SPE 26959

Pressure Transient Analysis of Dually Fractured Reservoirs

Abdullah AI-Ghamdi, SPE and Iraj Ershaghi, SPE, University of Southern California
Copyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

li"f.,la., SPE. P.O.

a. 133136, Rtc .. r4

TX 75013-3836. U.S.A., f .. 01-214-952905.

Abstract
Dual fracture models are examined as a more realistic alternative to dual porosity models for the representation of
naturally fractured reservoirs. A major component of the
fracture system is the network of microfracture which by
virtue of their lower permeability respond somewhat later
than the macrofractures. A delineation of microfracture response versus matrix response is made using the proposed
conceptual models. It is demonstrated that the microfractures response may at times be mistakenly attributed to
matrix.

Introduction
Studies published on diagnostic plots of pressure transient
test data indicate strong similarities amoung certain cases
of conceptual reservoir models. In particular, diagnostic
plots expected for naturally fractured reservoirs are oftentimes not developed because of either inadequate test duration or well bore controlled conditions. A major question
in the testing of naturally fractured reservoirs is explanation for causes of non-development of transition period l .
This transition was predicted by Warren and Root 2 in
their dual porosity conceptualization of naturally fractured
reservoirs. Other researchers have also predicted the transition periods for layered type response3 as well as systems
of triple porosity.4
In the dual porosity conceptualization, an assumption
is made as to the nature of flow units with interporosity
properties. Specifically, two types of flow units are considered. First is a system of tight matrix with substantial
storativity for fluid. The second unit is the network of
fractures with high fluid conductivity. In this study, the
above model is extended to a more realistic one where the
effects of microfractures are also included. The objective is
to predict response duration for these subsets and develop
guidelines for interpretations of pressure transient test data
misinterpreted because of the selection of an inappropriate
model.
SPE Journal, March 1996

Models for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Over the past several years, numerous models for characterization of naturally fractured reservoirs (NFR) from
pressure transient tests have been suggested. One commonly used model is the double porosity model proposed by Barenblat and Zeltov 5 and introduced into the
petroleum literature by Warren and Root. The idealized
model introduced by Warren and Root (Fig.I) consists of
a set of orthogonal fracture planes dividing the matrix into
equal blocks. Production at the well bore is essentially controlled by the fractures. The fracture system contains a
small fraction of indigenous oil, yet with hydraulic conductivities superior to that of the matrix, act as primary
conduits for flow in the reservoir. Matrix rock, however,
contains the bulk of fluid in place and provides pressure
support to the fracture system. While this model has been
the backbone of various analysis techniques and simulation
applications, certain modifications are necessary to bring it
closer to realistic representation of NFR.Among the modifications suggested is the work of Abdassah and Ershaghi 4
who introduced the Triple Porosity Model. In this model,
two distinct matrix systems of different flow and storage
capacities are recognized in addition to the fracture system. Another modification was introduced by Bourdet and
Johnston 3 where matrix blocks also contribute to production at the well bore.
In this paper new conceptual models are proposed to differentiate between the microfractures and the macrofractures. Dual fracture systems consisting of macrofractures
and microfractures (Fig. 2) are introduced as the basis of
the reservoir architecture. The theoretical basis of the proposed models are developed and the anticipated pressure
transient response on the pressure derivative plot are then
compared to those of the existing models.
Both the double porosity and the triple porosity models
predict transition periods reflecting matrix support to the
fracture system. In actual field tests, indications are, at
times, and for certain tests, these transition periods may be
observed. However, there are cases where the response of
naturally fractured reservoirs have lacked a clear definition
indicating matrix support. One purpose of this paper is
to ascertain the similarities and differences between the
support from tight matrix and that of the more permeable
microfractures.
93

PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF DUALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

