Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

A thermal-percolation model for the injection of cold polymer in fractal

formation: Semi-analytical solution and influencing factor analysis
Yi Zhang a, Jiexiang Wang a, *, Peng Jia b, Lin Qiao c, Guoyu Chu a
a
School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, 266580, China
b
College of Pipeline and Civil Engineering, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, 266580, China
c
Liaohe Petroleum Engineering Co.,Ltd, Panjin, 124010, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Polymer injection is a common method for enhancing oil recovery (EOR). In this process, tons of polymers are
Polymer injection injected into formation. The flowing mechanism of polymer is important and complicated, which greatly in­
Thermal-percolation coupling fluences displacement efficiency. Given that polymer is non-Newtonian fluid, the flow behavior is influenced by
Fractals
shear rate in pore space. During injection, the temperature of polymer increases, thereby affecting viscosity,
which, in turn, influence the process. In this work, a temperature-dependent model for polymer injection in
fractal-distributed matrix is built. Semi-analytical solutions for polymer transfer are derived using Laplace
transform. These solutions are verified by public data. Finally, influencing factors on the polymer injection
process were discussed, including temperature distribution, fractal parameters, non-Newton parameters and
injection rates. The method provides a new way to analysis the thermal-percolation coupling process during
polymer injection.

1. Introduction flowing behavior of non-Newtonian fluid, which has special flowing

In the past decades, polymer injection has become a popular way for
enhancing oil recovery (EOR) in hydrocarbon production (Garmeh et al.,
2012; Sidiq et al., 2019). In this process, several million gallons of
polymers are injected into formations from injection well. Polymers can
enhance oil recovery by increasing flooding volume. (Zhang and Yue,
2008; Zhang et al., 2011). Related EOR mechanisms have been inves­
tigated in the past few years (Lian et al., 2018; Olajire, 2014; Sheng,
2013; Wang et al., 2003). Polymer injection is a multi-field coupling
system that is more complicated than conventional water injection
(Green and Willhite, 1998; Jennings et al., 1971; Weiss and Baldwin,
1985). Polymer injection is controlled by several factors, including non-
Newtonian behavior of polymer, heat transfer with liquid transmission,
and polymer failure caused by increasing temperature and decreasing
concentration. To investigate the effects of these factors on injection and
production, several studies have developed mathematical models and
conducted laboratory tests.
Liquid injection or production in formation is traditionally consid­
ered following the convection diffusion equation in radial flow. Both
analytical solutions and numerical solutions have been well investigated
in the past decades (Li et al., 2019b). However, the polymer follows the
behavior in formation (Kamal et al., 1988). The most commonly used
polymer is hydrolyzed-polyacrylamide (HPAM) and Xanthan gum (XG).
Experiments showed that polymer follows power law (Akter and
Hashmi, 1999; Monroy et al., 2003). The influence of power law flowing
behavior on production has been investigated by combining power law
and transfer equation (Kamal et al., 1988; van den Hoek et al., 2012b).
Typical HPAM solutions show viscoelastic effects. At low velocities in
porous media, polymer solutions are shown to be shear-thinning (Del­
shad et al., 2008; Heemskerk et al., 1984; Seright et al., 2009, 2011). In
the near-wellbore region, the shear rate of polymer may relatively high.
At high shear rate, some polymer gain shear thickening behavior
(Seright et al., 2011; Stavland et al., 2010), which may cause fracturing
in near-wellbore region in wells with high injecting rates (Manichand
et al., 2013; van den Hoek et al., 2012a; Zechner et al., 2015). The
non-Newtonian liquids also have great influence on stress state of
wellbore bottom-hole rock (Chen et al., 2017, 2018).
In this work, we generally investigate the polymer injection process
with low injection rates. Thus, the polymer generally has shear-thinning
behavior. Recently, Skauge et al. (2016) investigated the difference
between radial and linear models for polymer flow based on power law
model and explained reasons why linear floods are performed under

