Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 6(21): 3927-3932, 2013

ISSN: 2040-7459; e-ISSN: 2040-7467

© Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2013
Submitted: December 10, 2012 Accepted: January 21, 2013 Published: November 20, 2013

Heat Transfer in the Formation

Babak Moradi and Mariyamni Bt Awang
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 31750, Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia

Abstract: Heat loss from the wellbore fluid depends on the temperature distribution in the formation; since it is
necessary to know the formation temperature distribution as a function of radial distance and time for computing the
fluid flow temperature in the wellbore. This study solves energy balance equation in the formation by analytical and
numerical solutions. Comparison of analytical and numerical solutions results figured out good agreement between
those solutions, except early times. This study further showed the temperature changes in small area, only near the
wellbore in the formation.

Keywords: Analytical solution, bottomhole temperature, early times, numerical solution, radial temperature
distribution, wellbore

INTRODUCTION

Injection and production wells have been used in

several industries, especially petroleum and geothermal
industries for many decades (Hasan and Kabir, 2002).
An appropriate wellbore completion design requires a
knowledge temperature profile along the depth of the
well, especially during hot fluid flow in the wellbore
(e.g., steam injection) (Paterson et al., 2008).
The formation is the part that surrounds the
wellbore system and acts as a heat source or sinks for
the wellbore. The temperature difference between the
wellbore fluid and the formation causes a transfer of
heat between the fluid and the surrounding earth and
the amount of heat transfer from/to the wellbore fluid
depends on the temperature distribution in the
formation around the well, since it is necessary to know Fig. 1: Schematic representation of the system under study
the formation temperature distribution as a function of
radial distance and time for computing the fluid flow Rate of heat generation inside the element is zero
temperature in the wellbore (Ramey, 1962; Hasan and for shown system in Fig. 1(Farouq Ali, 1981). Rate of
Kabir, 1991, 2002). This study is going to investigate change of the energy content within the element can
heat transfer in the formation as a function of radial expressed as (Kreith and Bown, 2000):
distance and time by using analytical and numerical
solutions to find application criteria for using each Et t  Et  mCe Tt t  Tt   e ACe r Tt t  Tt  (2)
solution.

Heat transfer in the formation: An energy balance where,

equation on shown element in Fig. 1 during a small
time interval, Δt, can expressed as (Kreith and Bown, r (3)
A  2 l ( r  )
2000): 2
Rate of heat transfer at (r) -Rate of heat transfer at
(r+Δr)+Rate of heat generation inside the element = The conduction mechanism plays the main role in
Rate of change of the energy content with in the heat transfer in the formation around the wellbore
element compared to heat transfer by conduction mechanism
Or (Paterson et al., 2008; Hasan and Kabir, 1991; Ramey,
E (1) 1962; Hagoort, 2004). For a symmetrical cylinder, heat
Q Q Q  elem ent
r r  r gen t diffusion in a three-dimensional may be mathematically

Corresponding Author: Babak Moradi, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 31750, Tronoh, Perak,
Malaysia
3927
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(21): 3927-3932, 2013

treated as a two-dimensional, as in the case of the transfer rate is (Hasan and Kabir, 2002; Hagoort, 2004;
petroleum wellbore shown in Fig. 1. In addition, if a Hasan and Kabir,1994):
small increment in the vertical direction of the well is
considered, the problem simplifies to one-dimensional rdTe (12)
Q  2 lke |r rw
heat diffusion because the vertical heat-transfer in the dr
formation can be neglected due to small vertical
temperature gradient (Hasan and Kabir, 1991; Paterson Through literature, several investigators have
et al., 2008). In consideration of Fourier's law (Willhite, presented analytical and numerical solutions for solving
1967): (8) to find the heat transfer rate at the
wellbore/formation interface.
dT (4)
Qr  2 rlke ( ) |r
dr ANALYTICAL SOLUTION