Triple Porosity Model

The triple porosity model consists of two matrix systems
with different properties (Fig. 3a). One basic assumption
of the triple porosity is that the two matrix system are
not in communication with each other. The model uses
two (A'S) and two (w's) relating each matrix system to the
fracture system. The matrix with larger permeability will
respond first, followed by the response of the tighter matrix at a later stage. The general response of this model
on the pressure derivative plot (Fig. 3b) shows 3 horizontal line segments separated by two troughs representing
a transition period when each matrix type provides pressure support to the system. The three line segments correspond to the fracture response, the fracture and matrix
1 response, and the response of the total system, respectively. This model also assumes an unsteady state (gradient flow) between the fracture and each matrix system.
This last assumption will only influence the transition period by limiting the depth of depression to a value of 0.25
which is half the value corresponding to the infinite acting
response. The concept of triple porosity can be further
extended to represent the proposed "Dual Fracture" system with one matrix type in addition to the two fracture
systems. The triple porosity model has been tested with
(A) values between (10- 5 -10- 9 ) representing matrix interporosity flow. However, in the new proposed model of dual
fractures, the interporosity flow between the two systems
of fractures has values between (10- 1 - 10- 4 ) reflecting
expected higher permeability for the microfractures.

Proposed Conceptual Models

Two of the conceptual models that can be employed to represent dual fracture systems are discussed here. The first
model is similar to that of the triple porosity but with the
microfracture system replacing one of the matrix systems
(Fig. 4). This model assumes no interporosity flow between the microfracture and the matrix systems, yet both
support the macrofracture system.
The second model assumes pressure support from the
matrix to the microfractures which in turn support the
macrofractures. The macrofractures and the microfractures both contribute to the overall hydraulic conductivity
and to the production at the test well. (Fig. 5 a,b).

Dual Fracture System

Fractures and fissures occur in many sedimentary rocks.
If the fracture size distribution can be delineated into
two broad categories representing macrofractures and microfractures, then the macrofracture system will dictate
the very early time response of pressure transient tests.
The response of the microfracture system will only be distinguished if the ratio of the microfracture permeability
to that of the macrofracture is small; i.e. (AI::; 0.001).
Otherwise the two fracture systems will respond practically at the same time. This results in the pressure transient response to be similar to that of the double porosity
94

SPE 26959

model with longer and a more steady extension of the first

straight line representing the combined response of the two
fracture systems.
The first model to be considered is similar to that of
the triple porosity model with the microfracture system
interacting with the macrofracture system but not with
the matrix. This model also assumes that production at
the wellbore is primarily from the macrofracture system.
In the second model, the microfractures play an additional role by receiving support from the matrix and
transmitting support to the macrofracture system. The
matrix system will only provide pressure support to the
microfractures and cannot transmit fluid directly to the
macrofractures. This model assumes pseudo steady-state
flow between the two fracture systems and between the
matrix and the microfracture systems. Model 2 can be
divided into two submodels. Model 2a assumes that only
the macrofrature system produces at the well bore, while in
model 2b, the assumption is made that production is contributed from both macro and microfracture systems. The
contribution of each fracture system will be proportional
to its permeability ratio (K).
The proposed models are equivalent to double porosity, triple porosity, or double permeability models under
certain limiting conditions. For example the assumption
that the storativity of the microfracture system is zero will
change the above models to the double porosity model. Assuming that the storativity of the matrix system is zero and
changing the range of the A and w for the microfracture
to that of another matrix system will change the above
models to the double porosity model for model 1 and 2a.
Model 2b will be equivalent to the double permeability.
Changing the range of the values of A and w for the microfracture to that of a new matrix system will produce
the triple porosity model for all of the three new models.

Mathematical Representation
Model 1. The first model as mentioned is similar to
that of the Triple Porosity model. The solution of this
model was derived by Abdassah and Ershaghi 3 . This solution was not intended for A values outside the range
(10- 5 - 10- 9 ) which is representative of the two matrix
systems. In the dual fracture system, the microfracture
system replaces one of the matrix systems with A values
in the range of (10- 1 - 10- 4 ). The dimensionless pressure
solution (including the effect of wellbore storage and skin)
in the Laplace space is:

=[S+~Jt,(w7-1)stanhJt,(w7-1)S
+~

JA~ (w~ -

1)

s tanh A~ (w~ - 1) s] 1
SPE Journal, March 1996

(2)