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: upc1609@163.com (J. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107092
Received 29 September 2019; Received in revised form 14 February 2020; Accepted 15 February 2020
Available online 25 February 2020
0920-4105/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Y. Zhang et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic of polymer injection process in formation.
steady-state conditions, while radial injections undergo transient and
semi-transient pressure regimes. Zhang et al. (2019) established a nu­
merical polymer flooding model to evaluate formation properties
through pressure-transient analysis, considering wellbore storage effect
and skin effect.
Temperature influences polymer injection. For typical polymer fluid,
the relationship between viscosity and temperature follows the Arrhe­
nius equation (Haj-Kacem et al., 2014; Restolho et al., 2009; Zheng
et al., 2013), which can be combined with convection diffusion equa­
tion. Apart from heat transfer in radial direction, vertical heat transfer
should also be considered. In injection process, polymer is confined to
the objective formation; however, heat can transfer between interlayer
and reservoir vertically (Laforce et al., 2013). The temperature field of
cold liquid injection has been studied for decades. Bodvarsson (1972)
derived original analytical solution for the movement of thermal front in
conventional and fracture flow. Chen and Reddell (1983) derived
unsteady-state solutions for analytical model with thermal injection into
a confined aquifer. Recently, Yeh et al. (2011) provided semi-analytical
solutions for temperature distribution in aquifer thermal energy storage
system. Hamid and Muggeridge (2018) presented an analytical solution
to estimate the minimum polymer slug size needed to ensure that
viscous fingering of chase water does not cause its breakdown during
secondary oil recovery. Chaudhuri and Vishnudas (2018) used numeri­
cal method to study the polymer injection process. Laforce et al. (2014a,
b) introduced the analytical solution of two-phase flow in one dimension
with heat transfer in vertical direction (Laforce et al., 2014a, b). How­
ever, this vertical heat transfer model is commonly used in gas injection
or water injection but seldom in polymer injection simulation.
2. General polymer injection model
2.1. Model description
Polymer injection process is a complicated temperature-penetration
field coupling system. The polymer is typically a temperature-dependent
non-Newtonian fluid. The flowing behavior of the polymer commonly
follows the non-Newtonian law, especially the power law. During
polymer injection, the temperature of the polymer (commonly has lower
temperature than the reservoir) increases gradually, which leads to
gradual decrease in the viscosity. The variation in viscosity, in turn,
influences the injection resistance, thereby altering the flowing behavior
of the entire system. The schematic of polymer injection process in
formation is shown as Fig. 1:
In general, polymer injection combines three parts, namely, vertical
injection in well or annular, ejection from the wellbore to reservoir, and
displacement in the reservoir. In this work, we mainly focus on the third
2
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092
part, where fluid diffusion and thermal diffusion are considered in a
radial displacement system.
For thermal transfer process in reservoir, heat flux transferred from
neighborhood formation has been considered. Normally, the neighbor­
hood formation is overburden and underburden, and these neighbor­
hood formations are thick and stable, which are considered as thermally
stable heat source. Thus, the injected polymer is warmed up by heat flux
from both overburden, underburden and target formation. After a
certain distance, the injected polymer will be warmed up to formation
temperature. Flowing behavior in this part can be simplified as homo­
thermal flow.
For liquid transfer process in this reservoir, injected polymer can
only transfer in reservoir, the overburden and underburden are
considered as impermeable. So liquid transfer in reservoir can be
regarded as radial fluid flow. Also, boundary conditions greatly influ­
ence the flooding process (Meng and Cai, 2018). In this model, inner
boundary condition is fixed flow rate boundary, because commonly in
polymer injection process, the injected volume/mas per day is
controlled. Outer boundary condition is fixed pressure boundary, or the
constant initial reservoir pressure. The special part in polymer injection
is that during radial flow process, the temperature of polymer increase
gradually (the temperature field can be derived in thermal calculation
process), thus, the viscosity of the polymer solution decreases gradually.
As the temperature field is certain, viscosity field can be derived by
viscosity-temperature curve (determined by laboratory experiment). For
polymer flow out of thermal front, the liquid flow can be regarded as
homothermal flow. So the flow behavior can be simplified as normal
homothermal non-Newtonian radial flow.
To sum up, the injected cold polymer is warmed up by both reser­
voirs, overburden and underburden occur in the near-well region, and
the viscosity of the polymer decreases, resulting in decreased injection
resistance. This region is within the thermal front area. For farther area,
the polymer flow behavior becomes homothermal non-Newtonian radial
flow. To be noticed, the injected polymer can be mixed with formation
water, oil, and their mixture in initial injection stage. But for after long
polymer injection process (long injection time), the polymer front moves
far away, which is not what we concern in this work. So polymer flow is
simplified as single phase flow, the multiphase flow mixed by water, oil
and polymer is ignored.
Polymer front moves far away than thermal front, as Fig. 1 illus­
trated. We mainly discuss polymer injection in low injection rates, no
fracturing will occur in this process. The polymer front moves slowly.
For farther end, the temperature of the polymer reaches the formation
temperature. LaForce illustrated that the thermal front is behind the
polymer front (Laforce et al., 2014a, b). As such, the injected polymer is
warmed up into the formation temperature in near well region first and
then slowly displaces the formation liquid. Under this circumstance, the
model can be simplified into two parts, namely, near-well region and
farther region. The temperature gradient in these two regions are
different. Detailed discussion is shown in section 4.2. In this work, we
mainly discuss the near-well region and the farther region within the
range of polymer front, to investigate the long-term stage flowing
behavior in polymer injection process.
2.2. Heat transfer and distribution in reservoir
Heat transfer in porous media is a complicated problem. The thermal
transfer process is influenced by three mechanisms, including thermal
conduction, convective transfer between fluid and solid matrix, and
energy transfer by fluid flow (Satman et al., 1984). To simplify the
problem, we have some simplifications listed as follows: a) the forma­
tion, or the rock matrix, is considered as homogenous reservoir; b) initial
reservoir and liquid are homothermal, and considered as thermally
stable heat source; c) the overburden and underburden share the same
heat transfer coefficient, density and specific heat; d) the object reser­
voir is thin enough, thermal distribution in vertical direction is ignored.
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092

d) inner boundary is a fixed injecting rate and fixed temperature is the flow behavior index for power-law polymer, h is the formation
boundary, outer boundary is a fixed pressure and fixed temperature thickness. As the μe and Ke are not constants in our model (influenced by
boundary. The heat transfer equation for horizontal radial flow can be temperature and other parameters), Eq. (5) should be solved numeri­
expressed as (Satman et al., 1984): cally. Detailed method is shown in section 3.
� �
1 ∂ ∂T ðQρCÞf ∂T 2UðtÞ ∂T
b
λ res r ðT Ti Þ ¼ ðρCÞres (1) 2.4. Effective viscosity and permeability in fractal matrix
r ∂r ∂r 2πhr ∂r h ∂t
In above equation, the effective viscosity μe and the effective
where b
λ res is the thermal conductivity of reservoir; r is radius; T is permeability Ke for polymer is influenced by many factors, like the ge­
temperature; ðQρCÞf is injection rate, density and specific heat of liquid, ometry of pore, non-Newtonian parameters of fluid. Normally, under a
respectively; h is thickness of reservoir; U is overall heat transfer coef­ certain temperature. According to experiments and related theories, the
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ficient, Zolotukhin (1979) gave the expression as UðtÞ ¼ p2ffiptffiffi ðkρCÞadj ; flowing behavior of polymer follows power law (Akter and Hashmi,
1999; Monroy et al., 2003).
ðρCÞres is density and specific heat of reservoir, respectively. During the
� �n
injection process, the injecting rate is a constant, and the temperature of du
τ¼C (6)
injected polymer is a constant too. Thus, initial condition and boundary dr
condition can be listed as:
where τ is shear stress, C is the flow consistency index, which is influ­
Tðx; 0Þ ¼ Ti ; Tð0; tÞ ¼ Tinj ; lim Tðx; tÞ ¼ Ti (2)
x→∞ enced by many influencing factors, du dr is the shear rate or the velocity
Eq. (1) can be solved analytically. Detailed processes are provided in gradient perpendicular to the plane of shear, n is the flow behavior
Appendix.A1. The analytical dimensionless solution is: index. The apparent viscosity μa can be expressed as:
Z ∞ � � rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi �� � �n 1
du
TD ðrTD ; tTD Þ ¼
1
exp
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
u 2θ tTD ⋅ 1 1
ξ
uv 1 du (3) μa ¼ C (7)
ΓðυÞ ξ u dr

