W ll Testing

Well T ti
Section 5

1
 PTA Refresher

• Introduction
• Radial flow theory
• Flow Period Identification
• Superposition & Equivalent Time
• Skin
• Wellbore storage
• Gas Well Testing

2
 Well Testing - Focus
Field Performance

Facilities Performance

Well Performance

Tubing performance

Efficiency of well / reservoir connection

WELL
Reservoir flow properties
TESTING
Reservoir size and shape

Fluid properties (sampling)

3
 How the results are used
• Reservoir properties • Understand reservoir flow behaviour
• pressure • Forecast well deliverability
• permeability • Forecast field production
• limits • Optimise FDP
• Fluid properties

• Completion efficiency (skin) • Identify stimulation needs

• Frac jobs
• Acidisation
• Additional or re-perforation

• Tubing performance • Maximise well productivity

• Optimum tubing design
• Artificial lift requirements

4
 Data Gathering
Tubing Head Pressure
Flowrate Record
(THP) BHP and flowrate
as function of time

Quality checks
FTHP stable or gently
declining
Bottom Hole Pressure Flow stable (BSW, GOR, etc.
constant)
Flowrate as constant as
WELL possible
TESTING

5
 Interpretation

BHP
The bottom-hole pressure record...

... usually from the build-up...

Time

Average
Pressure

pressure
Boundary
Skin
effects ... is manipulated to calculate
a number of reservoir and
Slope → permeability wellbore properties.

log Producing time + Shut-in time

Shut-in time
6
 Types of Well Tests and
Possible Results
Producer Injector Observation
Wells Wells Wells

Injectivity Interference
Drawdown
qi > 0 Pulse
qp > 0

Falloff Vertical Permeability

Buildup
qp = 0 qi = 0
Impulse

Permeability, Porosity, Skin, Average

Pressure, Fracture Length,
Heterogeneities, Drainage Area and
Shape, Open-Flow Potential
7
 Flare
Optimum Value
Testing
Closed System

Malampaya 1991

Produce Liquids to Tanker

Great White 2003

Malampaya 2001
8
 What is an OVT?
• Optimize Triple Bottom Line
– People - Safer
– Planet - More environmentally safer
– Profits - Cheaper

• Any pressure transient test where no hydrocarbons

are produced directly to surface
– Dual Packer MDT
– Closed System Test with cleanup and repeat
– Injection Testing

9
Radial Flow Theory

10
 The Radial Flow Model
Single phase
Homogeneous & isotropic reservoir Small & constant compressibility
Constant viscosity

Radial flow Horizontal Flow

11
 Mass Conservation
∂r
r

h qρ r + ∂r
rw
re

MASS FLOW RATE MASS FLOW RATE RATE OF MASS

IN - OUT = CHANGE
∂ρ
q ρ r + ∂r - qρ r = 2πrhφdr
∂t

∂ (qρ ) ∂ρ
qρ r + dr - q ρ r = 2πrh φdr
∂r ∂t
∂ (qρ ) ∂ρ
= 2πrhφ
∂r ∂t
12
 Continuity Equation
2πrkh ∂p
Darcy’s Law q=
µ ∂r

∂ (qρ ) ∂ρ
= 2πrhφ
∂r ∂t

∂  2πrkh ∂p  ∂ρ
 ρ  = 2πrh φ
∂r  µ ∂r  ∂t

1 ∂  k ρ ∂p  ∂ρ
 r =φ
r ∂ r  µ ∂r  ∂t

13
 Diffusivity Equation
Oil Equations of State
1 ∂V 1 ∂ρ ∂ρ ∂p
c=− = = cρ
V ∂p ρ ∂p ∂t ∂t

Continuity Equation

1 ∂  kρ ∂ p  ∂ρ 1 ∂  kρ ∂ p  ∂p
 r  =φ  r  = φcρ
r ∂r  µ ∂r  ∂t non-linear
r ∂r  µ ∂ r  ∂t

Linearisation Assumptions

µ, c constant w.r.t. pressure 1 ∂  ∂p  φµ c ∂p

r  = linear
r ∂r  ∂ r  k ∂t
 ∂p 
2

  negligible
 ∂r 
14
 Hydraulic Diffusivity Equation

Mass
ρ = f {p , T }
In - Out = Gain

Continuity Equation Darcy Equation Equation of State

∂ 2 p 1 ∂p φµ c t ∂p
2
+ . = .
∂r r ∂ r k ∂t
pressure : radius : time

k effective permeability
φ porosity
µ viscosity
ct total compressibility = coSo + cgSg + cwSw + cf