ABDULLAH AL-GHAMDI AND IRAJ ERSHAGHI

SPE 26959

Where:

PFd=--21rkFh l:l.PF
qJ1.
kFt
td =
<PFCFJ1.ra
k, 2
A, cr,-rw
kF
km 2
Am cr m kFrW

<PFCF
<PFCF + <PmCm
<PFCF
=
<PFCF+ <p,C,

(3)

(4)
(5)

(6)

Wm =

(7)

w,

(8)

This laplace space solution of model one was derived using

both the Laplace and the HankIe transformations. For detailed derivation of the above solution the reader is referred
to reference 3.
Model 2. The dimensionless equations of this model in
the Laplace domain describing the flow in the macrofracture, microfracture and the matrix systems respectively
are:

Similar behaviors are obtained for models 2a and 2b

shown in (Figs. 7 and 8) respectively. Fig. 7 shows the
effect of varying A, on time of detection for the first transition period. Curves (1 - 5) correspond to A, between
10- 3 - 10- 7 . Curve 1 (A, = 10- 3 ) shows that the first
transition period, indicating microfracture support, is detected at early time of pressure test (td < 1). Values of
A, > 10- 3 , would even cause this transition zone to arrive at much earlier time (td 1) making it practically
impossible to detect. With A, < 10- 3 , the arrival of the
first transition periods of curves (2 - 5) are further delayed
as A, value approach that of Am. Model 2a assume only
macrofracture is contributing to production at wellbore.
This is indicated by KF = 0.99 in Fig. 7, meaning 99% of
production is exclusively coming through macrofracture.
Fig. 8 is identical to fig. 7 except for (KF
0.70) indicating that microfracture is also contributing 30% of production, which in turn leads to smaller depression of the
first transition period similar to that of double permeability model or layered reservoir. Note in particular that the
similarity of k, and kF can predict an almost horizontal
trend at early times marking the contribution of microfractures. A delayed matrix support period can be erroneously
interpreted as an overall response for a homogeneous reser-

VOlr.

(1 - KF )'V 2 P,d

(1- WF - W, )sPmd

= W,SP,d + A, (P,d - PFd )

Am (Pmd - P,d)
(10)
= -Am (Pmd - P'd)
(11)

The dimensionless solution (Appendix A) of this model in

the laplace domain including the effect of well bore storage
IS:

(12)
where tP and 'Yare defined in Appendix A. The dimensionless parameters of this model are defined differently from
those of model 1 and are shown in Appendix A.

Pressure Derivative Diagnostic Plots

The laplace solution of Model 1 and Model 2 were inverted
numerically using the Stehfest's algorithm 6 to generate the
corresponding pressure derivative diagnostic plots. The
analytical representation of these new models are numerically calibrated against asymptotical models and parameter sensitivity studies are conducted to examine the expected corresponding diagnostic plots.
For model 1, wherein macrofractures provide the only
hydraulic communications to the well bore, the expected
general response is shown in (Fig. 6). This response predicts an early microfracture pressurization period followed
by a matrix controlled domain. Superposition of the microfracture response with microfractures can distort the
early time infinite acting behavior.
SPE Journal, March 1996

The typical response of the dual fracture system, consisting of 3 line segments separated by two transition zones,
are further seen in (Fig. 9). The 3 lines represent the
responses of the macrofracture, macro and microfactures,
and that of the total system respectively. Solid lines correspond to Cd = O.
The macrofractures influence the very early time pressure response. The presence of the microfracture support
will only be observed if >." ::; 0.001 otherwise the two fracture systems will practically respond at the same time,
with longer and better defined extension of the first line,
representing the total fracture response (Fig. 10). Only
two line segments are observed, representing the response
of the combined total fracture systems and the response
of the total system respectively. The shape of this response is similar to that of the double porosity model.
For A, ::; 0.001, the microfracture response will be distinguished from that of the macrofracture by observing
relatively an early trough on the derivative plot (Fig. 11)
indicating the transition period between the two fracture
system. This transition trough will be further delayed on
the time axis (Fig. 12) for smaller A, approaching values
representative of matrix-fracture interporosity flow.
Considering the effects of skin and well bore storage, it
is clear that this early trough is very likely to be masked
unless the combined effects are too small. The matrix response on the other hand will come at later times. In many
instances, where Am is very small, the trough representing
the matrix response may never be observed within normal
test duration. Extended pressure tests may be necessary
95

SPE 26959

PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF DUALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

and have the potential to further explore the complex nature of naturally fractured reservoirs.