2 R∞ For polymer flow in a circular tube with diameter λi , the flowing flux
rTD rTDffiffiffiffi
Where ξ ¼ 4tTD , u ¼ p , ΓðυÞ ¼ 0 uυ 1 e u du. is:
2 ’ tTD
� �1=n �
1 dp n ��λi �1þ3n
(8)
n
qðλi Þ ¼ π
2C dL 1 þ 3n 2
2.3. Polymer transfer and pressure distribution
dp
where qðλi Þ is flowing flux, dL is the pressure gradient in flowing direc­
Additionally, based on a certain temperature field, viscosity field can tion. Pore size distribution for sandstone matrix follows the fractal law
be derived by viscosity-temperature curve (determined by laboratory (Yu and Cheng, 2002). The fractal theory has widely used to connect the
experiment). The polymer injection can be simplified as homothermal pore size distribution (Li et al., 2018), tortuosity (Cai et al., 2010) and
non-Newtonian radial flow with variable viscosity in radial direction. pore structure in microscale with flowing behavior in macroscale (Bal­
The analytical solution of this model is much too complicated, one of the ankin and Elizarraraz, 2012a, 2012b; Cihan et al., 2009; Shen et al.,
reason is that, as we have shown, the expression of analytical solution 2019), even in fracture representation (Sheng et al., 2019). The
for temperature distribution is complicated. To settle for second best, we advantage of the fractal method is to use several simple structures to
tried to acquire the semi-analytical solution, thus, the piecewise Laplace represent complex structure by using the self-similar behavior (Li et al.,
transform method has been introduced. In this method, flowing field is 2019a). The fractal dimension is a good parameter to quantize the
segmented to several units in radial direction. Within each unit, the complexity of pore structure (Xia et al., 2019). Also, by using the fractal
effective viscosity of polymer is considered as a constant. The boundary method, the flowing model for non-Newtonian fluid flow in low
of adjacent units follows the mass/volume conservation law. Detailed permeability porous medium can be easily built, which is helpful to
introduction and results are shown in the next section. Anyway, within understand the mechanism for nonlinear flow in the low permeability
one unit, the viscosity and temperature is regarded as a constant, radial porous medium (Cai, 2014).
flowing equation for power-law polymer can be expressed as (Kong, To, sum up, by introducing the fractal theory, we can derive the
1999): effective viscosity μe and the effective permeability Ke in porous media
� �n 1 � �1=n � �n 1 in a certain temperature as Eq. (9). Detailed derivation processes are
∂2 p n ∂p ��∂p�� n μe n ��∂p�� n ∂p
þ þ n� � Q¼ (4) shown in Appendix. A2:
∂r2 r ∂r ∂r Ke χ e � ∂r � ∂t
8 9nþ1
n

> >
where p is the liquid pressure, r is the location in radial direction, n is the h
>
>
<� � � 1þ3n nDf 1þ3n nDf >
>
=
ϕn i1 n 1 n n 2 Df λmax λmin n
flow behavior index for power-law polymer, 0 < n < 1 for most poly­
n
μe ¼C λ0 ;λ0 ¼ 2 D
(9)
2ð1 þ 3nÞ > 1 þ 3n nDf λ2maxDf >
mer, μe is the effective viscosity for polymer, Ke is the effective perme­ >
>
:
λmin f >
>
;
ability, Q is the injection rate, χ e is the conducting coefficient, the
1=n
Ke
expression is χ e ¼ 1=n , t is injection time. Eq. (4) is a non-linear 1 h ϕn i 2
ϕct μe
Ke ¼ λ0 ; (10)
equation. To derive the approximate analytical solution, Eq. (4) can 4 2ð1 þ 3nÞ
be linearized by suggesting that liquid flux in radial direction is a con­
2
stant (Ikoku and Ramey, 1979) and expressed as: where λ0 average diameter, λ0 is the square of λ0 . Df is the fractal
� �n 1 dimension of pore size distribution, 1 � Df < 2. ϕ is the porosity. Thus,
∂2 p n ∂p μ Q ∂p
þ þn e r1 n q ¼ Grn 1 (5) effective mobility can be expressed as:
∂r r ∂r
2 Ke 2πh ∂t

where Q is the injection rate, G is an independent coefficient uncorre­

lated with distance, time and pressure. G can be expressed as G ¼
� �n 1
ϕct n Kμee 2Qπh , where ϕ is the porosity, ct is system compressibility, n

3
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092

derived by laboratory experiment. These parameters can be regarded as

constants under a certain temperature. However, for a certain polymer,
C will change under different temperatures. The key is to express C. For
typical polymer fluid, the relationship between viscosity and tempera­
ture follows the Arrhenius equation (Haj-Kacem et al., 2014; Restolho
et al., 2009; Zheng et al., 2013):
Ea
μ ¼ As exp (12)
RT

where Ea is the activation energy (Arrhenius energy) of the viscous flow,

T is the temperature of liquid, μ is the apparent viscosity. As is the pre-
exponential factor, and R is the universal gas constant. The constants can
be derived by experiment. Eq. (12) can be rearranged as:
Fig. 2. The temperature distribution curve in formation. B
(13)
B
ln μ ¼ A þ ; or μ ¼ eAþT
T

where A ¼ ln As , B ¼ T * ¼ Ea =R is the Arrhenius activation temperature

(Haj-Kacem et al., 2014). These parameters can be derived by laboratory
experiment. Polymer follows the power-law (Akter and Hashmi, 1999;
Monroy et al., 2003), the effective viscosity can be expressed as:

μeff ¼ Cγn 1 : (14)

where μeff is effective viscosity, C is flow consistency index, γ is shear

rate, n is flow behavior index. Also, during the polymer injection pro­
cess, the polymer solution viscosity concentration dependency should be
considered. Choi et al. (2014) has derived the
temperature-concentration viscosity model as:
� � � �2 �3 ��
μeff ¼ μw 1 þ Ap1 Cp Rc T þ Ap2 Cp Rc T þ Ap3 Cp Rc T (15)
Fig. 3. Boundary connection within each unit.
where Rc ¼ γC, Ap1 , Ap2 , Ap3 are fitting constants, obtained by experi­
8 9n ments from Choi et al. Cp is the initial polymer concentration. μw is water
> >
>
>� � � 1þ3n nDf 1þ3n nDf >
> viscosity. By combining the above equations, the final expression of
Ke 1 h ϕn in < n 2 Df λmaxn λmin n =
¼ 2 D
(11) polymer solution viscosity can be expressed as:
μe 4C 2ð1 þ 3nÞ >
> 1 þ 3n nDf λ2maxDf λmin f > >
> >
: ; μe ¼ M1 ðTÞM2 ðTÞM3 ðTÞCTC γn 1
(16)

where CTC is the flow consistency index derived at temperature TC . nTC is

2.5. Temperature the flow behavior index at temperature TC . Temperature related pa­
1þ½A ðC R TÞþA ðC R TÞ2 þA ðC R TÞ2 �
rameters M1 ðTÞ ¼ 1þ½A p1ðC p R Tc ÞþA p2ðC p R cT Þ2 þAp3 ðCp Rc T Þ2 �, M2 ðTÞ ¼
In above sections, we have derived the expression of efficient vis­ ��
p1 p c C
�1 nTC
p2 p c C
� �h
p3 p c C
i1 n 1 n �
cosity in fractal matrix as Eq. (9). The fractal parameters can be derived eB=T B=Tc
, M3 ðTÞ ¼ ϕnTC 1 nTC
λ0 = 2ð1þ3nÞ ϕn
λ0 .
2ð1þ3nTC Þ
by simulating the fractal pore size distribution with real pore size dis­
tribution. While the flowing behavior parameters, like n and C, can be

Fig. 4. Model verification by published data.

4
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092

Fig. 5. Temperature and viscosity distribution in formation at different injecting time.

3. Mathematical formulations for semi-analytical solutions
As we derived before, the analytical solution for heat transfer in in­
jection process has been provided as Eq. (3). Noticed that this analytical
solution includes both time item tD and space item rTD , so it is an un­
steady state solution. The temperature distribution varies with time. At
any specific time, the temperature distribution in formation can be
derived, illustrated in Fig. 2. According Eq. (16), viscosity changes with
temperature. At any specific time, once the temperature has derived,
apparent viscosity in space can been derived too. However, the pure
analytical solution for homothermal non-Newtonian radial flow with
Fig. 3 illustrated the method to deal with boundary conditions be­
tween separated units. As shown in Fig. 3, three units are separated
along the radial direction: unit i-1, unit i and unit iþ1. The viscosity of
these units are μi 1 , μi and μiþ1 , respectively. Also, inner and outer
boundary of unit i-1 is ri 1 and ri , respectively. The boundaries for other
units are shown in Fig. 3. Within unit i-1, the radial flow model can be
built with viscosity μi 1 , similarly, within unit i, the radial flow model
can be built with viscosity μi . At position r ¼ ri , pressure should be a
constant function, thus:
p D j r ¼ p D jr þ (17)
i i

variable viscosity in radial direction is difficult to be derived. Thus, we Also, the liquid is considered as incompressible. Flowing behavior of
used a piecewise derivation method to calculate the semi-analytical liquid follows the continuity equation. That is, velocity from left limit
solution. As shown in Fig. 2, at a specific time, temperature distribu­ equals to right limit, thus:
tion has been derived, then viscosity can also be derived. Although the � �
viscosity varies with radial distance, we can introduce the differential ∂pD ��
¼
∂pD ��
(18)
method, shown in Fig. 2. In radial direction, the space is divided into ∂rD �r ∂rD �rþ
i i
several small units. Each unit is small enough, the viscosity in each unit
is considered as a constant. So liquid transfer in each unit is considered These boundary conditions can be transferred between inner
as normal homothermal radial flow for non-Newtonian fluid. The key is boundary and outer boundary of the final model.
to solve the boundary condition in each unit. To simplify the expression of Eq. (5), we introduce the following
dimensionless equations as:

5
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092

Table 1
(25)
1 n
Nomenclature with the magnitude of parameter. pD ðrD ; tD Þ ¼ rD2 WðrD ; tD Þ
Parameter name Symbol Magnitude Then Eqs. (20) and (21) can be simplified as:
(units)
2 � �2
Initial temperature of the formation and over/ Ti (� C) 60 ∂ W 1 ∂W 1 n ∂W
þ þ rD 2 W ¼ rD1 n (26)
underlying rock 2
∂rD rD ∂rD 2 ∂tD
Formation thickness hðmÞ 8
� �
Temperature of Injected polymer Tinj (� C) 25 ∂W 1 n
þ W ¼ 1 (27)
Injection rates 3
Qðm =dÞ 40 ∂rD 2 rD ¼1
Specific heat of reservoir and over/underlying rock Cres ðJ =kg:KÞ 1000
Density of the reservoir and over/underlying rock 2650
By introducing Laplace transform method Eq. (26) can be transferred
ρðkg =m3 Þ
as
Thermal conductivity of the formation and over/ λðW =m:KÞ 2.74
underlying rock � �2
∂2 W 1 ∂W 1 n
The universal gas constant RðJ =ðmol:KÞÞ 8.134 þ þ rD 2 W ¼ rD1 n sW (28)
Activation energy/Arrhenius energy Ea ðJ =molÞ 10716.746
∂rD2 rD ∂rD 2
Pre-exponential factor As (mPa⋅s) 0.5597 R∞
where W is the image function of W, W ¼ 0 WðtD Þe stD dtD . s is the
Radius of casing rw ðcmÞ 6.215
Porosity of matrix ϕ 0.33
dimensionless time in Laplace space. Eq. (28) can be rearranged as
Compressibility factor ct ðMPa 1
Þ 3.5 � 10 4 2 � �2 3
3 n 2 1 n
Initial formation pressure pi ðMPaÞ 14.85 r s r
∂2 W 1 ∂W 6 D D 2 7
Fractal dimension Df 1.02 þ 61 þ 7W ¼ 0 (29)
∂rD2 rD ∂rD 4 rD2 5
Minimum equivalent diameter λmin (μm) 0.1
Maximum equivalent diameter λmax (μm) 100
Eq. (29) is a modified Bessel function with order υ ¼ ð1 nÞ=ð3 nÞ.
The general solution can be expressed as:
� �n 2 3 2 3
r t 2πh Ke ðp pi Þ
rD ¼ ; tD ¼ 3 n ; pD ¼ (19)
rw Grw Q μe rw1 n 6 pffiffi pffiffi
υÞ s rD1 υ 7 6
υÞ s rD1 υ 7 (30)
1 1
W i ¼ Ai Iυ 4ð1 5 þ Bi Kυ 4ð1 5
where the rw is radius of the well, pi is the initial formation pressure. Ke
and μe are determined by Eq. (10) and Eq. (16). To be noticed, theo­
retically, G is influenced by temperature, however, based on estimation where Iυ and Kυ are modified Bessel functions. Detailed definitions can
based on Eq. (3), the injected polymer will gain 90% of the formation be found (Abramowitz, 1972). The outer boundary condition is
temperature at r ¼ 2.3 h, and 99% of the formation temperature at r ¼ ðWÞrD ¼rDðnÞ ¼ 0 (31)
4.6 h. Considering that in the model simplification part, thickness of
formation is thin. So the G -influenced area is quite small compared with As Iυ ðxÞ keeps increasing with rD increases, if the outer boundary
formation. Thus, in calculation in later part, G is determined by average ðWÞrD ¼rDðnÞ ¼ 0 establishes, the parameter An should fulfill:
viscosity of the formation. After the approximate process in this step, the
time scale in each unit is unified. An ¼ 0 (32)
So the problem defined by Eq. (5) can be updated as: The inner boundary condition is:
∂2 pD n ∂pD ∂pD pffiffi 0 � pffiffi � pffiffi 0 � pffiffi �
þ ¼ rD1 n (20) A1 ð1 υÞ sIυ ð1 υÞ s þ B1 ð1 υÞ sKυ ð1 υÞ s
∂rD2 rD rD ∂tD 1 n� � pffiffi � � pffiffi �� (33)
þ A1 Iυ ð1 υÞ s þ B1 Kυ ð1 υÞ s ¼ 1
The inner boundary, outer boundary and initial condition can be 2
simplified as
where Iυ and Kυ are derivative of Iυ and Kυ with respect to x. The
0 0
�
∂pD ��
¼ 1; pD ðrD → ∞; tD Þ ¼ 0; pD ðrD ; tD ¼ 0Þ ¼ 0 (21) conjunction equation is:
rD �rD ¼1
W i ðμi ; rDðiþ1Þ Þ ¼ W i ðμiþ1 ; rDðiþ1Þ Þ (34)
Similarly, for each unit, controlling equation is:
1 n ð1þnÞ=2 ðn 1Þ=2
0
∂2 pD n ∂pD ∂pD rDðiþ1Þ W i ðμi ; rDðiþ1Þ Þ þ rDðiþ1Þ W i ðμi ; rDðiþ1Þ Þ
þ ¼ rD1 n ; r < rD < rDðiþ1Þ ; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; n (22) 2
∂rD2 rD rD ∂tD DðiÞ (35)
1 n ð1þnÞ=2 ðn 1Þ=2
0

The inner boundary, outer boundary and initial condition can be ¼ rDðiþ1Þ W iþ1 ðμiþ1 ; rDðiþ1Þ Þ þ rDðiþ1Þ W iþ1 ðμiþ1 ; rDðiþ1Þ Þ
2
simplified as
By combining Eqs.(30)–(35), parameter Ai and Bi in each unit can be
∂pD ðrDð1Þ ; tD Þ determined, then Wi in each unit is determined in Eq. (30). Based on this
¼ 1; pD ðrDðnÞ ; tD Þ ¼ 0; pD ðrD ; tD ¼ 0Þ ¼ 0 (23)
2
∂rDð1Þ result, by using Stehfest numerical inversion method (Stehfest, 1970),
the semi-analytical solution for Wi can be derived. And then using Eq.
And conjunction equation is: (25) and Eq. (19), the final pressure distribution in reservoir can be
� � easily derived by this numerical solution.
∂pD ðμi 1 Þ�� ∂pD ðμi Þ��
pD ðμi 1 Þjr ¼ pD ðμi Þjrþ ; ¼ ; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; n (24)
i i ∂rD �r ∂rD �rþ
i i
4. Results and discussions
First, we provide the general solution for Eq. (20). To derive the
analytical solution, the coefficient of first partial derivatives rnD should be 4.1. Model verification
simplified into 1r . So suggesting that:
The semi-analytical solutions for polymer injection process has been
derived in last section. The derived results should be verified before

6
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092

Fig. 6. Dimensionless formation pressure distribution in different time and place.

Fig. 7. Pressure distribution in near well region. Ti is initial temperature of Fig. 8. Pressure distribution in near well region. Ti is initial temperature of
formation, T1 ¼ 25� C is the temperature of injected polymer, t1 ¼ 0:0002d t2 ¼ formation, T2 ¼ 45� C is the temperature of injected polymer, t1 ¼ 0:0002d t2 ¼
0:0022d t3 ¼ 0:0206d t4 ¼ 0:2206d t5 ¼ 2:0577d t6 ¼ 22:0637d t7 ¼ 205:7667d 0:0022d t3 ¼ 0:0206d t4 ¼ 0:2206d t5 ¼ 2:0577d t6 ¼ 22:0637d t7 ¼ 205:7667d
, n ¼ 0:9. , n ¼ 0:9.