15
What are the assumptions we
require to get starting point of
well test analysis?
• Single phase flow
• Darcy’s law
– Constant K
– Constant viscosity
• Relationship between density and Pressure
– Constant C
 ∂p 
• Negligible
2

 
 ∂r 

16
 Dimensionless Variables
Transient qBµ φµ ct r 2 
Line Source pi − p = ei   S.I. units
4πkh  4 kt 
Solution

2πkh 1 1 φµ ct rw2 r2

Re-arrange ( pi − p ) = ei  
qBµ 2 4 kt rw2 

Dimensionless 2πkh kt r
pD = ( pi − p ) tD = rD =
Variables qBµ φµct rw2 rw

1  rD2  1   4t D  
Substitute p D = .ei  ≈ ln  2  
2  4t D  2   γrD  

17
 Transient Solution at the Well
S.I. units pi − p = qBµ φµ ct r 2 
ei  
4πkh  4kt 

At the well: qBµ  φµ ct rw2  

r = rw pi − pwf =   +
4πkh   4 kt  
ei 2 s
skin applies 

ei (x) ≅ ln 1 
 γ x
Use the log qBµ   4 kt  
approximation
pi − pwf =  ln   + 2 s 
4πkh  γ φµ ct rw2  
(rw small)
162.6qBµ   k  
Field units pi − pwf = kh
log10 t + log10  2
 φµ ct rw 
− 3.23 + 0.869 s 
 

1 4t D
In dimensionless units: PD (t D ) = ln( )
2 γ
18
Flow period Identification

19
 Examples of Flow Models

LINEAR

RADIAL

SPHERICAL

20
 Reservoir System Model
Well Reservoir Boundary
Model Model Model

Pressure and Flow

In or Near Wellbore Reservoir Beyond Wellbore at Outer Edge of
Well Drainage Area

Wellbore Storage Homogeneous Infinite

Heterogeneous
Skin - Double Porosity Finite
-PSS -No Flow
Induced Fractures -Slab -Constant Pressure
-Sphere
Horizontal well -Two Layer Leaky Fault
-Radial Composite
Limited Entry -Linear Composite

21
 Derivative Plot
Single No Flow Linear Boundary

22
 Derivative Plot
Multiple No Flow Boundaries

23
 Derivative Plot
Multiple NF Boundaries, Vary Angle

30 deg

60 deg
90 deg

180 deg

24
 Derivative Plot
Parallel No Flow Boundaries

L1=75 & L3=725

L1=200 & L3=600

25
 Derivative Plot
U-shape No Flow Boundaries

26
 Derivative Plot
Closed No Flow Boundaries

27
 Derivative Plot:
Flow Period Fingerprints (1)
PD

Log dp or log (t dp/dt)

Drawdown
45° slope

Closed
Boundary:
Wellbore Storage Transient SSS Flow
Flow
Hump: positive skin)
Build-up
Log dt tD /CD
Log dp or log (t dp/dt)

PD

Linear boundary
1.0 (sealing fault)
0.5

Log dt tD /CD 28
 Derivative Plot:
Flow Period Fingerprints (1)
PD

Log dp or log (t dp/dt)

Drawdown
45° slope

Closed
Boundary:
Wellbore Storage Transient SSS Flow
Flow
Hump: positive skin)
Build-up
Log dt tD /CD
Log dp or log (t dp/dt)

PD

Linear boundary
1.0 (sealing fault)
0.5

Log dt tD /CD 29
 Derivative Plot:
Flow Period Fingerprints (2)
PD Constant

Log dp or log (t dp/dt)

Pressure
Boundary

Build-up

Wellbore Storage
Drawdown:
≅ - 45° slope
Log dt tD /CD
Log dp or log (t dp/dt)

PD

Dual Porosity
System
(a minimum
on the
derivative)

Log dt tD /CD 30
 Derivative Plot:
Flow Period Fingerprints (3)
PD

Log dp or log (t dp/dt)

Composite Radial Model

Note:
Increase in
Derivative value :
Poorer reservoir /
more limited
reservoir
Transient Transient
Wellbore Storage Flow 1 Flow 2

Log dt tD /CD

31
 Flow Into and Within
Hydraulic Fracture

bilinear flow wellbore

fracture linear flow

32
 Derivative Plot:
Flow Period Fingerprints (4)
PD

Log dp or log (t dp/dt)

Finite Conductivity Fracture

PD Separation between Pressure

and Derivative data is a factor of 4
Measured data

Derivative Data
both: 1/4 slope

Log dt tD /CD
Log dp or log (t dp/dt)

PD Infinite Conductivity Fracture

PD Separation between Pressure

and Derivative data is a factor of 2
Measured data

Derivative Data
both: 1/2 slope

Log dt tD /CD 33
 Derivative Plot:
Flow Period Fingerprints (5)

Finite Conductivity Fracture

Infinite Conductivity Fracture

34
 Derivative Plot:
Flow Period Fingerprints (6)

Horizontal Close to Top or Bottom

Horizontal Mid-way

High Angle Slant

35
 Flow Period Identification
based on Type Curve Derivative:
tD tD dPD
log ( )... vs ...log ( )
CD CD d( tD )
CD
1) Well Bore Storage : tD
PD =
=> Derivative slope = 1 CD

1 tD
2) Transient Radial Flow : PD ≈ ln( )
=> Derivative slope = 0 2 CD
tD
3) Linear Flow : PD ≈
=> Derivative slope = 0.5 CD

tD
4) Limits and Boundaries : PD ≈
=> Derivative slope = 1 CD
36
 Log Time Derivative Slopes
A Simultaneous presentation of
data by:
B log ∆p vs. log ∆t and
C
log (∆t x dp/d(∆t)) vs. log ∆t
D or

E log(dp/d(ln(∆t)) vs. log ∆t

• A 1 Full WBS or Semi Steady State Flow (Boundary)

• B 0.5 Linear Flow (e.g. MHF, Channel sand, Hz well)

• C 0.25 Bi-Linear Flow (MHF with Finite Conductivity)

• D 0 Transient Radial Flow

• E -0.5 Spherical Flow (Partial Penetration) 37

 Flow period Identification
Flow Period Characteristic Derivative
Transient radial DD Semilog straight flat

Transient radial BU Horner straight flat

Well bore storage Unit slope loglog Unit slope + hump

Fin cond fracture ¼ slope loglog ¼ slope

Inf cond fracture ½ slope loglog ½ slope

Double porosity S-shape transition minimum

between semilog
straight lines
Closed boundary P linear vs time Steep raising straight
line
Impermeable Doubling slope Second flat region
boundary semilog
Constant pressure Flat line on all p/t Continuous decrease
boundary plots

38
Superposition

39
 Superposition

In Space In Time

Well 1 Well 2
∆q2

∆q1
r1 r2
tD1
tD 2
p D (t D ) = pD (t D , rD ) + p D (t D , rD
1 1 2 2
)
p D (t D ) = p D (t D1 ) + p D (t D 2 )
Fault

Real Image
well Convert to real
well ∆q1 ∆q2
pressure using

40
 Superposition
qres
qB qB

0
= +
-qB
t

∆p

0
= +
tp tp+∆t t tp tp+∆t tp tp+∆t
41
 Superposed Build-up Pressure
µ   4k  
Transient, S.I. units pi − pwf = qB  ln( t ) + ln  2
+ 2 s 
4πkh  γ φµ ct rw  

µ   4k  
Positive rate component pi − pwf = qB  ln( t + ∆ t ) + ln  2
+ 2 s 
4πkh  γ φµ
p
 ct w 
r 

µ   4k  
Negative rate component p wf − p ws = − qB ln(∆t ) + ln 
4πkh 
 + 2 s 
 γ φµ ct rw 
2


qBµ  t p + ∆t 
Add pi − pws = ln  
4πkh  ∆t 

 t + ∆t 
Plot pws vs. ln  p  (Shut-in pressure vs. Horner time)
 ∆ t 
42
 Pressure Build-up Analysis

p* Late deviation caused

by boundary effects
(end of transient)
p
Straight line = “transient” flow
pws Slope = -m

p1hr

Early deviation caused

by wellbore effects
0  t p + ∆t 
Late time data log   Early time data
 ∆ t 
43
 Pressure Build-up Analysis

0.1832 qBµ
k=
h.m
S.I. Units m in Pa / (log10 cycle)
 p1hr − pwf  k  
s = 1.151 − log10  2
− 3.91
 m φµ ct w 
r 

162.6 qBµ
k=
h.m
Field Units m in psi / (log10 cycle)
 p1hr − pwf  k  
s = 1.151 − log 10  2
+ 3.23
 m φµ ct w 
r 

44
Agarwal Equivalent Time

45
 Agarwal Equivalent Time
1) Rate Sequence

2) Pressure Profile tp Time (t)

∆t
Pi
∆te
P ∆Pobserved
∆P ∆Ptrue
Pwf

tp Time (t) 46
 Agarwal Equivalent Time

•When ?

• Only when Build-Ups are analysed with type curves

• Why?
• Type curves are developed for Drawdowns only!
• Need to be adjusted for Build-Ups

47
 Agarwal Equivalent Time

2π kh
Drawdown : ( Pi − Pwf ) = PD (t D )
qµ
2π kh
Build − Up : ( Pi − Pws ) = PD (t D + ∆ t D ) − PD ( ∆ t D )
qµ
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
2π kh
Subtract : ( Pws − Pwf ) = PD (t D ) + PD ( ∆ t D ) − PD (t D + ∆ t D )
qµ
Note : tD = Dimensionless producing time
1 4t
For transient flow : PD (t D ) = ln( D )
2 γ

2π kh 1 4 t p ∆t D 1 4 t ∆t
This gives : ( Pws − Pwf ) = ln( ) = ln ( p )D
qµ 2 γ t p + ∆t D 2 γ t p + ∆t

tp∆t
Agarwal Equivalent Time :
tp + ∆t
48
 Agarwal Equivalent Time
t p ∆t
Agarwal Equivalent Time, te =
t p + ∆t

• If ∆t >>> tp te≅ tp So tequivalent time scale very much

compressed to no more than tp

•Agarwal equivalent time assumes that transient

radial flow is reached during the test

•If during the preceding flow period SSS flow was

reached, then the BU plotted vs. ∆t will plot on the
ideal Line Source Solution (No need for tAgarwal )

49
Build-Up and Drawdown Data
Plotted on Type Curve
10000
BU after 1000 hrs
drawdown

1000
Correct
Solution

BU after 100 hrs

drawdown
100
BU after 10 hrs
drawdown

10

1 10 100 1000
∆t, hrs 50
 Plotting Data on Type Curve
Learning Points
• Type curves were originally developed for Drawdown data

• If BU data are used: Use the Agarwal effective time ( = tequivalent)

• tAgarwal significantly compresses the BU time scale: tequivalent< tproducing

•Make sure to have sufficient pre-test history :

- tproducing (pretest history) = 10 x tshut-in

• Drawndown data plotted vs. tflowing or vs. tequivalent does not make a
difference

• If SSS flow was reached in the preceding flow period, tequivalent does
not make a difference in plotting the BU data

51
Skin

52
 Damage Skin

Undamaged Damaged

Pressure drop due

to damage skin

53
 Skin
Skin is any near wellbore phenomenon
that causes an additional pressure drop
(extra to that expected from Darcy inflow)

qB µ ln r
Steady State p − p wf = + ∆p skin
2 π kh rw

qBµ
Define skin factor, s ∆p skin = s
2 πkh

p − p wf =
qBµ  r 
ln + s 
2 πkh  rw 

54
 Solutions Incorporating Skin

S.I. Units

qBµ  r 
Steady State p − p wf = ln + s 
2πkh  rw 

qBµ  r r2 
Semi-Steady State p − p wf = ln − + s 
2πkh  rw 2 re2 

qBµ  φµ ct rw2  

Transient pi − p wf =   +
4πkh   4kt  
ei 2 s


55
 Geometric Skin

Fully perforated Partially perforated

Pressure drop due

to geometric skin

56
 Skin Expressed as an
Effective Wellbore Radius

qB µ  r
p − p wf =  ln( ) + S}
2 π kh  r w

qB µ  r rw 
p − p wf = ln( ) + ln( )
2 πkh  rw rw eff 

rw
s = ln( ) rw eff = rw e − s
rw eff

57
 Damage Skin
zone of altered permeability (ka) with radius ra

wellbore with radius rw

ke − ka ra
S= ln( )
ka rw
original (unaffected) permeability: ke
58
 Productivity Index
Flowrate q
Productivity Index (PI) = =
Drawdown pi − p wf

pi

Drawdown
= pi-pwf

pwf

r
w
r

PI Indicates the “quality” of the well

59
 Skin : Flow Efficiency

q q
PIideal = PI actual =
p − pwf − ∆pskin p − p wf

Ideal (no skin) Actual (with skin)

PI
FE =
actual

PI ideal
Pressure drop
due to skin
7.5
FE ≈
7.5 + S
60
 SKIN
Summary
1) Skin is a dimensionless pressure drop
additional to the strict radial flow pressure drop

2) Skin can only be determined if radial inflow

pressure drop can be calculated

3) Always try to decompose skin into its various

components

4) Skin control is an important aspect of well

quality control
61
Wellbore storage

62
 Wellbore Storage

q
q

Wellbore
storage Afterflow

qsf
qsf
Closed in Flowing
High p Low p t
63
 Wellbore Storage Models
• Classic
– Cs = constant [ft3/psi]
» Fluid Expansion (Compression) :
 ft 3 
C s = VC wb  
 psi 

» Changing Liquid Level (Slug Test) :

144 A w ft 3 Aw [ft2] and ρ [lbm/ft3]

Cs = [ ]
ρ cos( α ) psi
• Fair
– Gradually (exponentially decay) changing Cs
» Increasing : rising gas in shut-in oil well (“humping”)
» Decreasing: compression of wellbore fluids

• Hegeman
– Gradually (“Error” function (stronger) decay) changing Cs
64
 Wellbore Storage
Due to Changing Fluid Level
q

q
Fluid Level
qwell

qsf

65
 Contribution to Flow
Decompression &
Sandface
expansion
inflow
of tubing contents
qB = q sf + q well

∂Vw
q well =
∂t
∂ Vw ∂ Vw ∂ p
=− .
∂t ∂p ∂t
∂p
1 ∂ Vw qB = qsf + cVw
c=− ∂t
Vw ∂ p
∂p qsf C ∂p
qB = qsf + C = 1−
∂t qB qB ∂t

C = cVw = wellbore storage coefficient, bbl/psi [Pa/m3]

66
 Constant Wellbore Storage
Using Dimensionless Parameters
Dimensionless variables :
2 π kh k C
pD = ∆p & tD = 2
∆t Define: CD =
qB µ φµ c t rw 2πφc thrw2

q sf C dp q sf dp D
= 1− = 1 − CD
qB qB dt qB dt D

Pure Wellbore Storage : qsf= 0

dp D
q sf = 0 0 = 1 − CD
dt D

dp D tD
CD =1 PD =
dt D CD
67
 “Type Curve” for
Pure Wellbore Storage
tD
pD =
CD

100

10
pD
1

0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
tD
CD

68
 Reducing Wellbore Storage
Use of Downhole Shut-off Tool (DHSOT)

• Saves test time and thus money

– Reduces wellbore volume and thus “C”

– Earlier into Transient flow regime

• Fewer difficult to interpret tests

– No phase segregation in wellbore

– No wellbore temperature effects

69
 Gas Well Testing

• Pseudo-pressure

• Non-Darcy skin

• Multi-rate transient testing

70
 Diffusivity Equation

1 ∂  kρ ∂p  ∂p
Non-linear form  r  = φcρ
r ∂r  µ ∂ r  ∂t

Linear form for oil ∂ 2 p 1 ∂p φµ c ∂p

+ =
Small & constant c ∂r 2 r ∂ r k ∂t

1
Cannot apply to gas c≈
p

71
 Real Gas Pseudo-pressure
p
p p
m( p) = 2 ∫ dp b = base reference pressure

p µz
(usually zero)
b

Differentiate w.r.t. pressure, time, and radius

Substitute in non-linear diffusivity equation

1 ∂  kρ ∂ p  ∂p ∂ 2m ( p ) 1 ∂ m ( p ) φµ c ∂ m ( p )
 r  = φcρ + =
r ∂r  µ ∂r  ∂t ∂r2 r ∂r k ∂t

∂ 2p 1 ∂ p φµ c ∂ p
Compare: 2
+ =
∂r r ∂r k ∂t
72
 m(p) versus p
for gas gravity = 0.85 @ temperature = 200’F
1200
pseudo-pressure in psia^2/cp x 10^6

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
pressure in psi
73
 Gas Well Testing:
m(p) solutions for gas
141.2qBµ  re 3 
Oil (SSS circular inflow) p − pwf =  ln − + s 
kh  rw 4 
p
z r Trpsc
m( p) = 2 ∫ dp
p
Bg =
pb µz
pr Tsc

Gas (SSS circular inflow) m (p ) − m (p ) = 1422 qT  ln r − 3 + s 

e

kh rw 4
wf t
 

µ, zr, and pr incorporated in LHS: m(p)

psc and Tsc incorporated in coefficient (1422)