Discussion
Conceptual models representing naturally fractured reservoirs by the formulations discussed here, predict several
cycles of time data before tight matrix can be recognized.
Examination of a number of actual pressure buildup and
drawdown tests (Table 1), that exhibit a double porosity
behavior for naturally fractured reservoirs, indicate pressure support of the matrix develops in relatively short time
(1 - 3 cycles) since the first point recording. Considering
the large expected contrast between the matrix permeability and that of the fracture resulting in an interporosity
flow parameter A in the range of (10- 5 - 10- 9 ), one can
predict that the matrix support will actually require more
time to develop. The exhibition of an early transition period can be attributed to the presence of the microfracture
system with considerably larger permeability than that of
the matrix. In the dual fracture model, the response of
the so called microfractures is characterized by a transitional period similar to that of the matrix. On the pressure derivative plot, a trough is developed at a much earlier
time, td == (10 1 - 104 ). On the other hand the response of
the matrix is manifested by a second trough that comes at
a later stage.
The dual fracture model provides an explanation for
many field tests where reservoirs known to be naturally
fractured are responding in a way similar to that of homogeneous formation. In wells with high skin and wellbore
storage, the first trough is very likely to be masked. If
the permeability of the reservoir rock is very low ( tight
matrix) with Am representing the matrix in the range of
(10- 5 -10- 9 ), the second trough may require days or weeks
and may never be detected within realistic test durations.
Conclusion
The delineation of fractures into two broad categories, a
macro and a microfracture, is a step forward toward a more
realistic representation of naturally fractured reservoirs.
The pressure support of the microfractures is similar to
that of the matrix. On the pressure derivative plot, the
presence of microfractures can lead to the formation of
transition zones at substantially earlier time. These zones
may be mistakenly interpreted as matrix support. The
proposed models provides an explanation for the observation of early pressure support emanating from a network
of microfracture and often attributed to the tight matrix
rocks. The models also provide a general explanation for
the observation or lack of observation of single or double
transition periods on the test data from naturally fractured
reservoirs. The concept of dually fracture reservoir can
lead to better estimation of reservoir parameters including
the partition coefficients corresponding to the volumetric
contribution of macro and microfractures in addition to
the matrix.
96

The proposed models suggest that the pressure response

of the tight matrix rocks require extended test duration to
be observed. A more realistic design of pressure test duration can be implemented for improved characterization of
naturally fractured reservoirs.
Finally, with downhole recording and by minimizing the
effect of well bore storage, the influence of the microfractures support can be best exhibited.

Acknowledgement
First author wishes to thank the management ofthe Northern Area Production Engineering at Saudi Aramco for
their continual support of his graduate study at the University of Southern California. This study is supported by
the Center for Study of Fractured Reservoirs at USC.
References
1. Odeh, A. S.: Unsteady-State Behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs, JPT, March 1965, 60-66.
2. Warren, J.E and Root, P.J.: The behavior of naturally
fractured reservoirs. SPE. J. Sept. 1963, 245-255; Trans.
AIME.
3. Bourdet, D. and Johnston: Pressure behavior of layered
reservoir with crossfiow. Paper SPE 13628,presented at
the SPE California regional meeting, Bakersfield, CA,
March 27-29, 1985.
4. Abdassah, D. and Ershaghi, I.: Triple porosity models for
representing naturally fractured reservoir. PHD dissertation, USC, JULY 1984.
5. Barenblatt, G. I., Zeltov, Ju. P. and Kocina, I. N.: Basic
concepts in the theory of seepage of homogeneous liquids
in fissured rocks. Soviet J. App. Math. and Mech., 1960,
XXIV, no5, 1286-1303.
6. Stehfest, H.: Algorithm 386, Numerical inversion of
Laplace transforms, communication of the ACM, Jan.
1970, 13, no. 1, 47 - 49.
7. Streltsova, T. D.: Well Pressure Behavior of a naturally
fractured reservoir SPEJ, Oct. 1983) 769-780.
.
8. Crawford, G. E., Hagedorn, A. R., PIerce, A. E.: AnalYSIS
of Pressure Buildup Tests in a naturally fractured reservoir, JPT, Nov. 1976, 1295-1300.
9. Strobel, C. J., Gulati, M. S., Ramey, Jr., H. J.: Reservoir limit Tests in naturally fractured reservoir-A field case
study using type curve, JPT, Sept. 1976, 1097-1106.