7
Y. Zhang et al.
Fig. 9. Pressure distribution in near well region. t1 ¼ 0:0002d t2 ¼ 0:0022d
t3 ¼ 0:0206d t4 ¼ 0:2206d t5 ¼ 2:0577d t6 ¼ 22:0637d t7 ¼ 205:7667d. n ¼
0:9 for non-Newtonian liquid, n ¼ 1:0 for Newtonian liquid.
additional analysis and discussions. Generally, this model is contributed
by two parts. The first past is to verify the temperature distribution. The
analytical solution is shown in Eq. (3), which can be verified by Satman
et al. (1984). The second past is to derive the semi-analytical solution for
polymer injection in radial flow system. The results are compared with
the public data from (Kong, 1999) and Ikoku and Ramey (1980) with the
same parameter combination, shown in Fig. 4. It is shown that the
relationship between dimensionless pressure and time in this model
coincide well with the public data, indicating that the dimensionless
solution is credible. To be noticed, the public data is calculated in
homothermal condition, it is actually a special condition with unified
temperature for our model. To sum up, the solution is conventional.
4.2. Temperature, viscosity and pressure distribution
Temperature is one of the key influences on polymer injection pro­
cess. Fig. 5(a) shows the dimensionless temperature distribution in near
well region. It is clear that with the increase of injection time, the
temperature field disperse gradually, but the diffusion rate decrease
gradually. Under the given boundary condition and the heat source from
under and overburden, the temperature distribution will approximate to
stable state gradually. Fig. 5(b) provided the dimensioned temperature
distribution in near well region. The parameter combination is listed in
Table 1. The parameters are based on numerical data from Ganguly and
Kumar (2014) and experimental data from Jiang (1982). According the
Fig. 10. The relationship between effective mobility and fractal dimension under different non-Newtonian parameters.
8
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092
experiments from Jiang et al. (1982), A is 0.5804, B is 1289, R is 8.314
in Eqs.(12) and (13). It is shown that based on the parameter combi­
nation, injected cold polymer mainly influences the temperature field
within several meters, especially within 10 m. Based on
temperature-viscosity curve from experimental results (Jiang, 1982),
viscosity of polymer decreases from 42.4 mPa s to 27.1 mPa s in near
well region. Due to the slow injection rates, the injected liquid quickly
heated by the formation, overburden and underburden. And finally, the
temperature-viscosity mechanism just influences near well region, about
within 10 m’ radius.
Also, we calculated the temperature and viscosity distribution for the
injected polymer at reservoir temperature. In Fig. 5(b), the dotted line is
the temperature distribution for injected polymer at reservoir temper­
ature. No heat transfer occurred, so the temperature is constant at 60 � C.
The viscosity distribution is shown in Fig. 5(c). From Eq. (14), it is
shown that without the influence of temperature, the main influencing
factor on viscosity becomes the shear rate. From Fig. 5(c), the effective
viscosity for injected polymer at reservoir temperature has a slight
decrease with the increase of distance. The reason is that under the given
parameter combination, the injecting velocity is quite low, making the
influence of shear rate becomes slight. So compared with the influence
of temperature, the influence of shear rate is slight. The symbol 8Rþ
means any positive number.
Based on the temperature distribution result, the flowing behavior
can be calculated. Fig. 6 shows the dimensionless formation pressure
distribution in different time and place. The formation temperature is
60 � C, other parameters are listed in Table 1. Fig. 6(a) shows pressure
varies with time at different place in dimensionless space. Generally, the
pressure increases with the increase of time. In log-log coordinate, the
pressure-time curve shows two linear relationships (rD ¼ 1 only has one
because the time starts from 1000). The slope of first part similar, while
the slope of the second part increases gradually with the increase of
distance. Fig. 6(b) shows the pressure varies with distance at different
time. Generally, the dimensionless pressure decrease with the increase
of distance, especially within the range of rD ¼ 1000, the. With the in­
crease of development time, the pressure front disperses away gradually.
The temperature of injected polymer is another influencing factor on
pressure distribution. Fig. 7 shows the real pressure distribution in for­
mation with injected polymer temperature 25 � C, while in Fig. 8, the
temperature of injected polymer temperature is 45 � C. The real pressure
distribution in formation is derived based on dimensionless results from
Fig. 6(b). The data is collected from Table 1. In Figs. 7 and 8, the dotted
line is the pressure distribution in formation with injected polymer
temperature equals to the formation temperature, to investigate the
Y. Zhang et al.
Fig. 11. The influence of flow behavior index on flowing bottomhole pressure.
pressure distribution without considering the influence of injected
polymer’s temperature. It is shown that the temperature-considered
curves are higher than temperature-ignored ones in distance range
within 10 m. The reason is that the viscosity of cold polymer is higher
than warm polymer. As the injected polymer warmed up gradually, the
viscosity decreases from 42.4 mPa s to 27.1 mPa s within 10 m, as shown
in Fig. 5(b). Thus, the flowing resistance generally decrease as polymer
injected in deeper formation. But compared with temperature-ignored
curves, the flowing resistance for temperature-considered curves is
higher, indicating the higher pressure in near well region. So, in this
model, considering the viscosity-temperature relationship in polymer
injection process in meaningful. By comparing with Figs. 7 and 8, it is
shown that as the temperature difference between injected polymer and
formation decreases, the formation pressure in near well region de­
creases, but in position farther than 10 m, the difference disappears
gradually.
The comparison for pressure distribution between non-Newtonian
and Newtonian liquid has been shown in Fig. 9. In Newtonian liquid,
the flow behavior index n ¼ 1:0, while for non-Newtonian liquid, n ¼
0:9. The result show that generally in reservoir, the pressure for New­
tonian liquid (n ¼ 1:0)is smaller than non-Newtonian liquid (n ¼ 0:9)
in the whole pressure field, not just at near-well region. Based on our
calculation, as the flow behavior index decreases from 1 to 0.9, the
average pressure in formation increase about 10%. This trend is coor­
dinate with the published data in Fig. 4. With the non-Newtonian
behavior for polymer becomes stronger, the flow behavior index n de­
creases from 1 to 0 gradually, then the effective viscosity increases,
making the flowing resistance increase gradually. Finally, the pressure
in formation increase.
9
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092
4.3. Fractal parameters
In reservoir with fractal pore size distribution, fractal parameters
mainly influence the flowing parameters. Fig. 10 shows the relationship
between effective mobility and fractal dimension under different non-
Newtonian parameters. Generally, as fractal dimension increases, the
effective mobility decreases. The reason is that as fractal dimension
increases, the complexity of pore distribution in matrix increases. The
flowing resistance in matrix increases, thus the effective mobility de­
creases. Non-Newtonian parameters also have influences on effective
mobility. Increasing C or decreasing the flow behavior index n will also
decrease the effective mobility.
4.4. Non-Newtonian parameters
As polymer is a non-Newtonian liquid, the flow behavior index n is
an important influencing factor on injection process. Fig. 11 shows the
influence of flow behavior index on flowing bottomhole pressure. When
the injection rate is constant, the flowing bottomhole pressure (pwf )
keeps increasing. The reason is that the viscosity of polymer is larger
than original formation liquid, the injecting residence keeps increasing
during the injection process. After about 10 days, the slope of curve
decreases gradually because within the flooding volume, most polymer
is heated by formation and the viscosity decreases gradually. As flow
behavior index decreases, the non-Newtonian behavior is stronger, pwf
will greatly increase. So in order to avoid the formation fracturing and
possible damage to injection equipment, the flow behavior index of
liquid should be selected carefully.
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092

