 2 ⎜ at zfrom left → z, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-12)
⎝ ∂z ⎟⎠ z→ zs Equivalent Wellblock Radius. Writing the volume balance for the
gridblock k and denoting the vertical-flow rate into k by qv,k,
and right side of the source (perforation),
4K z (  B −  k ) + qv ,k = qk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-22a)
⎛ ∂ ⎞
qR = K z x 2 ⎜ at zfrom right → zs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-13)
⎝ ∂z ⎠⎟ z→ zs Because the flow becomes approximately radial in the (x, y) space
into the perforation k, we can write the radial-flow-rate equations as
⎛ ∂ ⎞
⎜⎝ ⎟ = 0 at z = H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-14)
∂z ⎠ z = H 2 K z fP (  B −  k )
qk = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-22a)
Using Eqs. A-11 and A-14 in Eq. A-5b, we determine the ln z / ro ,3 D ,k
unknown coefficients C1 and C2. The analytical solution becomes
Solving for (B− k) from Eq. A-22b and substituting them into

( )
the volume-balance equation for the cell k in Eq. A-22a (Donnez
b qL cosh az 2007), we obtain
L (z ) = − − ,
a aK z x 2sinh az s ( )
⎛ x ⎞ f ⎛ q ⎞
ln ⎜ ⎟ =  p ⎜ 1 − v ,k ⎟ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-23)
for 0 < z < zs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-15) ⎝ ro ,3 D ,k ⎠ 2⎝ qk ⎠

b qR cosh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z ) ⎤⎦ From Eq. A-23, we obtain the equivalent gridblock radius:

R (z ) = − − ,
a aK z x 2sinh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z s ) ⎤⎦
⎡  f ⎛ q ⎞⎤
ro ,3 D ,k = x exp ⎢ − P ⎜ 1 − v ,k ⎟ ⎥ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-24)
for zs ≤ z < H, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-16) ⎣ 2 ⎝ qk ⎠ ⎦

1042 December 2010 SPE Journal

 ⎛ q ⎞ perforated interval. To simplify the derivation, however, let us
Perforation at the Top. We would need to express the ⎜ 1− v ,k ⎟ assume that all the perforations are contiguous, 1, 2, 3, …, NC.
⎝ qk ⎠
The analytical solution for the potential equation can be
term analytically because fp,k is available by Eq. 8 or Eq. 9. By the obtained by superposing the analytical solution for each perfora-
definition of qv,k, vertical flow from the cell below the perforation tion. Let t(z) represent the total potential drop at location z from
(Cell 2) into the perforation (Cell 1) is given by multiple sources located at the well qj, j = 1, Nc, where Nc is the
⎡ ( z 2 ) −  ( z1 ) ⎤⎦ total number of completions. By superposition,
qv ,k = K z x 2 ⎣ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-25)
z
( )
Nc
 ( z ) = ∑  z , z j , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-30)
t j =1
Substituting Eq. A-9 into Eq. A-25, we obtain an expression
⎛ q ⎞ where
for ⎜ 1− v ,k ⎟ , and, using it in Eq. A-24, we obtain the formula for
( )
Nc
⎝ q ⎠ k  t ( z ) = ∑  z ≤ z j
the equivalent gridblock radius: j =1

⎡ ⎛ ⎧cosh ⎡ a ( H − z 2 ) ⎤ ⎫ ⎞ ⎤ ×
q j sinh ( )
a z j cosh ⎡⎣ a H − z j ( )⎤⎦
⎢
⎢
⎜ ⎪
⎨
⎣ ⎦ ⎪⎟ ⎥
⎬ ⎥
⎧sinh
⎪ ( ) (
az j cosh ⎡⎣ a H − z j ⎤⎦ ⎫
⎪ )
⎜ ⎪⎩− cosh ⎣ a ( H − z1 ) ⎤⎦ ⎪⎭ ⎟ ⎥
⎡ ⎨ ⎬
ro ,3 D ,k ⎢
= x exp ⎢ −
 f p ,k
⎜ 1− ⎟ .
⎩⎪
+ cosh ( ) (
az j sinh ⎡⎣ a H − z j ⎤⎦ ⎪ )
2 ⎜ a zsinh aH ( ⎟⎥ ) ⎭
⎢
⎢
⎜
⎜
⎟⎥
⎟⎥ ×
( az )
cosh
+ z > zj ( )
⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎡
⎣ aK x ysinh (
z az j ⎤⎦ )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-26)