Appendix A
The dimensionless equations describing the flow in the
macro-fracture, microfracture, and the matrix system respectively are:
2

"'F

[8 PFd

18PFd]
---+--8r~
rd 8rd

8PFd
WF-Otd
Af(Pfd - PFd)

"'J

1 8PJd]
-8r~
- + rd
8rd

[8 PJd

8Pfd
wJ-Otd

AJ(Pfd - PFd)

(A.l)

Am (Pmd - PJd) (A.2)

8Pmd
ww8t;;

-Am (Pmd - PJd)(A.3)

SPE Journal, March 1996

ABDULLAH AL-GHAMDI AND IRAJ ERSHAGHI

SPE 26959

The boundary conditions for the above system of equations

are:

=
=

At(t 0) : PF(r)
At(r rw) : PF(t)
lim PF

.. ~oo

=
=

PJ(r)
PJ(t)

= Pm(r) = Pi
= Pw(t)

=..lim PJ =..lim Pm = Pi
~oo

~oo

-21rrw
qB = - [k F hF8PF
-P
8r

8P-J ]
+ k J hJ
8r

....

Solutions are possible when:

(A.26)
(A.4)

or
(A.5)
(A.6)

Transforming the above system of equations to the Laplace

domain, then substituting equation A-3 in equation A-2
obtains:

(A.27)
Solutions to equation A-27 are:
(A.28)

WFSPFd - AJ(PJd - PFd )

[WJS + Am -

(A.7)

A~ Am ] PJd

wms+
+AJ(PJd - PFd )

(A.29)
(A.8)

A=

(A.30)

Where:
Pd
td
rd
I;kh
I;4Jcth
KF
KJ
WF
wJ
Wm
A,
Am
Let:

(I;kh)
141.2 qpB (P - Pw)

0.000264 (I;kh)t
[I;4Jct h]pr~
r
rw
kJhJ + kFhF
(4J Ct h )F + (4J ct h )J + (4J ct h )m
kFhF
I;kh
1- KF
(4J Ct h )F
I;4J ct h
( 4J ct h )J
I;4Jct h
1-WF-WJ
kJh J 2
aJ I;kh rw
kmhm 2
am I;kh rw
A2
wJs + Am _
m A
Wm8 + m

(A.9)

(A.11)

(A.32)

where:

(A.34)

(A.16)

(A.18)
(A.19)

Applying the boundary condition from A-5:

B1 =

(1 - a2)Ko(0-2 r d) B
(1- aI)Ko(O-lrd) 2

(A.35)

(A.36)

Therefore:
Bl

(A.37)

(A.20)
(A.21)

The solutions to equations A-7 and A-8 are:

(A.22)
(A.23)

Substituting equation A-22 and A-23 into A-7 and A-8:

[KF0-2 - WF8 - AJ] AF + AJA, = 0

(A.24)

AJAF + [(1- KF)0-2 - X - AJ] A, = 0

(A.25)

SPE Journal, March 1996

B1Ko(0-1rd) + B2KO(0-2rd)

(A.14)

AFKo(o-rd)
AJKo(o-rd)

(A.33)

(A.17)