Fig. 12. Numerical solutions calculated by thermal module of Eclipse.

Fig. 13. The influence of injection rate on pressure distribution.

10
Y. Zhang et al.
4.5. Injection rates
Injection rates also influences the pressure distribution in formation.
Both semi-analytical solutions and numerical solutions are derived to
investigate the influence of injection rates. In the analytical method, the
parameters are based on the parameters in Table 1. The pressure field is
calculated by the method in section 3. In this method, the dimensionless
equations are derived from Eq.(17)–(29) first. Then, the parameters in
Eq. (30) within each unit are derived from the combination of Eqs.(30)–
(35). Finally, using Eq. (25) and Eq. (19), the final pressure distribution
in reservoir can be easily derived. The pressure distribution can be
calculated under different injection rates.
Also, the numerical model is introduced to investigate the influence
of injection rates. A radial grid is build based on the Eclipse 2014 plat­
form, with grid refinement in the near well region, shown in Fig. 12(a).
The mesh has 24 units in circle, 1 layer in Z direction and 50 units in
radial direction, including 1200 blocks. The radius of outer boundary is
550 m, and radius of the inner boundary is 0.06 m. The formation
thickness is 8 m. Other detailed basic parameters are listed in Table 1,
viscosity-temperature and viscosity-concentration relationships are
based on parameters in section 2 and 4.2. The simulator included the
thermal transfer and polymer module. As our analytical model has
included more information than numerical model, like the micro pore
structure, fractal behavior and shear thinning behavior for polymer,
which cannot be included in Eclipse model, we should provide a syn­
thetic effective viscosity to be introduced in Eclipse model to express the
macro polymer viscosity in Eq. (16) (regarded as the average viscosity
behavior in macro scale). So the fractal pore size distribution is simpli­
fied into capillary bundle model with equivalent diameter, then the pore
size distribution and fractal information are simplified to make the
analytical model to be compared with Eclipse model.
Both temperature distribution and pressure distribution results are
shown in Fig. 12(b)–(c). In Fig. 12(b), we calculated the temperature
distribution under two different injection rates for 2 days and 22days.
The results show that, the temperature generally influences the near
well region. The thermal-influenced radius is about 10–20 m. Although
as the injecting speed or injecting time increases, the thermal-influenced
radius will slightly increase, it is still far behind the pressure front. This
observation is coordinate with our model suggestion part and published
works (Laforce et al., 2014a, b). For pressure distribution, both nu­
merical solutions and semi-analytical solution are provided. Fig. 12(c)
provided the pressure field under different injecting rates and time. It is
clearly that the pressure can transport farther than thermal transport. In
near well region, the pressure is higher than other places in formation.
Additionally, the pressure distribution for semi-analytical model and
numerical Eclipse model (Shown in Fig. 12) are compared in Fig. 13. The
results show the semi-analytical solution (line) is approximate to the
numerical results (dots). Also, it shows that the increase of injection
rates will increase the formation pressure in near well region, but not
increase the pressure dispersion area. In near well region, the pressure is
slightly higher because the injected cold polymer has extra resistance. As
injection rates increase from 20 m3 =d to 70 m3 =d, formation pressure at
Nomenclature
As the pre-exponential factor
C the flow consistency index
Cp the initial polymer concentration
CTC the flow consistency index derived at temperature TC
ct system compressibility
Df the fractal dimension of pore size distribution, 1 � Df < 2
Ea the activation energy (Arrhenius energy) of the viscous flow
h thickness of reservoir
Ke the effective permeability
11
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092
well bottom increases about 0.85 MPa. After 20 days, the pressure dif­
ference increases to 1.25 MPa. The pressure front disperses from 150 m
to 450 m within these 20 days.
5. Conclusion
In this work, we mainly focused on thermal-percolation coupling
process during cold polymer injection, and derived a dynamic nonlinear
flowing model in a radial-flow system, considering the non-Newtonian
behavior and viscosity-temperature behavior of polymer. The influ­
ence of fractal behavior of pores, and the heat transfer from the under-
and overburden have been considered. We then provided general semi-
analytical solutions for pressure distribution by using Laplace transform
and Stehfest numerical inversion. The solutions were verified by pub­
lished data. Finally, factors influencing the polymer injection were dis­
cussed, including temperature distribution, fractal parameters, non-
Newton parameters and injection rates.
The results show that temperature of injected polymer mainly in­
fluences in the near well region. Under the given parameter combina­
tion, injected polymer can be heated into formation temperature within
10 m. Ignoring the temperature variation of polymer will underestimate
the flowing bottomhole pressure about 0.2 MPa. Beyond that range, the
influence of injected polymer’s temperature on pressure distribution is
gradually diminished. Second, fractal behavior mainly influences the
effective mobility ratio of polymer. Increasing fractal dimension of
matrix will increase the complexity of pores, and then decrease the
effective mobility ratio of polymer. Finally, decreasing the flow behavior
index or increasing the injection rates will greatly increase flowing
bottomhole pressure and formation pressure. In polymer selection pro­
cess, these parameters should be considered deliberately. To sum up,
this work is useful and promising to solve the polymer injection process
considering thermal-percolation coupling process. And it provides a new
way to analysis polymer injection process in fractal matrix.
Author contributions section
Yi Zhang has written throughout the manuscript and finished the
mathematical derivation. Jiexiang Wang has designed the manuscript
and provided the founding of this study. Peng Jia and Lin Qiao has
programmed the codes for this study. Guoyu Chu has drawn al of the
figures. All authors discussed the results and commented on the
manuscript.
Declaration of competing interest
Competing interests statement: the authors declare that they have no
competing financial interests.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Science and Technology
Major Project (2016ZX05011-004).
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092

