SPE 53935

Interpretation of Multirate Tests by the Pressure Derivative - I. Oil Reservoirs

D. Tiab, and I.N. Ispas, SPE, U. of Oklahoma; A. Mongi, and A. Berkat, Sonatrach PED
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Caracas, Venezuela, 2123 April 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Pressure build-up data in low permeability reservoirs take too
long and are usually of poor quality. It is often not
economically feasible to shut in a well with a high production
rate for a buildup test. Sand producing wells are not good
candidates for long pressure drawdown tests. It is often
impracticable to maintain a constant rate long enough to
complete a drawdown test. In these cases, a multi-rate flow test
should be run instead of buildup or drawdown tests. Actually
a well-designed multi-rate flow test may minimize the
influence of wellbore storage on pressure data.
A new technique based on the pressure derivative concept is
presented for interpreting a multi-rate flow test. It is shown
here that a Cartesian plot of the pressure derivative data versus
a time group is a straight line from which the reservoir
permeability can be estimated. It is also shown that for the case
of two-rate test, Tiabs Direct Synthesis technique is
applicable for calculating permeability and skin

build-up testing is a special type of multi-rate well test. The

advent of high-resolution bottomhole flow meters can aid in
the design of both kinds of tests, variable or constant flow
rates, and as a direct consequence more accurate analysis and
results of their interpretation can be obtained.
The approach presented here is based on the assumption that
the system is infinite-acting and the logarithmic approximation
to the line source solution of the diffusivity equation is
applicable4,3. The pressure behavior caused by a variable flow
rate is given by:

Pi Pwf (t )
qN

N q j q j 1
log t t j 1
= mm
qN
j =1

) + b

.......(1)

A Cartesian plot of

Pi Pwf (t )
qN

vs

) (

N q j q j 1
log t t j 1

qN
j =1

should yield a straight line with slope:

mm =

162.5 B
kh

..... (2)

and intercept

3.2275 + 0.86589 S
c r 2

t w

bm = m m log

A step by step procedure is presented for interpreting a multirate test using pressure and pressure derivative data. This new
technique is illustrated by several numerical examples.

...(3)

Theory

The slope,

1 Multi-Rate Test
1.1 Pressure-Function
A multi-rate test, may be characterized by a series of constant
flow rates, or uncontrolled variable rate. In fact, pressure

m m , is used to calculate the formation

permeability, and the intercept, bm , is used to calculate the

skin factor.

2
D. Tiab, I.N. Ispas, A. Mongi , A. Berkat
[53935]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____

Pi Pwf (t )

1.2 Pressure-Derivative
A derivative of Eq. 1 with respect to time yields

N (q j q j 1 )
d
[
Pi Pwf (t ) ]= [dp ] = mm
)
dt
dt
j =1 (t t
d

j 1

Thus a Cartesian plot of

d
dt

[dp] vs.

. (4)

N q j q j 1

j =1 t t j 1

qN

'

) (

N q j q j 1
log t t j 1

qN
j =1

vs

which has two straight lines. Note that the slope of the second
line is greater than that of the first, possibly indicating the
presence of a fault, a lower permeability or pseudo-steady
state. The slope of the first straight line is m m1 = 0.198
psi/(stb/d cycle), and the intercept

bm =0.575 psi/(stb/d).

is
The formation permeability is computed from Eq. 2. Thus:

a straight line of zero intercept and slope:

mm =

70.6 B
kh

k=

Step 1 Compute the pressure derivative,

N q j q j 1

j =1 t t j 1

0.198(40)

...(5)

d
dt

[dp],

and

Step 2 Plot

d
dt

[dp]

vs.

N q j q j 1

j =1 t t j 1

= 15.6 md.

PressureDerivative Fig. 3, is a Cartesian plot of

The following procedure for using Eq. 4 is recommended:

(162.6)(1.27)(0.6)

N q j q j 1

j =1 t t j 1

Vs

d
dt

[dp]

The best straight-line fit of this graph indicates a slope,

mm = 0.0734. Using Eq. 5, the formation permeability is:
on a

k=

70.6(1.27)(0.6)
0.0734( 40)

= 18.3 md.

Cartesian graph. It should be a straight line of zero intercept.

2. Three- Rate test
Step 3 - Draw the best straight line on the graph.
Step 4 From the graph determine the slope, mm
Step 5 - Determine the formation permeability from Eq. 5.
Example 1The measured pressure and flow rate data as a
function of time, after a multi-rate test, are listed in table 2.
Other known reservoir and well data are:
PI = 2906 psi
B = 1.27 RB/STB
= 0.6 cp
h = 40 ft
Calculate formation permeability

Solution
PressureFunction Fig. 2 shows a Cartesian plot of

2.1 Pressure-Function
The three-rate test is a particular case of the multi-rate test and
can be evaluated as following:

Pi Pwf (t )
qN

= m3 X 3 + b3 .... (6)

where:

X 3 = q 2 log
q3
q2

dt1 + dt 2
q
t + dt1 + dt 2
+
+ 1 log 1
dt 2
q 21
dt1 + dt 2

log dt 2 + b3 ..........(7)

Note that to make the plot correctly one needs to understand

that the rate corresponding to each plotted pressure point is
q N -the last rate that can affect that pressure. This is a very

[53935]

Interpretation of Multi-Rate Tests by the Pressure Derivative-I. Oil-Reservoirs

important observation. Earlougher5 shows a relevant example

in this sense.

Thus, a Cartesian plot of

Pi Pwf (t )
qN

m3 =

kh

vs X 3 is a straight

m3 = 0.198 psi/(stb/d cycle), and the intercept b3 =0.575

psi/(stb/d).
The formation permeability is computed from Eq. 2:

.. (8)

k=

(162.6)(1.27)(0.6)
0.198( 40)

and intercept

k
b3 = m3 log
c t rw 2

The slope,

vs X 3 . From the straight line, the slope is

qN

line of slope:

162.5 B

Pi Pwf (t )

m3 ,

3.2275 + 0.86589S ... (9)

is used to calculate the formation

permeability, and the intercept, b 3 , is used to calculate the

skin.

= 15.5 md.

PressureDerivative Fig. 5, is a Cartesian plot of

vs.

d
dt

[dp]

X 3 . The best straight-line fit of this graph yields a

slope, m3 = 0.0738. Using Eq. 5, with m3 substituted for

mm the formation permeability is:

k=

70.6(1.27)(0.6)

2.2 Pressure- derivative

For this case, a derivative with respect to time of Eq. 6 yields:

0.0738( 40)

= 18.2 md.

3. Two-Rate Test

q
q
t1
d
[dp] = m3 q 2 3 1 1
dt
q 2 dt 2 q 2 [(dt1 + dt 2 )(t1 + dt1 + dt 2 )]

dt1
'
'

= m 3 X 3 ....(10)
dt 2 ( dt1 + dt 2 )

A plot of Plot of

d
dt

[dp] vs.

X 3 on a Cartesian graph is a

straight line of zero intercept with slope:

m3 =

70.6 B
kh

3.1 Pressure-Function
In this case, the pressure behavior caused by a variable rate is
given by:

q
Pwf = m 2 log 1 + 1 + 2 log dt + Pint =
dt q1

m 2 X 2 + Pint ...(11)
where the time corresponding to the first flow rate is

Np
..... (12)
t1 = 24
q1

The slope m3 is used to calculate the formation permeability.

q
Pwf vs log 1 + 1 + 2 log dt is a
dt q1

A plot of
Example 2 The same set of pressure-time data is used, only
this time the first three-flow rates and their corresponding
pressure-time data are considered.
PressureFunction Fig. 4 shows a Cartesian plot of

straight line of slope:

m2 =

162.6q1 B
kh

and intercept,

.... (13)

Pint , where:

4
D. Tiab, I.N. Ispas, A. Mongi , A. Berkat
[53935]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____

3.2275 + 0.86589S
2

c t rw

Pint = Pi + m 2 log

FE = 1

p s
..... (20)

P Pwf (dt = 0)

.(14)
Pinson

showed

that

for

t1 >> dt

then

log t1 + dt log dt and the plotting technique may be

3.2 Pressure- derivative

For this test, the derivative with respect to time of Eq. 11
yields:

simplified by rearranging Eq. 11 as following:

Pwf = m 2 log dt + Pint ..... (15)

A plot of

Pwf vs dt is a straight line of slope

t1
1 q2
= m2

Pwf

= m2 X . (21)
dt q1 t1 + dt
A Cartesian plot of

162.6 q 2 q1 B
... (16)
m2 =
kh

slope:

m2 =

70.6q1 B
kh

and intercept

m2 q 2
k
log
Pint = Pi +
q 2 q1 c r 2
t w

q
0.86589S + 2 log dt ...(17)
q1

where the initial pressure is approximately equal to the false

Pint .

Using Eq. 17:

q2
P (dt = 0) P1hr ... (18)
P = Pint
q1 q 2 wf
The slope,

m' ' 2 , is used to calculate the formation

permeability, Eq. 16, and the intercept is used to calculate the

skin:

Pwf ( dt = 0) P1hr
q1

''
q1 q 2
m
2

s = 1.1513

k
+ 3.23 ...(19)
log
c r 2

t w

The flow efficiency of a well is calculated from:

. (22)

Eq. 22 is used to calculate the permeability of the reservoir .

3.2275 +

pressure, P , which is obtained from the intercept,

Pwf vs. X yields a straight line of

3.3 Tiabs Direct Synthesis

Tiab3 introduced a new technique that uses log-log plots of the
pressure and pressure derivative, which consists of obtaining
characteristic points of intersection of various straight-line
portions of these straight lines.
This technique known as Tiabs Direct Synthesis is also
applicable for the analysis of two, three, and multi-rate tests. A
summary of the basic cases of this technique is discussed here.
However, for a more detailed information the reader should
consult the original paper3. Assuming the infinite-acting line is
observed, the formation permeability and skin can be
calculated from relations:

k=

162.6( q 2 q1 ) B
...(23)
h(t * p)r

(p )r
(t * p)r

s = 0.5

+ 7.43 ....(24)
c r 2

t w

ln

kt r

where p r and (t * p)r are values of p and t * p

corresponding to any time during the infinite acting radial flow
line.
The derivative of pressure in Eq. 15 with respect to time

[53935]

Interpretation of Multi-Rate Tests by the Pressure Derivative-I. Oil-Reservoirs

yields:

PressureDerivative

(tp ' ) =

70.6(q 2 q1) B
kh

.... (25)

Cartesian

plot

of

Pwf vs.

t1
1 q2

, Fig. 7, yields a slope m2 = 155.34 psia,
dt q1 t1 + dt
and from Eq. 22 the reservoir permeability is:

It is obvious from Eq. 25 that ( t * p ) is a constant value as

long as the radial flow regime (corresponding to the infinite
acting behavior) is dominant.
'

Example 3 - This is a well producing from a low permeability

reservoir. In this particular reservoir, pressure build-up data
are of poor quality. For this reason, a two-rate flow test was
run, and the data used for this case are shown in Table 1.

k=

(70.6)(220)(1.24)(0.6)
(155.34)(40)

= 3.62 md.

Direct-Synthesis Fig. 8 shows a log-log plot of

p and

t * p versus t . Note that in this case t1 is significantly

large and consequently the infinite acting line can be clearly
depicted.
'

In addition, the following data are known:

From the log-log plot, the infinite acting line indicates a value
q1 = 220 STB/D
q2 = 143 STB/D

B = 1.24 RB/STB
= 0.76 cp

=9%
ct = 24 x 10-6 psi-1
Pwf ( t = 0 ) = 2925 psia

Np = 50985 STB
h = 26 ft
rw = 3 in

of t * p = 54.65 psia-hrs, and the formation permeability

can be calculated using Eq. 25:
'

k=

70.6 (q 2 q1 )B

h t * p

'

70.6 x (220 143.) x 0.76 x 1.24

26 x 54.65

= 3.58 md
Determine the formation permeability
Solution
PressureFunction Fig. 6 is a Cartesian plot of

Thus the skin corresponding to a value of

Pwf vs. X 2

(see Eq. 11), where the time corresponding to the first flowrate, was calculated from Eq. 12 and is t1 = 5562 hrs. From
this graph the slope is

m 2 = -360 and the intercept is

Pint =4398 psia.

( 162.6)(220)(1.24)(0.76)
(357.16)(26)

The value of

Pwf at t = 1 hr

= 3.63 md

is read directly from the

straight line in Fig. 6, where Pwf = 3075 psia. Thus the skin
factor is estimated from Eq. 19:

2925 3075

220 143 360

s1 = 1.153

220

(3.6)106

= 3.6
+
3
.
23

(0.09)(0.76)(24)(.252 )

log

= 250 psi at

=10 , is calculated from Eq. 24:

250

(3.63)10 6

+ 7.43 =
s1 = 0.5
ln
(0.09)(0.76)(24)(.25 2 )
54.65

-3.83

Eq. 13 gives the formation permeability:

k=

(t )r

(p )r

The value obtained by Tiabs Direct Synthesis technique, is in

good agreement with the one obtained from conventional
analysis. This shows the importance of designing a well test
such that the first flow-rate is long enough, in this case t =
5562 hrs, to obtain a well defined infinite-acting line ( Fig. 8).
All of the above tests can be performed whether the well is
producing in the transient or semisteady-state. In the later case,
the test may also provide information for an estimate of the
average reservoir pressure.
The flow efficiency is calculated from Eq. 20:
At q1 =220 stb/d, p skin is p s1 =-0.87 m 2 s =
(0.87)(360)(-3.6) =- 1127.5

psi

6
D. Tiab, I.N. Ispas, A. Mongi , A. Berkat
[53935]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____

At

q 2 =143 stb/d, p skin is p s 2 =-0.87 m 2

q2
s=
q

143
(-3.6) =- 732.9 psi , and from Eq. 18:
220

(0.87)(360)

P * = 4398

143
220 143

(2925 3075) =4676.6 psi

Thus,

1127.5
= 1.64
FE1 = 1 +
4676.6 2925
FE 2 = 1 +

732.9
4676.6 2925

Subscripts
i = Initial conditions or intersection
j = Rate counter

N = Number of rates up to time t

w = Well
wf = Flowing conditions
x = Maximum point or peak
References:

= 1.42

Conclusions:
1. The pressure derivative is applicable for all three types of
well tests, multi-rate, three-rate, and two-rate.
2. Tiabs Direct Synthesis is applicable for the two-rate test.
3. Pinsons and Tiabs Direct Synthesis methods should be
used only when the time corresponding to the first flowing
period, t1 , is sufficiently large (i.e. t >> t ). This is

4.

t = Test time, hours

t1 = Time during the first flowing period, hrs
k = Reservoir permeability, md

required in order to make possible the identification of the

infinite-acting line behavior.
The conventional and pressure-derivative techniques do
not have such a restriction.

1.
2.

3.

4.
5.
6.

7.

Nomenclature:
Pi = Initial reservoir pressure, psia

Pwf = Flowing bottom-hole pressure, psia

q = Liquid flow-rate, STB/D
B = Formation volumetric factor, RB/STB
Np = cumulative of oil produced corresponding to the first
flow rate, stb

h = Net pay thickness, ft

t DSR = Dimensionless time reflecting time at which storage
effects can be assumed to be negligible or start of
infinite-acting line
= Reservoir total compressibility, psi-1

ct
= Reservoir porosity, fraction
= Reservoir oil viscosity, cp
s = Skin factor
rw = Wellbore radius
dt1 = Time from the first change of rate, hrs
dt 2 =Time from the second change of rate, hrs

8.
9.

'

Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.: Application of the p D Function

to Interference Analysis, JPT (Aug. 1980) 1465-1470.
Tiab, D and Kumar, A.: Detection and Location of Two
Parallel Sealing Faults Around a Well, JPT(Oct. 1980)
1701-1708.
Tiab, D.: Analysis of Pressure and Pressure Derivatives
Without Type-Curve Matching: I-Skin and Wellbore
Storage, SPE 25426 Production Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma (Mar. 1993) 203-216.
Sabet, M.A.: Well Test Analysis (1991) 105-128.
Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis SPE
Monograph (1977) 30-37
Tiab, D.: Analysis of Pressure and Pressure Derivatives
Without Type-Curve Matching: I-Skin and Wellbore
Storage, SPE 25426 Production Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma (Mar. 1993) 203-216.
Pinson, A. E. Jr.: Conveniences in Analyzing Two-Rate
Tests, JPT (Sept. 1972) 1139-1141.
Blasingame, T. A., and Lee, W. J.: Variable-Rate Reservoir
Limits Testing SPE15028(1986) 361-373
Jones, Park: Reservoir Limit Test, Oil and Gas J. (June,
1956) 54, No. 59, 184

[53935]

Interpretation of Multi-Rate Tests by the Pressure Derivative-I. Oil-Reservoirs

Fig. 1 Schematic representation of a variable production-rate (after Earlougher5)

1.4

mm 2 = 0.526 psi /( stb / d cycle )

[Pi-Pwf]/qn, psi/stb/d

1.2
1
0.8

mm1 = 0.198 psi /( stb / d cycle )

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6
N

j =1

0.8

(q j q

qN

j 1

1.2

1.4

log (t t j 1 )

Fig. 2 Pressure-Function for the Multi-Rate Test

1.6

1.8

8
D. Tiab, I.N. Ispas, A. Mongi , A. Berkat
[53935]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____

140
120

mm = 0.0734 psi /( stb / d cycle)

dp', psia

100
80
60
40
20
0
0

500

1000

1
qN

1500

2000

(q q )
(t t )

j =1

j 1

j 1

Fig. 3 Pressure-Derivative for the Multi-Rate Test

0.8
0.7

m 3 = 0 . 0 . 198 psi /( stb / d cycle )

m 3 = 0 . 1 9 8 ps i / ( s tb / d cycle )

0.6
[Pi-Pwf ]/qN, psi/stb/d

b3 = 0.575 psi /( stb / d cycle)

b 3 = 0 . 5 7 5 p si /( stb / d cyc le)

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.2

0.6
(qj 0.4qj 1 )
(
log

t
t

j 1 )
q
j =1
N

3 (q q )
j j 1

log(t t j 1 )

qN
j =1

0.8

Fig. 4 Pressure Function for the Three-Rate Test

[53935]

Interpretation of Multi-Rate Tests by the Pressure Derivative-I. Oil-Reservoirs

140
m3 = 0.0738 psi /( stb / d cycle )

120

dp', psia

100
80
60
40
20
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

q 1

q1t1
dt1

q2 3

q 2 dt 2 q 2 [(dt1 + dt 2 )(t1 + dt1 + dt 2 )] dt 2 (dt1 + dt 2 )

Fig. 5 Pressure-Derivative for the Three-Rate Test

3240
3220
3200

m2 = 360 psi /( stb / d cycle)

Pwf, psia

3180
3160
3140
3120
3100
3080
3060
3040
3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

t1
q
+ 1 + 2 log dt
log
dt
q1

Fig. 6 Pressure-Function for the Two-Rate Test

3.7

3.8

10
D. Tiab, I.N. Ispas, A. Mongi , A. Berkat
[53935]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____

25
m2 = 155 .34 psi /( stb / d cycle )

15
10
5
0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

1
dt

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

q2

t1

t 1 + dt
q1

Fig. 7 Pressure-Derivative for the Two-Rate Test

1 0 0 0 .0 0
dp

t*dp', dp, psia-hrs, psi

Pwf', psia/hrs

20

1 0 0 .0 0
t* dp' = 5 4 .6 ps i -h rs

1 0 .0 0

1 .0 0
1 .0 0

1 0 .0 0
ti m e , t, h rs

Fig. 8 Direct-Synthesis for the Two-Rate Test

1 0 0 .0 0

[53935]

Interpretation of Multi-Rate Tests by the Pressure Derivative-I. Oil-Reservoirs

Table -1 Data for the Two Rate test

t
hrs
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00

Pwf

p '

tp '

psia
psia/hrs psia
psia
3075.00
150.00
3082.00
13.00
19.50
157.00
3088.00
18.00
36.00
163.00
3100.00
22.00
55.00
175.00
3110.00
18.33
55.00
185.00
3125.00
14.00
56.00
200.00
3138.00
11.50
57.50
213.00
3148.00
8.50
51.00
223.00
3155.00
7.00
49.00
230.00
3162.00
7.00
56.00
237.00
3169.00
6.50
58.50
244.00
3175.00
5.73
57.33
250.00
3197.00
3.70
55.50
272.00
3212.00
2.80
56.00
287.00
3225.00
300.00

t + dt q 2
log dt
X = log 1
+
dt
q1

and

X' =

1
dt

X'
3.75
3.68
3.64
3.61
3.58
3.53
3.50
3.47
3.45
3.43
3.41
3.40
3.33
3.29
3.26

0.354366
0.236184
0.177093
0.141638
0.118002
0.088457
0.070729
0.058911
0.05047
0.044139
0.039214
0.035275
0.023457
0.017548
0.014003

q2
t1

q1 t1 + dt

11

12
D. Tiab, I.N. Ispas, A. Mongi , A. Berkat
[53935]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____

Table 2 Data for Three and Multi-Rate Tests

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
8.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
13.00
N

hrs
1.00
1.50
1.89
2.40
3.00
3.45
3.98
4.50
4.80
5.50
6.05
6.55
7.00
7.20
7.50
8.95
9.60
10.00
12.00
14.40
15.00
18.00
19.20
20.00
21.60
24.00
28.80
30.00
33.60
36.00
36.20
48.00

[ P] =
j =1

qN

1
qN

stb/d
1580.00
1580.00
1580.00
1580.00
1490.00
1490.00
1490.00
1490.00
1490.00
1440.00
1440.00
1440.00
1440.00
1440.00
1370.00
1370.00
1370.00
1300.00
1300.00
1260.00
1190.00
1190.00
1190.00
1160.00
1160.00
1137.00
1106.00
1080.00
1080.00
1000.00
983.00
983.00

Pwf

Pi Pwf

j =1

qN

q j q j 1

j =1

t j t j 1

[P]
j =1

psi
psi
psi/stb/d
2023.00
883.00
0.56
1968.00
938.00
0.59
1941.00
965.00
0.61

0.00
0.18
0.28

1892.00
1882.00
1873.00
1867.00

1014.00
1024.00
1033.00
1039.00

0.68
0.69
0.69
0.70

0.52
0.57
0.62
0.67

1853.00
1843.00
1834.00
1830.00

1053.00
1063.00
1072.00
1076.00

0.73
0.74
0.74
0.75

0.79
0.82
0.85
0.87

1827.00 1079.00
1821.00 1085.00

0.79
0.79

0.97
1.01

1815.00 1091.00
1797.00 1109.00

0.84
0.85

1.12
1.15

1775.00 1131.00
1771.00 1135.00

0.95
0.95

1.34
1.36

1772.00 1134.00

0.98

1.42

1756.00 1150.00

1.01

1.49

1751.00 1155.00

1.07

1.61

1756.00 1150.00
1743.00 1163.00

1.17
1.18

1.79
1.80

(q j q j 1 )log(t j t j 1 )
N

Pi Pwf

dp '

t dp '

psi
psi-hr
1580.00 124.12 124.12
1053.33 75.06 112.59
835.98 55.97 105.79
658.33
376.67 30.71
92.14
372.26 25.53
88.08
340.00 21.10
83.99
308.00 17.90
80.54
292.00
186.00 13.65
75.05
196.00 11.99
72.51
191.00 10.75
70.44
183.00
9.82
68.72
178.00
59.00
8.93
66.97
110.00
7.00
62.62
112.00
63.00
6.00
59.98
71.00
4.65
55.81
56.00
59.00
3.40
50.99
37.00
2.63
47.30
40.00
3.00
2.26
45.26
28.00
23.00
1.75
41.90
22.00
0.00
1.27
38.06
18.00
13.00
95.00
0.97
35.06