=
=

= a1BIKo(0-1rd) + a2B2Ko(0-2rd) (A.31)

(A.12)
(A.13)

(A.15)

PFd
PJd

PFd
PJd

(A.10)

=
=

=
=

Substituting o-~ and o-~ into equation A-24 and A-25 one
obtains:

b =

8(1 - aI)(KFa2 + 1 - KF)

0-2KO(0-I)Kl (0-2)
8(1 - a2)(KFal + 1- KF)
0-1Ko(0-2)K1(o-d

(A.38)

Therefore, the dimensionless pressure solution in the

Laplace domain is
(A.39)

97

PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF DUALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

where

(A.40)

a2 - al
(al - 1)(ICpa2 + 1- ICp)
al - a2

(A.41)

Incorporating the effects of skin and wellbore storage, the

inner boundary conditions change into

Pw

Pp - Srw (8Pp)
8r r at well bore

qB

-27rrw
8Pp k I h I8PI
- - (k p h p--+
-- )

C 8Pw
d7Jt

8r

I'

8r

(A.43)
O.S936C

Cd

(A.42)

[(ch)p

+ (ch)1 + (ch)m]r~

(A.44)

The dimensionless pressure solution in Laplace space becomes

1
(A.45)

S (CdS + ~)

'r/J =

I<~(cr)

Ngmen_clatyre
PPd, Pld, Pmd

Pi
Pw
t
td
rd
rw
h

ICp, ICI

Wp, WI, Wm

AI, Am

98

=
=
=
=
=
=

ICpa2 + 1 - ICp
(a2 - 1) (Kf(cr2) + S)
ICpal + 1 - ICp
(al - 1) (Kf(crt) + S)
KP(cr2) + S
(a2 - 1) (Kf(cr2) + S)
Kf(crt} + S
(al - 1) (Kf(crt) + S)
Ko(cr)
crKt{cr)

S
Cd
C

(A.47)
(A.4S)

Dimensionless pressure in the

laplace domain for macrofracture,
microfracture and the matrix
systems respectively.
Initial pressure (psi).
Pressure at the production well
(psi).
Time (hr).
Dimensionless time.
Dimensionless radial distance.
Well bore radius (ft).
Thickness (ft).
Ratios of permeability thickness
defined by equations A.14 and
A.15 respectively.
Storativity ratio for the macrofracture, microfracture and
matrix system respectively.
Interporosity flow parameters
for the microfracture and the
matrix system respectively.

Skin factor.
Dimentionless well bore storage.
Well bore storage constant
(bbl/psi).
Laplace variable.
S
Porosity.

Total Reservoir Compressibility

Ct
(psi- l ).
Permeability thickness (md-ft).
kh
q
Flow rate (STB/day).
I' = Viscosity (cp).
Formation volume factor.
B
(RB/STB)
aI, am = Shape factors for the microfracture and the matrix
system respectively.
K o, Kl = Modified Bessel functions of the
second kind oforders zero and
one respectively.
Ratio of the modefied Bessel
I<J
functions.
Argument of Bessel functions.
cr
Defined
by equation 2 in the
X
first model, and by equation
A-21 in the second model.
'r/J, ,,{, Ap, AI, aI, a2, B l , B2, b, cr, crl, cr2, r, D. = Quantities defined by equations in the second model.

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

(A.46)

SPE 26959

=
=

Table-1
No. of Time Cycles to the End of the Transition Period
since the First Data Point
Source
Warren and Root 2
Warren and Root 2
Bourdet3
Streltsova7
Crawford8
Crawford8
Crawford8
Crawford8
Crawford8
Strobel9
Strobel9

Test

B/U
B/U
B/U
DID

B/U
B/U
B/U
B/U
B/U
DID

B/U

#ofcycles
2<n<3
1<n<2
2<n<3
3<n<4
1<n<2
1<n<2
1<n<2
1<n<2
1<n<2
2<n<3
3<n<4

comments
Fig.1
Fig.-D2
double perm
Test A
TestB
Test C
Test D
Test E
Well 2
WellS