Coefficient also modified for b → Mscf

d d
74
 m(p) Solution
Oil Gas
SSS 141 .2qBµ  re 3  1422qT  re 3 
p − p wf =  ln − + s  m( p) − m( pwf ) =  ln − + st 
Inflow kh  rw 4  kh  rw 4 
141 .2qBµ
General pi − pwf = { p D ( t D ) + s} m( pi ) − m( pwf ) =
1422qT
{mD (tD ) + st }
kh kh
1 4t 1 4t
Transient p D (t D ) = ln D mD (t D ) = ln D
2 γ 2 γ
1 4t D 1 4t D
p D (t D ) = 2πt DA + ln mD (t D ) = 2πt DA + ln
Late 2 γ 2 γ
Transient 1 1
− p DMBH (t DA ) − mDMBH ( tDA )
2 2
1 4A 1 4A
SSS p D (t D ) = 2πt DA + ln mD (t D ) = 2πt DA + ln
2 γc Arw2 2 γc Arw2

75
 Forchheimer Equation

1.0
1
∆m(p)non−Darcy = 10
kred
100 Mscf/d/ft pay
k
β T γq2
= 3. 161 x10 − 12
µ w rw hp2 0.5

= Fq2
Forchheimer Zone Darcy Zone
0.0
0.1 1.0 10 100
radial distance from well (m)
Assumed to re-adjust instantaneously
upon rate change
76
 Non-Darcy Skin

1422 Tq  1 4A 
m( p ) − m( p wf ) =  ln + stotal 
kh  2 γc Arw2


1422Tq 1 4A 
m( p ) − m( p wf ) =  ln + s m + Dq 
kh  2 γ c r
A w
2


“Darcy” “non-Darcy”

m( p ) − m( p wf ) = Aq + Fq2
or
“B” (used in PAN)

1422 Tq 1 4A  1422TD
 ln + s m
kh  2 γ c r
A w
2
 kh 77
 Multi-Rate Gas Testing
Transient Solution (single rate)
1637Tq  
m( pi ) − m( pwf ) =
kt
log − 3.23 + 0.87stotal 
kh  φ (µct )i rw
2


Transient Superposition (field units)

( )
m( pi ) − m p wf n =
1637 T
kh
LTF + const ⋅ q n + Fq n2

1637T  k 
const = log − 3.23 + 0.87 sm 
kh  φ (µct )i rw
2

LTF = ∑ ∆q j log (t n − t j −1 )
n
Log Time Factor
j =1

1637 T
Plot m(pwfn) vs. LTF slope = kh
78
 Log Time Factor
LTF = ∑ ∆q log (t − t )
n

j n j −1
j =1

q
∆q1 ∆q2

t0 t1 tn
tp t p + ∆t
LTF = q ⋅ log (t n − t0 ) + (− q ) ⋅ log (t n − t1 )
= q ⋅ log (t p + ∆t ) − q ⋅ log (t p + ∆t − t p )
 t p + ∆t 
= q ⋅ log 
 ∆t  79
 Superposed Log Time Plot
Rate Sequence:
1 2 3 4

t0 t1 t2 t3 tn
m(pwf) m (p * ) ≅ m (pi )

INT1

− 1637 T
INT2 kh
INT3

0 LTF 80
 Intercepts - Skin Factors
m(pwf) m (p * ) ≅ m (pi )

INT1

0 LTF

( )
m( pi ) − m p wf n =
1637T
kh
LTF + const ⋅ qn + Fq n2
at intercept,
LFT = 0
m( pi ) − INTn = const ⋅ q n + Fq n2

m( pi ) − INTn 1637T  k 
= const + Fq n const = log − 3.23 + 0.87 sm 
qn kh  φ (µct )i rw2 
1422 TD
F =
kh 81
 Intercept Plot

m( pi ) − INTn
slope = F = 1422 TD
kh
qn

1637 T  k 
 log − 3 . 23 + 0 . 87 s m
kh  φ ( µ c ) r
t i w
2


qn
82
Alternative Approach for Skin

m( pi ) − INTn = const ⋅ q n + Fq n2

1637 T  k 
 log − 3 . 23 + 0 . 87 s total  q n
kh  φ ( µ c ) r
t i w
2


Solve for Stotal at each q

Stotal

slope = D
S0
xxx
S mech
S0 q
Stotal = xxx
Smech + Dq 83