and, The solution of (8) is analogous to that used for

Qr r
dT
 2 ( r  r )lke ( ) |r r (5) pressure diffusion defined by Everdingen Van and
dr Hurst (1949). Using the Laplace transformation, we can
present an equation for the temperature distribution as a
By substituting (2)-(5) in (1) and rearranging it: function of distance and time. The general solution is a
combination of Bessel functions (Ramey, 1962). Some
r researchers have tried to find the correlation that best
2e (r  )lCe r Tt t  Tt 
 dT  dT 2
2 rlke   |r 2 (r  r )lke ( ) |r r  fits the rigorous solution due to complicated application
 dr  dr t
of Bessel functions. The most commonly used
(6)
correlations in literature were developed by Ramey Jr
(1962) and Hasan and Kabir (1991).
By rearranging (6):
Ramey Jr (1962) used a line source solution to
transient heat conduction in 1D cylinder proposed by
Carslaw and Jaeger (1950); which the
 dT 
 
dT r
r  | ( r  r )l ( ) |r  r  ( r  )C T T (7) wellbore/formation interface temperature becomes log-
 dr  r dr

e 2 e t  t t
r k t
e linear with time at large times (Ramey, 1962; Hasan
and Kabir, 1991):
Taking the limit as Δr → 0 and Δt → 0 yields:
 r  (13)
f  t    ln  w   0.290
1  d  dTe   1 dTe (8)  2 t 
 r  
r  dr  dr    dt
And the heat transfer rate at the wellbore/formation
where, interface:

ke (9) 2 ke (Tcemo  Te )
 Q l (14)
 e ce f (t )

Three conditions are needed for the solution (8).
Initial formation temperature is known; in this study it
is assumed that at t = 0, the formation temperature
profile is linear based on the local geothermal gradient.
t  0 :T  Te
It is also assumed that at the outer boundary of the
formation, temperature does not change (Hasan and
Kabir, 2002; Hagoort, 2004; Hasan and Kabir, 1994).
Hasan and Kabir (1991), stated that Ramey Jr
(1962) model outcomes in errors at early times. They
considered the wellbore diameter in their solution and
solved the resulting (8) with the Laplace transform,
following the approach suggested by Everdingen Van
(10) and Hurst (1949) for a similar set of equations used for
pressure transients. They found the following algebraic
expressions for dimensionless temperature, TD, in terms
of dimensionless time, tD, to represent the solutions
quite accurately:

lim T  Te (11) If tD  1.5 :TD  1.1281 tD (1  0.3 tD ) (15)

r 

In addition, Fourier's law of heat conduction is 0.6 (16)

If tD  1.5 :TD   0.4063  0.5ln(t D )(1  )
used at the wellbore/formation interface, since heat tD
3928 
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(21): 3927-3932, 2013

where,

ke t (17)
tD 
eCe rw2

And the heat transfer rate at the wellbore/formation

interface:

2 ke (Tcemo  Te ) (18)
Q l Fig. 2: A schematic of discretized formation (top view)
TD
For cell = 1:
NUMERICAL SOLUTION
dT dT
In this part of the study (8) is solved by numerical r | 1 r |1
T1n1  T1n

dr 1 2 dr 2 (23)
method due to analytical solution cannot model t r1r
heterogeneous layers, variable heat transfer and shut in
through injection or production processes (e.g., cyclic The heat transfer at wellbore/formation interface is
injection processes). Some investigators stated the expressed by Fourier's law (Kabir and Hasan, 1991):
numerical solution as an accurate solution if there is
selected suitable timestep and grid size (Farouq Ali, dT
Q  2 r1 lk |1 (24)
1981; Cronshaw and John, 1982). dr 2
To solve problems that involve (8), the finite 2

difference method can be used. The system is

By rearranging (24):
discretized to N cells as shown in Fig. 2. By implicit
definite difference, approximations for dT/dt, dT/dt,
dT Q (25)
and  1/r (d/dr(rdT/dr)) are: |1 
dr 2 2 r1 lk
2
dT Ti n1  Ti n (19)

dt t By substituting (25) in (23):