Authors
Abdullah AI-Ghamdi is a doctoral candidate research assistant
at the University of Southern California. He holds a B.S. and
an M.S. degree in Petroleum Engineering from USC. He worked
as a production engineer with the Northern Area Production
Engineering of Saudi Aramco. Iraj Ershaghi is Omar B. Milligan Professor of Petroleum Engineering and the director of the
Petroleum Engineering Program at the University of Southern
California. He holds a Ph.D. degree in Petroleum Engineering
from the University of Southern California.
SPE Journal. March 1996

SPE 26959

ABDULLAH AL-GHAMDI AND IRAJ ERSHAGHI

Matrix

e-~
....
....
Fig. 1

'e-t

Double porosity model .

Fig. -4

Fig. 2

Modell.

Dual fracture model .

........

~t

Microfracture

Matrix

-~

e-~
....
....

Macrofracture

Matrix 1

Matrix 2

Macrofracture

Fig.5a Model2a .

Macrofracture

.-+

Microfracture

Matrix

e-~
....
....
....
.... ~~

Fig. 3 a Triple porosity model

Microfracture

Macrofracture

Fig.5b Model2b .

1. ler~ 10'
2
2, Ie, = 10
3, hfc 10)
0 1 L -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1..00

"4

1F1r)

td

IFig. 3b Pressure res'ponse of triple pOrosity mOdel'.'

SPE Journal, March 1996

1~12

o1

-------~---

1[00

1[.02

A'n-.~ 10

"

4. Ar= 10'5
5. Ie.r ~ 10

00,= 1.6 x10

6.

OOm=

A.f~10"

,1

5.1 X10'2

____ ____1... _ _ . _ _ -...l ___. ___ ~l _ _

"1[41[6
1[81[10
_~~

101
1[12

td

Fig.6 The general response of model 1 .

99

SPE 26959

PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF DUALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

10.000

10.00

"01.00
t-'

1.
2.
3.

/-,AtAf-

4.
5.

Af~

A.f~

10'
1 O~
10
10';;
10(

IC

..

J"P1=
{t)F-""
(~r=

0.99

10"
10'
10. 2

CD~

~10

100

1.000

"0
t-'

'U

'U

"0

"0

c..

.-'\

II

0.100

c..
::0

TI 0.10

/f

IC =

0.99

A.f=

10 f

8
Arn= 10.
J

0.010

10
10'

OOF=
(t}f=

0.01

0.001
100

1E4

1E6

1E10

1EB

td

[""i"ig.IO

r------------------,
10
2. I"~ - 1 0'
3. 1,1 : :. . 10'
4. A, - 10;
5. At - 10

1.

100

1E4

At-

1C

AmOlF=
(t1f=

~10

CD~

1.000

1'1
0.100

100

::0
0.010

/~\

0.01

'-....

IC =

0.99

'-t~

10'

A'm= 10"
C~f"'"
(~)r=

10'
10. 2

0.001
100

1E4

1E6

1EB

1E10

100

1E4

td

1E6

1E8

1E10

td

lFig~i I .!he .early trough representing microfTacture response J

[ Fig.R The general response of model 2-b .

l

10.000

10.000
/r-'
=10
Go= 100 (I

s ~ 10
/\
C u - 100/
\

1.000

1,000

',---

"0

"0

1E10

The combined response of the two tractures .

a..

1E8

10000

0.7
10'
10'
10'

"0
~
"0

t:
"0

1E6

td

l!"ig .7 TI1e general response of model 2-a .

10.00

"

"0
t-'

'U

0.100

c..

"0

TI

"-t~

Am""'"
(t)F=

(Of=

10
10 8
3
10
10']

0.001
100

1E4

1E6

1EB

1E10

td

100

1E4

1E6

1EB

1E10

td

dual fractur~ response(modeCZ-a).

~--~----.-----.-.--------

100

0.010

0.001

LFig .9 Typi~al

TI

10
blF= 10'
rot= 10"
A'rn=

0.010

0.100

c..

Af~

-J

Fig .12 Delay of the microfracture response.

SPE Journal. March 1996