The Transient Response of Formations to Flow in a Well: Transient Pressure Well Testing

  • Arnold Watson


Quantifying the ability of a geological formation to allow fluid to flow through it is an essential part of geothermal engineering, but fortunately it is equally important to groundwater and petroleum engineering and has been under development since the 1930s. Although it is a fluid mechanics-based topic, it could equally well be described as signal processing. This chapter introduces the fundamentals and then presents the relevant basic equations, their most often-used solution and the principle of superposition which allows the design of well tests. Ideal conditions for testing are defined and the historical development of methods of dealing with real effects such as skin and wellbore storage in single-phase flows is described. The chapter ends by describing the approach to analysing the flow in formations containing two-phase fluid and interference testing.


Formation Pressure Relative Permeability Volumetric Flow Rate Type Curve Transient Pressure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (eds) (1965) Handbook of mathematical functions. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal RG, Al-Husseini R, Ramey HJ Jr (1970) An investigation of wellbore storage and skin effect in unsteady liquid flow: I. Analytical treatment. Soc Pet Eng J: 279–290; Trans SPE, vol 249Google Scholar
  3. Andrino R (1998) A review of pressure transient analysis using the pressure derivative method, with application to ten wells of the Leyte Geothermal Power Project, the Philippines. University of Auckland Geothermal Institute, New Zealand, Report No. 98.04Google Scholar
  4. Bourdet D, Whittle TM, Douglas AA, Pirard YM (1983) A new set of type curves simplifies well test analysis. World Oil 196:95–106Google Scholar
  5. Britto PR, Grader AS (1988) The effects of size, shape and orientation of an impermeable region on transient pressure testing. SPE Form Eval 33:595–606Google Scholar
  6. Carslaw HS, Jaeger JC (1959) Conduction of heat in solids. Oxford Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Da Prat G, Ramey HJ Jr, Cinco-Ley H (1982) A method to determine the permeability –thickness product for a naturally fractured reservoir. JPT, June 1982Google Scholar
  8. Economides MJ, Ogbe DO, Miller FR, Ramey HJ Jr (1980) Geothermal steam well testing: state of the art. SPE9272Google Scholar
  9. Grant MA, Sorey ML (1979) The compressibility and hydraulic diffusivity of a steam-water flow. Water Resour Res 13(3):684–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grigull U, Sandner H (1984) “Heat conduction”, International series in heat and mass transfer. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Gringarten AC, Bourdet DP, Landel PA, Kniazeff VJ (1979) A comparison between different skin and wellbore storage type curves for early transient analysis. Soc Pet Eng SPE 8205:1Google Scholar
  12. Horne RN (1995) Modern well test analysis. Petroway Inc., Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. Howard GC, Fast CR (1970) Hydraulic fracturing. Monograph vol 2 of the Henry L. Doherty series. Society of Petroleum Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Itoi T, Hirose Y, Hiyashi K (1994) Measurement of in-situ hydraulic properties from the pulse test for the case of unknown in-situ pore pressure and its application to HDR model fields. Geoth Res Counc Trans 18:445Google Scholar
  15. Jaeger JC (1956) Conduction of heat in an infinite region bounded internally by a circular cylinder of perfect conductor. Aust J Phys 9(2):167–179MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson CR, Greenkorn RA, Woods EG (1966) Pulse testing: a new method for describing flow properties between wells. J Pet Tech 18:1599–1604Google Scholar
  17. Kuster Instruments.
  18. Leaver JD, Grader A, Ramey HJ Jr (1988) Multiple well interference testing in the Ohaaki geothermal field. SPE Form Eval 3(2):429–437Google Scholar
  19. McLure MW, Horne RN (2011) Pressure transient analysis of fracture zone permeability at Soultz-sur-Forêts. GRC Trans 35:1487–1498Google Scholar
  20. Miller CW (1980) Wellbore storage effects in Geothermal wells. Soc Petroleum Engineers Jnl 555–566Google Scholar
  21. Nakao S, Ishido T, Hatakayama K (2003) Pulse testing analysis for fractured geothermal reservoir. Geoth Res Counc Trans 27:807–809Google Scholar
  22. Pruess K (1987) TOUGH user’s guide. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, LBL-20700Google Scholar
  23. Ramey HJ Jr (1970) Short-term well test data interpretation in the presence of skin effect and wellbore storage. J Pet Tech 22:97–104Google Scholar
  24. Ramey HJ Jr (1966) Application of the line source solution to flow in porous media – a review. SPE 1361, SPE-AIChE symposium, Dallas, Feb 1966Google Scholar
  25. Sageev A, Horne RN, Ramey HJ (1985) Detection of linear boundaries by d rawdown tests: a semi-log type curve matching approach. Water Resour Res 21(3):305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stallman RW (1952) Non-equilibrium type curves modified for two-well systems. Geological Survey Groundwater Note 3. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Temme NM (1996) Special functions: an introduction to the classical functions of mathematical physics. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Theis CV (1935) The relationship between the lowering of the piezometric surface and rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage. Trans Am Geophys Union 2:519–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vela S (1977) Effect of a linear boundary on interference and pulse tests – the elliptical interference area. J Pet Tech 29(8):947–950Google Scholar
  30. Whittome AJ (1979) Well testing in a liquid dominated two-phase reservoir. Geoth Resour Counc Trans 3:781–784Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnold Watson
    • 1
  1. 1.51 Ash GroveTe AwamutuNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations