Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 229–234

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p e t r o l

A composite system with a planar interface

R. Raghavan
Phillips Petroleum Co., (Ret.) PO Box 52756, Tulsa, OK, 74152, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a Green's function formulation for flow to a well in a composite system with a planar
Received 30 December 2008 interface. It is difficult to obtain solutions to the diffusion equation under such circumstances. Usually,
Accepted 20 November 2009 for this problem, solutions are obtained in terms of the Laplace transformation followed by a Fourier
transformation. But difficulties arise in reducing the solutions to a state that enables efficient numerical
Keywords: calculations. In this work, flow to a well represented by a continuous line-source near a partial hydrologic
composite systems
barrier (a composite system) is solved along the lines proposed by Sommerfeld (1909). His approach to
plane interface
Green's function
working the problem results in a scheme that is highly efficient from a computational perspective, an
sources and sinks essential requirement for processing the inverse problem. Results obtained by the new solution are
pressure behavior compared with those of Bixel et al. (1963).
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction with distinct properties (permeability, k, porosity, ϕ, and rock

The purpose of this work is to present a new model to examine the
influence of a partial hydrologic barrier on a well test (Bixel et al.,
1963; Nind, 1965). The goal is to present a fast and accurate method to
solve for transient flow to a well that is located near the interface
between two semi-infinite media with distinct properties on either
side of the interface. The availability of a method that is both fast and
accurate is a prerequisite for solving the inverse problem. Presently
available solutions of Bixel et al. (1963), based on integral transforms,
are unsuitable for rapid and efficient numerical processing; also, all
solutions given there only apply to the producing well. Other
solutions suggested by Nind (1965) and Yaxley (1987) are approx-
imate as they assume that the diffusivities of the two media are
identical. This is a serious limitation. Solutions have also been
presented using analogs based on wave propagation (Kuchuk and
Tarek, 1997); again, the degree of difficulty in computing the solutions
is considerable and one usually resorts to other means.
The method of Sommerfeld (1909) suggests a simple path to
achieve the goal set out by Bixel et al. (1963) and satisfies the needs
for solving the inverse problem efficiently. It also provides increased
physical understanding of the mathematical aspects of the problem.
This method leads to a formulation that may be inverted readily by the
Stehfest (1970a,b) algorithm.
compressibility, cf) are in perfect contact, and a well located in one
of them is produced at a constant rate, qw. The properties of the fluid
filling the pore spaces are assumed to be constant.
The problem of Bixel et al. (1963) may be formulated as follows:
let x = (x, y, z) denote the spatial coordinates where x and y represent
coordinates in the horizontal plane and z represents the vertical axis.
The x and z axes lie in the plane of the interface separating the two
media, and the interface is given by y = 0. The pressure, p(x, t), is
uniformly distributed at time t = 0, so that the system is at
equilibrium initially. A well of radius, rw, that pumps with a producing
rate, qw, is located in the region y N 0 at (0, y0). As the well completely
penetrates the reservoir, the model assumes two-dimensional (2D)
flow. Well bore storage and skin effects are assumed to be zero. Fig. 1
is a schematic of the system considered here.
We start with the premise that Darcy's law,
kðxÞ
qðx; tÞ = − ∇pðx; tÞ; ð2:1Þ
μ
applies at each point, x, in the flow domain, Ω, at time, t. Here, q(x, t)
is the flux, k(x) permeability of the porous medium, μ is the viscosity
of the fluid, and ∇p is the pressure gradient. The differential equation
governing the pressure distribution satisfies the transient continuity
equation

2. Mathematical model ∂pðx; tÞ

We consider the problem examined by Bixel et al. (1963). Their
model assumes that two semi-infinite media of constant thickness, h,
E-mail address: Raghavan.Raj@gmail.com.
∇⋅½kðxÞ∇pðx; tÞ = ϕðxÞcðxÞμ : ð2:2Þ
∂t
Because the properties are constant on either side of the interface,
we will use kj, ϕj and cj to denote the properties on either side of the
interface with the symbol j = 1 representing the region y N 0 and j = 2
representing the region y b 0. The well is located in region 1. We solve

0920-4105/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2009.11.015
230 R. Raghavan / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 229–234

(1909) procedure then consists of writing the expressions of γj in the

form

1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 

γ1 ðx; yÞ = K
∞ −yq
s = η1 r1 + ∫0 f1 ðαÞe 1 cosðαxÞdα; ð2:10Þ
2πη1 0

and

 ∞ yq
γ2 ðx; yÞ = ∫0 f2 ðαÞe 2 cosðα xÞdα: ð2:11Þ
Fig. 1. Schematic of the system.

Here, K0(x) represents the modified Bessel function of the second

kind of order 0, and r1, as already noted, is the distance between the
Eq. (2.2) subject to the initial and boundary conditions given below. point (x, y) in region 1 and the well (0, y0); that is,
The initial condition is 2 2 2
r1 = x + ðy−y0 Þ : ð2:12Þ
pðx; 0Þ = pi ; x∈Ω: ð2:3Þ
The symbol qj is given by
Assuming flow to a line-source well, the wellbore condition is sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

 s
∂p q Bμ qj = α2 + ; ð2:13Þ
lim r1 1 = w ; ð2:4Þ ηj
rw →0 ∂r1 2πk1 h
with j = 1 or 2, and η is the diffusivity of the medium and is given by
where B is the formation volume factor and r1 is the distance between
any point (x, y) in region 1 and the well location (0, y0). k
At large distances, {x, y} → ∞, we require η= : ð2:14Þ
ϕcμ
pðx→∞; tÞ = pi : ð2:5Þ
Using the integral representation of K0(x) (Erdélyi et al. 1954;
To satisfy the conditions on the interface (y = 0), we require p 17; Gradshteyn and Ryzhik, 1994; p 532; 3.961–2) given by
(continuity of the pressure for all time, t), h i h i cosðxuÞ
2 2 1 ∞ 2 2 1
K0 aðx + y Þ2 = ∫0 exp −yðu + a Þ2 1
du; ð2:15Þ
p1 ðx; y; tÞ = p2 ðx; y; tÞ; y = 0; ð2:6Þ ðu2 +a2 Þ2

and (continuity in flux for all time, t), we may write Eq. (2.10) as
" #
∂p1 ðx; y; tÞ ∂p ðx; y; tÞ  1 e−q1 j y−y0 j
T1 = T2 2 ; y = 0: ð2:7Þ ∞
γ1 ðx; yÞ = ∫0
−q y
+ f1 ðαÞe 1 cosðαxÞdα: ð2:16Þ
∂y ∂y 2πη1 q1

Here the symbol T represents the transmissivity of the medium.

The functions fj(α) may now be determined by substituting the
right-hand sides of Eqs. (2.16) and (2.11) for γ̅j(x,y) in Eqs. (2.6) and
2.1. General solution
(2.7). And if we note that all of the other requirements above are
satisfied by our choices of γ̅j(x,y), we may now write the expressions
We shall work in terms of the Laplace transformation with respect 
for Δpj ðx; yÞ upon simplification. In region 1 (y N 0) we have
to time, t, and solve for the pressure in each region by the method of

sources and sinks. Thus, we denote Δpðx; y; zÞ to be the Laplace  1 qw B h pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
transformation of pi − p(x, y, z; t), where s denotes the Laplace Δp1 ðx; yÞ = K s = η1 r1 −K0 s = η1 r2 ð2:17Þ
s 2πT1 0
transform variable. If the strength of a continuous, point source 
∞ −ðy + y0 Þq1 cosðαxÞ
located at M′ is q̃ (M′;t)/(ϕc), then the pressure at any point M in + 2∫0 e dα ;
 q1 + Tr q2
terms of the Laplace transform, Δpðx; y; zÞ; is (Raghavan and Ozkan,
1994) and in region 2 (y b 0)

 1  ′ ′ ′   1 qw B ∞ ðq2 y−q1 y0 Þ cosðαxÞ

Δpðx; y; zÞ = ∫ q̃ðx ; y ; z Þ γðx−x ′ ; y−y ′ ; z−z ′ ÞdS ′ ; ð2:8Þ Δp2 ðx; yÞ = ∫ e dα; ð2:18Þ
ϕc S̃ s πT1 0 q1 + Tr q2

where dS′ denotes the element of a line or surface through which fluid where
is withdrawn and γ̅(x, y, z) is the Laplace transformation of γ(x, y, z; t),
the fundamental solution. In our case, the source-strength is uniform 2 2
r2 = x + ðy + y0 Þ ;
2
ð2:19Þ
over time and space, thus Eq. (2.8) becomes
and
 1 q̃
Δpðx; y; zÞ = ∫ γðx−x ′ ; y−y ′ ; z−z ′ ÞdS ′ : ð2:9Þ
s ðϕcÞ S̃ T2
Tr = : ð2:20Þ
T1
We shall now construct γ by the Sommerfeld (1909) procedure.
The fundamental solution is also discussed in Shendeleva (2004). If we consider the integrals in Eqs. (2.17) and (2.18), we see that
Mandelis et al. (2001) discuss the Sommerfeld (1909) procedure for the response at any point M is a function of ηr and Tr, where
point-sources. We first note that fluid is extracted by a well bore that
is assumed to be a line-source (2D flow) and is produced at a constant η1
ηr = : ð2:21Þ
rate, qw. As explained in Bellman et al. (1949), the Sommerfeld η2
 R. Raghavan / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 229–234 231

The dominant role played by ηr may be understood if we note that expect this result to hold in situations where η1 ≠ η2, but no proof is
the integrals may be simplified considerably if ηr = 1 (see Section 2.2). available in the literature. We prove this assertion by inverting the
Note that if y = 0 was an impermeable or a constant-pressure integral in Eq. (2.17) or in Eq. (2.18) along the lines suggested by
boundary, then r2 would represent the location of the image well. Bellman et al. (1949), and articulated, more recently, in Shendeleva
There is no image source for region 2. The observation regarding (2004). Our procedure involves computing the logarithmic derivative,
image wells provides an opportunity to highlight an interesting tdp/dt. For example, multiplying both sides of Eq. (2.17) by the Laplace
physical explanation of the solution given in Eq. (2.17). The first term transform variable, s, applying the Inversion Theorem for the Laplace
is the Laplace transformation of the Theis (1935) solution. As the transformation and then multiplying the result by time, t, we have
second term represents the contribution of an image well at the point
2 3
r12 r2 
j j
(0, y0) of opposite strength, this term represents the contribution of dp1 qw B 4 −4η t − 2 cosðαxÞ
−1 ∞ −q ðy Þ
dα 5;
+ y
1 −e 4η1 t + 4tL ∫0 e
the ‘barrier’ at (y = 0) had it been maintained at a constant pressure t = e 1 0

dt 4πT1 q1 +Tr q2
pi. The third term represents a correction to the second term and
reflects the properties of region 2 at any point M in region 1. ð2:28Þ

2.2. Some limiting forms where the symbol L− 1 represents the inverse transformation. To
obtain a conclusion similar to that derived from Eq. (2.25), we need to
We now show that the standard results in the literature may be obtain the long-time approximation of tdp/dt. That is, from Eq. (2.28)
extracted from Eq. (2.17) if we assume η1 = η2. If we assume that we have
Tr = 1, the second and third terms of Eq. (2.17) cancel, and on applying
 
the Inversion Theorem for the Laplace transformation, we obtain the
Theis (1935) solution (dropping the subscript 1 where appropriate)
j dpdt j
1
t→∞
=
qw B −1 ∞ −q1 ðy + y0 Þ cosðαxÞ
πT1
L ∫0 e
q1 +Tr q2
dαjs→0 : ð2:29Þ

!
2 We may show that (see Eq. (A.5))
qw Bμ r
pi −pðx; y; tÞ = − Ei − : ð2:22Þ
4πkh 4ηt 
−1 ∞ −ðy + y0 Þq1 cosðαxÞ
L ∫0 e dαjs→0 ð2:30Þ
q1 +Tr q2
If, however, we were to assume that Tr = 0 (sealing boundary), pffiffiffiffiffi
then the second and third terms of Eq. (2.17) may be combined with T ηr 1 1 1
= r ∫0 3 1
du;
the help of Eq. (2.15), and 4t ½u+ Tr2 ηr ð1−uÞ2 ½u+ ηr ð1−uÞ2
" ! !#
2 2
qw Bμ r r where ηr = η1/η2. Performing the integration, we have
pi −pðx; y; tÞ = − Ei − 1 + Ei − 2 : ð2:23Þ
4πkh 4ηt 4ηt 

−1 ∞ −ðy + y0 Þq1 cosðαxÞ 1 2
L ∫0 e dαj s→0 = ; ð2:31Þ
q1 + Tr q2 4t 1+ Tr
On the other hand, if Tr → ∞, then (pressure is constant at the
interface; p(0, 0; t) = pi)
that is,
" ! !#
r 21 r 22

jt dpdt j
qw Bμ qw B 2
pi −pðx; y; tÞ = − Ei − −Ei − : ð2:24Þ 1
= : ð2:32Þ
4πkh 4ηt 4ηt t→∞ 4πT1 1+ Tr

For the general case, we may write Thus, we may conclude that the slope of a plot of p1(x, y; t) vs. t on
" ! !# semilogarithmic coordinates would result in a straight line with slope,
2 2
qw Bμ r 1−Tr r m, proportional to 2/(T1 + T2) for all combinations of η1 and η2. This
pi −p1 ðx; y; tÞ = − Ei − 1 + Ei − 2 ð2:25Þ
4πk1 h 4ηt 1+ Tr 4ηt result may be derived in a similar manner for region 2.
Although not of direct interest to the present study, it should be
for region 1, and the analog of Eq. (2.25) for the region y b 0 is noted that the expressions for G1 and G2 given in the Appendix A may
! be used to express the pressure distributions in the time-domain. The


qw Bμ 2 r2 convolution integral that results would have to be evaluated
pi −p2 ðx; y; tÞ = − Ei − 1 : ð2:26Þ
4πk1 h 1+Tr 4ηt numerically, and the issues involved in taking that approach are
discussed in Bixel et al. (1963). The time-domain solutions do not
Eqs. (2.25) and (2.26) are identical to the results given in Bixel serve our purpose of having a scheme that is numerically efficient,
et al. (1963) and Nind (1965). Eqs. (2.23)–(2.25) may be viewed as a particularly if we are to solve complex problems such as horizontal
special case of the well known proposition that the effect of a linear wells and fractured wells. In fact, none of the problems noted in
barrier on transients created by a source, S, in porous media may be Section 4 are readily tractable with a time-domain solution.
handled with the help of an image source, S′, that is symmetrical to
the actual source about the interface. In general, we may write 3. Results

pi −pðx; y; tÞ = Π⊗S + Π⊗S ′ ;
where Π is the solution for a source placed in an infinite porous
medium having the properties of the region where S is located, and ⊗
is the convolution product that applies both to space and time. Such
examples for a large number of situations with complex well
configurations may be found in Raghavan and Ozkan (1994).
Eqs. (2.25) and (2.26) lead to the result that the slope of a plot of
p(x, y; t) vs. t on semilogarithmic coordinates would result in a
straight line with slope, m, proportional to 2/(T1 + T2). Intuitively, we
ð2:27Þ The principal goal of this section, simply, is to demonstrate that
correct results may be obtained from the new formulation given here
by comparing results with the Bixel et al. (1963) model.
All results given below were obtained by numerically inverting the

integrals in the solutions for Δpj ðx; yÞ with the aid of the Stehfest
(1970a,b) algorithm. The code was verified in the usual fashion by
comparing results with the limiting forms given above. In addition,
derivative responses were compared with the results obtained by
computing the expressions in Shendeleva (2004) after appropriate
modifications at several locations (x, y). We now present a few
232 R. Raghavan / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 229–234
comparisons with the solutions of Bixel et al. (1963). They have
presented a number of charts that describe responses at the producing
well, and assume that L/rw = 400, where L is the distance between the
origin located on the interface (y = 0) and the producing well (0, y0).
Results given below will be presented in adimensional form. Bixel
et al. (1963) define the adimensional time scale, tD, that is directly
proportional to time, t, by the following relation
k1 t
tD = ; ð3:1Þ
ϕ1 c1 μ ℓ2
where ℓ is a reference length which Bixel et al. (1963) take to be L.
They define adimensional pressure, pD(xD, yD; tD) by
4πk1 h
pD ðxD ; yD ; tD Þ = ½p −pðx; y; tÞ:
qw Bμ i
The unbroken lines in Fig. 2 are the solutions obtained by inverting
the right-hand side of Eq. (2.17) at the producing well. Inversion of
the first two terms, as is well known, leads to exponential integrals.
The third term was inverted numerically by the Stehfest (1970a)
algorithm. All solutions are identical at early times as they follow the
response predicted by the Theis (1935) solution:
! 1+Tr
qw Bμ r2
pi −p1 ðx; y; tÞ = − Ei − 1 :
4πk1 h 4η1 t
The slope of the line in Fig. 2 during this period is 2.303. At later
times, the solutions diverge as the influence of the interface becomes
dominant, and ultimately the slopes of the lines follow the trend
predicted in Eq. (2.32). The circles shown in Fig. 2 are the solutions
extracted from Bixel et al. (1963) by reading their charts. Agreement
between the two solutions is quite good. The comparison in Fig. 2
accomplishes the principal goal of this section.
A better physical understanding of the characteristics of the
solutions in Fig. 2 may be obtained if we consider the corresponding
logarithmic derivative, tDdpD/dtD; see Fig. 3. From Eq. (3.3), at early
times we obtain
jtD dp1D =dtD j tD →0 = 1;
Fig. 2. Solutions are for the adimensional pressure at the well for L/rw = 400. The
unbroken lines are the solutions given in Eq. (2.17) and the circles are the solutions
extracted from Bixel et al. (1963). Agreement of our results with the published values is
good. Early-time solutions are in agreement with the Theis (1935) solution because the
influence of the interface is negligibly small. Deviations from the Theis solution are a
function of Tr and ηr. The slope of the curves at early times, m, is 2.303; at later times the
slopes are given by 2m/(1 + Tr) (see 2.32).
ð3:2Þ
Fig. 3. Derivatives of the pressure with respect to the natural logarithm of time at the
well are given in adimensional form. The solutions are the counterpart of the results in
Fig. 2. At early times the derivative values are equal to 1 and if times are long enough
asymptotically approach 2/(1 + Tr).
and if t is large enough, then from Eq. (2.32) we have
2
j tD dp1D =dtD j tD →∞ = : ð3:5Þ
ð3:3Þ
As shown in Fig. 3, the solutions obtained from Eq. (2.17) are in
accord with the predictions given in Eqs. (3.4) and (3.5).
4. Some additional results
The results given in §3 show conclusively that we are able to
reproduce the Bixel et al. (1963) solutions. The charm of the Bellman
et al. (1949) study is its ability to obtain solutions by the Laplace
transformation in terms of very simple functions. The solutions given
in Eqs. (2.17) and (2.18) enable us to obtain a suite of solutions that
are essential for practical implementation. For completeness we
merely highlight some expansions of the results that may be readily
derived. Specifically, we consider methods to handle variable-rate
problems as well as reservoirs containing natural fractures.
ð3:4Þ Variable-rate problems may be conveniently handled by Duha-
mel's formula. If pD(xD, yD; tD) is the dimensionless pressure at a point
(xD, yD) at time tD for the variable-rate problem, and if we denote the
solution given in either Eq. (2.17) or Eq. (2.18) by pDu, then Duhamel's
formula yields
pD ðxD ; yD Þ = s
 qsf 
pDu ðxD ; yD Þ; ð4:1Þ
where qsf(t) is the variable rate at the well (sandface rate) expressed
as a fraction of the reference rate, and q ̅sf is Laplace transformation
of qsf((tD). The symbol, s, is now the Laplace variable with respect to
tD given in Eq. (3.1).
The adimensional distances, xD, and, yD, are defined, respectively,
by
x y
xD = ; yD = : ð4:2Þ
ℓ ℓ
Well storage and skin effects at the producing well may be
obtained by combining the expression in Eq. (4.1) with the well bore
condition given by (see Raghavan and Ozkan; 1994),
dpwD
qsf + CD = 1: ð4:3Þ
dtD
 R. Raghavan / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 229–234 233

Here, the well bore storage constant, CD, is defined by noted. A gratifying feature of Sommerfeld's (1909) procedure is
that pressure distributions for systems with sealing or constant-
C pressure boundaries may be solved without resorting to the method
CD = : ð4:4Þ
4πϕhcℓ2 of images.

Combining Eq. (4.3) after taking the Laplace transformation with Nomenclature
Eq. (4.1), we obtain the well known result B formation volume factor [L3/L3]
C unit storage factor [L4T2/M]
 s
pwDu +S
pwD = ; ð4:5Þ c total compressibility [L T2]
s + CD s2 ðs
pwDu + SÞ −Ei(−x) Exponential Integral
h thickness [L]
where S is the skin factor. Well storage at an observation well
k permeability [L*L]
(Tongpenyai and Raghavan, 1981) may also be handled in a similar
ℓ reference length [L]
way.
L distance between the interface and the well [L]
The producing rate for the constant-terminal-pressure solution
p pressure [M/L/T2]
may also be obtained by Duhamel's formula. In this case, Eq. (4.1) may
p′ logarithmic derivative [M/L/T2]
be expressed as follows (see van Everdingen and Hurst (1949))
qw rate; constant [L*L*L/T]
 1 qsf(t) variable rate; fraction of reference rate
pwDu 
qD = 2 ; ð4:6Þ rw radius of well bore [L]
s
r distance from well; radius [L]
where q ̅D is the Laplace transformation of qD(tD), the variable S skin factor
producing rate in adimensional form, given by s Laplace transform variable [1/T]
t time [T]
qðtÞBμ tD adimensional time
qD ðtD Þ = : ð4:7Þ
4πk1 hðpi −pw Þ T transmissivity [*L]
x(x,y,z) coordinates [L4T/M]
The symbol pw in Eq. (4.7) is the pressure at the well which in this η diffusivity [L*L/T]
case is constant. The solution for the pressure at any point in the flow μ viscosity [M/L/T]
domain corresponding to this situation may now be obtained from the λ Warren–Root parameter
following relation ω Warren–Root parameter
 ϕ porosity [L3/L3]
qD 
pD ðxD ; yD Þ = s pDu ðxD ; yD Þ; ð4:8Þ

where pD(xD, yD; tD) = [pi − p(x, y; t)]/(pi − pw), p D̅ u(xD,yD) is the
result derived in this work (see Eqs. (2.17) and (2.18)), and q D ̅ is Subscripts
given by Eq. (4.6). Solutions for the Warren and Root (1963) model D adimensional
may be derived by a simple change in nomenclature as noted in many w well bore
places; see, for example, Raghavan and Ozkan (1994). If we were to 1 region where well is located
simply replace s in the kernels of the Bessel functions and the 2 region on the other side of barrier
integrals of Eq. (2.17) and Eq. (2.18) by sf(s), where

sωð1−ωÞ + λ Appendix A. Laplace transformation of the Integrals

f ðsÞ = ; ð4:9Þ
sð1−ωÞ + λ cosðα xÞ ðq2 y−q1 y0 Þ cosðαxÞ dα
∫∞0 e−q1 ðy + y0 Þ dα and ∫∞
0e
q1 +Tr q2 q1 +Tr q2
then we obtain the solutions we need to account for the Warren–Root
formulation. In Eq. (4.9), ω and λ are the Warren and Root parameters. The results given here are presented principally for completeness
Similar expressions may be obtained for other formulations. and convenience. They are discussed in detail in Shendeleva (2004).
Let I1 represent the integral in Eq. (2.17); that is
5. Concluding remarks
∞ −q1 ðy + y0 Þ cosðαxÞ
I1 = ∫ 0 e dα: ðA:1Þ
The Green's function formulation given here helps us to under- q1 +Tr q2
stand the principal consequences of the existence of a partial
hydrologic barrier on flow dynamics. By mathematical analysis and
Bellman et al. (1949) show that by writing
also by computations we have shown that the results obtained by the
new solutions given here are identical to those given in Bixel et al.
(1963). The new solutions given here may be processed rapidly at all 1 ∞ −uðq1 + Tr q2 Þ
= ∫0 e du; ðA:2Þ
locations of interest. As noted earlier, the availability of a fast and q1 + Tr q2
accurate method for solving the direct problem is essential for solving
the inverse problem in order to obtain the properties of the two we may write
media. The discussion given here also results in an increased physical
understanding in both mathematical and computational terms by ∞
considering the logarithmic derivative. As solutions are given in terms I1 = ∫0 I˜1 cosðαxÞdα; ðA:3Þ
of the Laplace transformation, useful extensions to situations not
considered by Bixel et al. (1963) but which are essential for practical where
implementation, may be readily achieved as outlined in §4. Known
results for transients may be extracted from the solution given here. ∞ −ðu + y + y0 Þq1 −uTr q2
Asymptotic results that extend results given in the literature are I˜1 = ∫0 e e du: ðA:4Þ
234 R. Raghavan / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 229–234

Shendeleva (2004) shows that L− 1(Ĩ1) may be obtained. She where

subsequently obtains the following result for L− 1(I1)
1 −Tr2 ηr ðy = Tr + y0 Þ2 = ½4η1 tfu + Tr2 ηr ð1−uÞg
G2 = e
pffiffiffiffiffi ½u + Tr2 ηr ð1−uÞ2
3

−1 Tr ηr 1 −x2 = f4η1 tð1−u + u = ηr Þg G1

L ðI1 Þ = ∫0 e pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi du; ðA:5Þ 2 3
4t 1−u+u = ηr
6 −Tr ηr ð1−uÞy + uy0 7
ffiqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi5
× erfc4 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where 2 η1 tuð1−uÞ u + Tr2 ηr ð1−uÞ
" # ðA:11Þ
2 2
Tr ηr ðy=Tr + y0 Þ
1 −Tr2 ηr ðy + y0 Þ2 = ½4η1 tfu + Tr2 η r ð1−uÞg × 1−
G1 = 3
e ðA:6Þ 2η1 tfu + Tr2 ηr ð1−uÞg
½u + Tr2 ηr ð1−uÞ2
2 3 f−uy = Tr + Tr2 ηr ð1−uÞy0 g
pffiffiffi + pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
6 u ðy+y Þ 7 πη1 tuð1−uÞfu + Tr2 ηr ð1−uÞg2
0
× erfc4 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 5
−fηr ð1−uÞy2 + uy20 g = f4η1 tuð1−uÞg
2 η1 tð1−uÞ u + Tr2 ηr ð1−uÞ ×e :
" #
Tr2 ηr ðy + y0 Þ2
× 1−
2η1 tfu + Tr2 ηr ð1−uÞg References
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Bellman, R., Marshak, R.E., Wing, G.M., 1949. Laplace transform solution of two-medium
Tr2 ηr 1−uðy + y0 Þ
+ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi neutron ageing problem. Philos. Mag. 40 (7), 297–308.
πη1 tufu + Tr2 ηr ð1−uÞg2 Bixel, H.C., Larkin, B.K., Van Poollen, H.K., 1963. Effect of linear discontinuities on pressure
build-up and drawdown behavior. J. Pet. Technol. 15 (8), 885–895. doi:10.2118/611-PA.
−ðy + y0 Þ2 = f4η1 tð1−uÞg
×e : Erdélyi, A., Magnus, W., Oberhettinger, F., Tricomi, F.G., 1954. Tables of Integral
Transforms. Based, in Part, on Notes Left by Harry Bateman and Compiled by the
Staff of the Bateman Manuscript Project, vol. 1. McGraw-Hill. 391 pp.
The expression for G1 in Shendeleva (2004) contains a minor Gradshteyn, I.S., Ryzhik, I.M., 1994. Table of Integrals, Series and Products5th edition.
Academic Press, Inc, Orlando. 1204 pp.
misprint. Kuchuk, F.J., Tarek, H., 1997. Pressure behavior of laterally composite reservoirs. SPE
Now consider the integral in Eq. (2.18). Let Form. Eval. 12 (1), 47–56 doi: 0.2118/24678-PA.
Mandelis, A., Nicolaides, L., Chen, Y., 2001. Structure and the reflectionless/refraction-
less nature of parabolic diffusion-wave fields. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2). doi:10.1103/
∞ ðq2 y−q1 y0 Þ cosðαxÞ PhysRevLett.87.020801. 020801-1-020801-4.
I2 = ∫ 0 e dα: ðA:7Þ
q1 + Tr q2 Nind, T.E.W., 1965. Influences of absolute and partial hydrologic barriers on pump test
results. Can. J. Earth Sci. 2 (4), 309–323. doi:10.1139/e65-025.
Raghavan, R., Ozkan, E., 1994. A method for computing unsteady flows in porous media.
Pitman Research Notes in mathematics Series (318). Longman Scientific &
We will essentially follow the procedure given above. Using Technical, Harlow, UK.
Eq. (A.2) we have Shendeleva, M.L., 2004. Instantaneous line heat source near a plane interface. J. Appl.
Phys. 95 (5), 2839–2845.
Sommerfeld, A., 1909. Über die Ausbreitung der Wellen in der drahtlosen Telegraphie.
∞
I2 = ∫0 I˜2 cosðαxÞdα; ðA:8Þ Ann. Phys. 28, 665–736.
Stehfest, H., 1970a. Algorithm 368: numerical inversion of Laplace transforms [D5].
Commun. ACM 13 (1), 47–49.
Stehfest, H., 1970b. Remark on algorithm 368: numerical inversion of Laplace
where
transforms. Commun. ACM 13 (10), 624.
Theis, C.V., 1935. The relationship between the lowering of the piezometric surface
∞ −q ðu + y0 Þ −q2 Tr ðu−y = Tr Þ and the rate and duration of discharge using ground-water storage. Trans., AGU,
I˜2 = ∫0 e 1 e du: ðA:9Þ pp. 519–524.
Tongpenyai, Y., Raghavan, R., 1981. The effect of storage and skin on interference test
data. J. Pet. Technol. 33 (1), 151–160.
The Shendeleva (2004) result for L− 1(I2), is given by van Everdingen, A.F., Hurst, W., 1949. The application of the LaPlace transformation to
flow problems in reservoirs. Trans. AIME 186, 305–324.
Warren, J.E., Root, P.J., 1963. The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs. Soc. Pet.
pffiffiffiffiffi
−1 Tr ηr 1 −x2 = f4η1 tð1−u + u = ηr Þg G2 Eng. J. 3 (3), 245–255.
L ðI2 Þ = ∫0 e pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi du; ðA:10Þ Yaxley, L.M., 1987. Effect of a partially communicating fault on transient pressure
4t 1−u+u = ηr behavior. SPE Form. Eval. 2 (4), 590–598. doi:10.2118/14311-PA.