Perforation in the Middle. For a perforation not located at the ×

(
q j sinh ⎡⎣ a H − z j ⎤⎦ sinnh az j ) ( )
formation top or bottom, total vertical flow into the perforation k (
⎧sinh az j cosh ⎡ a H − z j ⎤ ⎫
⎪ ⎣ ) ⎦ ⎪ ( )
⎨ ⎬
(from above and below) is given by
⎪⎩ + cosh az j (i
sinh ⎡
⎣ a H −)z ⎤
j ⎦⎪⎭ ( )
⎛  −  k  k +1 −  k ⎞
= K z x ⎜ k −1
2
+ coosh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z ) ⎤⎦
⎠⎟
qv , k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-27)
⎝ z z ×
{ )}
. . . . . . . . (A-31)
Substituting the analytical solution obtained for this case,
aK z x ysinh ⎡⎣ a H − z j ⎤⎦ (
Eq. A-15 and Eq. A-16, into Eq. A-27, we obtain Solution for any location z is then computed from
⎡ ⎡ cosh az
⎢ fL ⎢
(
k −1 − cosh )
az k ⎤ ⎤
⎥⎥
( ) b
 ( z ) =  B + t  ( z ) = − +  ( z ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-32)
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎣
aK z  zsinh a z k
⎥⎥
⎦⎥ ( ) a

⎢ ⎛ ⎧cosh ⎡ a ( H − z ) ⎤ ⎫ ⎞ ⎥ Wellblock Radius for Gridblock k. The expression for equivalent

⎜ ⎪⎨ ⎣ k +1 ⎦ ⎪
1 − v ,k = 1 − ⎢⎢ ⎥
q wellblock radius for the gridblock k is Eq. 16.
⎬ ⎟ , . . . . . (A-28)
qk ⎜ ⎪− cosh ⎡ a ( H − z k ) ⎤ ⎪ ⎟ ⎥ To obtain an analytical expression for the equivalent wellblock
⎢ ⎜ ⎩ ⎣ ⎦⎭ ⎟ ⎥ q
⎢ + f R ⎜ aK zsinh ⎡ a H − z ⎤ ⎟ ⎥ radius ro,3D,k, we need to evaluate the v ,k term, because
⎢ ⎜
z ⎣ ( k )⎦ ⎥
⎟
qk
⎢ ⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎡  −  k  k +1 −  k ⎤
qv ,k = K z x 2 ⎢ k −1 + ⎥⎦, . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-33)
⎣ z z
where

( k)
where
sinh az cosh ⎡⎣ a ( H − zk ) ⎤⎦
fL =  k −1 −  k =  t ( z k −1 ) −  t ( z k )
⎪ ( ⎣ )
⎧sinh az k cosh ⎡ a ( H − z k ) ⎤ ⎫
⎦ ⎪
⎨ ⎬
⎪⎩ + cosh az k(sinh ⎡
⎣ a ( H)− z k )⎦ ⎭
⎤⎪ and

 k +1 −  k =  t ( z k +1 ) −  t ( z k ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-34)
and
The analytical solution is obtained by substituting Eq. A-31 into
sinh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z k ) ⎤⎦ cosh( az ) Eq. A-34 to obtain analytical expressions for k−1 − k and k+1 −
fR = k .
k. The resulting expression is substituted into Eq. A-33 and Eq.
⎪ ( ⎣ )
⎧sinh az k cosh ⎡ a ( H − z k ) ⎤ ⎫
⎦ ⎪ 16 to obtain the equivalent wellblock radius.
⎨ ⎬
( )
⎪⎩+ cosh az k sinh ⎡⎣ a ( H − z k ) ⎤⎦ ⎭⎪ Ali H. Dogru is the chief technologist of computational mod-
eling at Saudi Aramco’s Advanced Research Center. His pri-
The terms fL and fR are the fractions of the total flow rate qk. mary areas of interest are parallel reservoir simulation, reservoir
engineering, large-scale parameter estimation, and high-per-
qL = f L qk , qR = f R qk , f L + f R = 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-29) formance computing. He holds a PhD degree in petroleum
engineering with a minor in applied mathematics from The
Substituting Eq. A-28 into Eq. A-24, we obtain the equivalent University of Texas at Austin. His industrial experience is with
well radius. Core Labs and Mobil R&D in Dallas, Texas, and Saudi Aramco.
He was chairman of the SPE JPT Special Series Committee
2004–08. Dogru worked with various other SPE committees,
Multiple Perforations. Let the well have NC number of completions including Editorial Review and SPE Fluid Mechanics. Currently,
for the perforations j = 1, NC. We need to note that all perforations he is a director of the SPE R&D Technical Section Committee
do not have to be continuous. We may have a set of perforations and a member of JPT Special Series Committe. Dogru received
followed by a nonperforated interval and again followed by a new the 2008 SPE Reservoir Description and Dynamics award.

December 2010 SPE Journal 1043