dT Ti n11  Ti n 1  T2n1  T1n1  Q

 (20) r  
 2 lk
1
dr r T n 1
T n 1
 r (26)
1 1
 2

t r1r
And
After rearranging (26):
dT dT Tn1 Tn1  Tn1 Tin11 
r | 1 r | 1 r 1  i1 i r 1  i 
1 d  dT dr i2 dr i2 i2  r  i2  r  (21)  t  n1  t  n1 tQ (27)
1  r1 1 T r 1  T2  T1 
n
 r  
r r 2  1 1 r r 2 2 r1rlk
r dr  dr  rir rir  2 1   2 1 

For cells = 2 to N-1:

With those notations, the implicit definite
difference approximations form of (8) is:
 Ti n11  Ti n 1   Ti n 1  Ti n11 
r 1    ri  1  
Ti n 1
 Ti n i
 r  2 
r  (28)
 Ti n11  Ti n 1   Ti n1  Ti n11   2
r 1    ri  1    t ri r
Ti n 1
 Ti n i
 r  2 
r  (22)
 2

 t
 ri r
After rearranging (28):
Equation (22) is the basic finite difference equation  t  n 1  t  n 1  t  n 1
for the one dimensional diffusivity equation. It is solved r 1 T  1  (r 1  r 1 )
2  i 1
T r 1
2  i
T  Ti n
2  i 1

for all the new temperature, Tn+1, simultaneously. Once  i  2 ri r   i

2
i
2 ri r   i  2 ri r 
these new temperatures are solved, they become old (29)
temperatures for the next timestep. In this manner,
For cell = N:
solutions to (22) are solved in a timestep sequence for
as many timesteps as required.
 TNn11 TNn1   TNn1 TNn11 
By applying boundary conditions in (22), it can be r 1    rN 1  
modified for every cell in Fig. 2 as expressed in the Tn1
T n N
 r  2
r  (30)
N N
 2

following: t rN r

3929 
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(21): 3927-3932, 2013

By considering the diameter of the outer boundary and,

of the formation to be large, it can be assumed that,  t (41)
temperature does not change there: aN   r 1
N
2
rN r 2
 t  n 1  t  n 1  t 
 r 1 T  1  (2r 1  r 1 )
2  N 1
T  TNn  2  r 1
2  N
T
2  e t (42)
 N  2 rN r   N
2
N
2 rN r   N  2 rN r  bN  1  (2r 1 r 1 )
(31) N
2
N
2 rN r 2

This set of Eq. (27), (29) and (31) can be

represented by a matrix equation which can simply be  t  (43)
d N  TNn  2  r 1 T
2  e
written as:  N  2 rN r 
 
AT  d (32) The tridiagonal matrix has a very efficient solution
procedure called the Thomas algorithm (Kreith and
where, Bown, 2000), since it is used to solve (33).
A = Coefficient matrix
 
T and d = Column vectors COMPARISON

Graphically, the matrix may be presented as: To compare empirical and numerical solutions,
temperature profiles versus injection time were
 b1 c1   T1   d1  computed using Ramey Jr (1962) and Hasan and Kabir
a b  T   d  (1991) and numerical solutions for a case of hot water
 2 2 c 2  2   2  (33)
 a3 b3 c3   T3   d 3  injection at a surface temperature of 171.11 ºC into a
    
      
    304.8 m vertical wellbore at a rate of 0.0088 m3/s
 aN  2 bN  2 cN  2  TN  2   d N 2  through 0.1629696 m casing diameter with overall heat
    
 a N 1 bN 1 cN 1   TN 1   d N 1  transfer coefficient of 17.034 W/m2/K. The
 aN   
bN   TN   d N   temperatures at the wellbore/formation interface and

bottom hole predicted by the models have been
The rows of the matrix represent equations and the presented in Fig. 3 and 4 respectively. There is the good
columns represent unknowns. Equation (33) shows only agreement between these solutions, except at early
the nonzero elements of the matrix. Notice that the non-
zero elements follow a diagonal trend, lying in three times. It was found that there are mismatchs in the time
adjacent diagonals. This is called a tridiagonal matrix. early because Ramey Jr (1962) and Hasan and Kabir
The values of a, b, c and d are: (1991) solutions have been developed based on
constant heat transfer rate between the wellbore and
t (34) formation. However, heat flow between the wellbore
b1  1  r 1 and formation will decrease with time, especially at the
1 r r 2
2 1
initial stages of injection whereby the temperature
t difference between the fluid and the earth is quite large.
c1  r 1 (35)
1 r r 2 Ramey Jr (1962) assumed the radius of the wellbore is
2 1
negligible and the temperature becomes log-linear with
tQ time at large times at the wellbore/formation interface;
d1  T1n  (36)
due to it, errors for Ramey Jr (1962) model are larger
2 r1rlk
than Hasan and Kabir (1991) model in early times as
For i = 2 to N-1: shown in Fig. 3 and 4.
Figure 5 presents the temperature distribution in
t (37) the formation. It can be figured out that assuming
ai  r 1 unsteady state heat transfer in the formation and the
i  r r 2
2 i
constant temperature versus time at outer boundary of
 t (38) formation are correct.
bi  1  (r 1  r 1 ) Further it, Fig. 5 shows the formation temperature
2 ri r
i i 2
2
changes in small area, only near the wellbore, since it is
 t reasonable to consider 20 (m) or a smaller value for the
ci   r 1 (39) outer boundary radius of the formation to conduct faster
i  r r 2
2 i
numerical computations. Setting a suitable outer
boundary radius of the formation is necessary in
d i  Ti n (40) software packages programmed on basis of
3930 
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(21): 3927-3932, 2013

Numerical model 450 Numerical model

160
Ramey’s model (1962 ) 400 Ramey’s model (1962)
140

CPU running time (s)

hasan & kabir’s model (1991 ) 350 Hasan & kabir’s model (1991)
Temperature (C)

120
300
100
250
80
200
60 150
40 100
20 50
0 0
0 10 100 1000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Injection time (h) Injection time (h)
Fig. 3: The temperature at the wellbore/formation interface Fig. 6: CPU running time versus injection time
versus injection time
Numerical model the numerical solution and the calculations of each time
170 Ramey’s model (1962 ) step is dependent on the last time step calculations.
169
hasan & kabir’s model (1991)
Supposedly the numerical solution should be used
168 in the early injection times or when there is a shut in
Temperature ( C)

167 through injection process (e.g., cyclic injection

166 processes). It is more appropriate to use Hasan and
165 Kabir (1991) model for predicting the temperature
164
profile in the long times because it is enough accurate
163
and its speed is faster than the numerical solution as
162
shown in Fig. 3 and 6 respectively.
161
160
0 10 100 1000 CONCLUSION
Injection time (h)
Fig. 4: The fluid flow bottomhole temperature versus The main conclusions from the present study can
injection time be summarised as follows:
140 time =1h
 Heat transfer occurs in unsteady state in the
time = 24h
120 formation.
time = 168h
Temperature (C)

100 time = 720h

 For modelling heat transfer in the formation, it is
time = 4320h recommended to use the numerical solution in the
80
early injection times or when there is a shut in
60 through injection process (e.g., cyclic injection
40 processes) and it had better use Hasan and Kabir
(1991) model in the long times because its
20
accuracy is acceptable for petroleum engineering
0 studies and its speed is much faster than the
9
9

.29
9

9
.29

numerical solution.
8.2
4.2

6.2
0.2

2.2

.2

.2
14
10

16
12

Radius (m)  The change in the formation temperature is limited

Fig. 5: The temperature distribution in the formation
Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) solutions to
reduce CPU running time.
Figure 6 illustrates CPU running times for the
models. It can be observed that the CPU running times
for Ramey Jr (1962) and Hasan and Kabir (1991)
models are much shorter than the numerical model,
especially in long times because Ramey Jr (1962) and
Hasan and Kabir (1994) assumed that the constant heat
transfer rate for each time step and the calculations of
each time step is independent of the last timestep
calculations. However the heat transfer rate is
considered variable in
3931
to small area, only near the wellbore; thereby it is
reasonable to consider 25 (m) or smaller value for
the outer boundary radius of the formation to
conduct faster CFD and numerical computations.
NOMENCLATURE
A = Coefficient matrix
CFD = Computational fluid thermodynamic
Ce = Heat capacity of the earth (J/(kg/°C))
Et = Energy content within the element at time t
(W)
Et+Δt = Energy content within the element at time
t+Δt (W)
 
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(21): 3927-3932, 2013

f(t) = Dimensionless temperature defined by Everdingen Van, A.F. and W. Hurst, 1949. The
Ramey Jr (1962) application of the laplace transformation to flow
i = Number of element in the radius direction problems in reservoirs. J. Petrol. Technol., 1(12):
ke = Thermal conductivity of earth (W/(m/°C)) 305-324.
l = Length (m) Farouq Ali, S.M., 1981. A comprehensive wellbore
m = Mass (kg) stream/water flow model for steam injection and
n = Number of time step
geothermal applications. SPE J., 21(5): 527-534.
Qgen = Rate of heat generation inside the element
(W) Hagoort, J., 2004. Ramey's wellbore heat transmission
Qr = Rate of heat transfer at r (W) revisited. SPE J., 9(4): 465-474.
Qr+Δr = Rate of heat transfer at r+Δr (W) Hasan, A.R. and C.S. Kabir, 1991. Heat transfer during
rw = Radius of wellbore (m) two-phase flow in wellbores; Part I--formation
t = Time (s) temperature. Proceeding of SPE Annual Technical
Tcemo = Temperature at interface of Conference and Exhibition. Dallas, Texas.
wellbore/formation (ºC) Hasan, A.R. and C.S. Kabir, 1994. Aspects of wellbore
TD = Dimensionless temperature defined by heat transfer during two-phase flow (includes
Hasan and Kabir (1991) associated papers 30226 and 30970 ).SPE Prod.
tD = Dimensionless time Oper., 9(3): 211-216.
Tt = Temperature of the earth at time t (°C) Hasan, A. R. and C.S. Kabir, 2002. Fluid Flow and
Tt+Δt = Temperature of the earth at time t+Δt (°C)
Heat Transfer in Wellbores. Society of Petroleum
ΔEelement = Rate of change of the energy content within
the element (W) Engineers, Richardson, Tex, pp: 181.
Δr = Increment of radius length (m) Kabir, C.S. and A.R. Hasan, 1991. Two-phase flow
Δt = Time interval (s) correlations as applied to pumping well testing.
α = Thermal diffusivity of the earth (m2/s) Proceeding of SPE Production Operations
ρe = Density of the earth (kg/m3) Symposium. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Kreith, F. and M.S. Bown, 2000. Principles of Heat
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Transfer. 6 Edn., CL-Engineering.
Paterson, L., L. Meng, C. Luke and J. Ennis-King,
The authors wish to express their appreciation to 2008. Numerical modeling of pressure and
the management of Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS temperature profiles including phase transitions in
for supporting to publish this study. carbon dioxide wells. Proceeding of SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of
REFERENCES
Petroleum Engineers, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Carslaw, H.S. and J.C. Jaeger, 1950. Conduction of Ramey Jr., H.J., 1962. Wellbore heat transmission. SPE
Heat in Solids. 1st Edn., Amen House, Oxford J. Petrol. Technol., 14(4): 427-435.
University Press, London. Willhite, G.P., 1967. Over-all heat transfer coefficients
Cronshaw, M.B. and D.B. John, 1982. A numerical in steam and hot water injection wells. SPE J.
model of the non-isothermal flow of carbon Petrol. Technol., 19(5): 607-615.
dioxide in wellbores. Proceeding of SPE California
Regional Meeting. San Francisco, California,
March 24-26.

3932