NðL � λÞ the number of tubes with diameter larger than λ

n the flow behavior index for power-law polymer, 0 < n < 1 for most polymer
nTC the flow behavior index at temperature TC
p the liquid pressure
pi the initial formation pressure
Q the injection rate
r the location in radial direction
rw radius of the well
R the universal gas constant
T temperature
TC reference temperature
t injection time
U overall heat transfer coefficient
γ shear rate
λmax the maximum diameter of the pores
λmin the minimum diameter of the pores
λ0 average diameter
2
λ0 the square of λ0
b
λ res the thermal conductivity of reservoir
μe the effective viscosity of polymer
μw water viscosity
τ shear stress
ϕ the porosity
χe the conducting coefficient

Appendix

A1 Analytical solutions for heat transfer reservoir

The original expression of heat transfer function is:

� �
1 ∂ ∂T ðQρCÞf ∂T 2UðtÞ ∂T
b
λ res r ðT Ti Þ ¼ ðρCÞres (A1.1)
r ∂r ∂r 2πhr ∂r h ∂t
The initial condition and boundary condition can be listed as:
Tðx; 0Þ ¼ Ti ; Tð0; tÞ ¼ Tinj ; lim Tðx; tÞ ¼ Ti (A1.2)
x→∞

To simplify the equation, dimensionless parameters are introduced as:

ðQρCÞf
v¼ (A1.3)
4πhb
λ res

T Ti
TD ¼ (A1.4)
Tinj Ti

2r
rTD ¼ (A1.5)
h

b
λ res
’
tTD ¼ 4tTD ¼4 t (A1.6)
ðCρÞres h2
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 ðkρCÞadj
θ ¼ pffiffiffi (A1.7)
π ðkρCÞres

Thus, Eq. (1) can be simplified as the classic second order partial differential equation.
� � � �
1 ∂ ∂T~ θ ∂T~
rTD υ þ pffiffiffiffiffiffi T~ ¼
rTD ∂rTD ∂rTD tTD ∂tTD

where TD ðrTD ; tTD Þ ¼ T~ D ðrTD ; tTD ÞexpðυrTD Þ.The analytical solution is an explicit expression for dimensionless temperature distribution, which can be
easily derived by Laplace transform method as:
Z ∞ � � rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ��
1 pffiffiffiffiffiffi ξ
TD ðrTD ; tTD Þ ¼ exp u 2θ tTD ⋅ 1 1 uv 1 du (A1.8)
ΓðυÞ ξ u

r rTDffiffiffiffi
2 R∞
whereξ ¼ 4tTDTD , u ¼ p , ΓðυÞ ¼ 0 uυ 1 e u du. Eq. (8) is the analytic solution of temperature distribution in formation considering polymer injection
’ 2 tTD

12
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092

and heat transfer from neighborhood formation.

A2 Effective viscosity and permeability in fractal matrix

Pore size distribution for sandstone matrix follows the fractal law. Yu and Cheng (2002) provided the fractal accumulative pore size distribution as:
�λ �Df
(A2.1)
max
NðL � λÞ ¼
λ

where NðL � λÞ is the number of tubes with diameter larger than λ, λmax is the maximum diameter of the pores, Df is the fractal dimension of pore size
distribution, 1 � Df < 2. After differential calculation, the fractal pore size distribution in fractal matrix is:

dN ¼ Df λDmax
f
λ ðDf þ1Þ dλ (A2.2)

And finally
� �
dN
f ðλÞ ¼ ¼ Df λDmax
f
λ ðDf þ1Þ (A2.3)
dλ
So, the sum of flowing flux within fractal matrix can be expressed as
Z λmax Z λmax � �1=n �
1 dp n ��λ�1þ3n
λ ðDf þ1Þ dλ (A2.4)
n
Q¼ qðλÞdNðλÞ ¼ π Df λDmax
f

λmin λmin 2C dL 1 þ 3n 2

The porosity can be expressed as

R λmax �λ�2
λmin
π 2 Df λDmax
f
λ ðDf þ1Þ dλ π Df λDmax
f � �
(A2.5)
2 Df
ϕ¼ ¼ � λ2maxDf λmin
A 4 2 Df A

where ϕ is the porosity and A is the cross section area. According to the related definitions, the liquid velocity can be expressed as
Z λmax � �1=n �
1 dp n ��λ�1þ3n
λ ðDf þ1Þ dλ
n
ϕ π Df λDmax
f

Q λmin 2C dL 1 þ 3n 2
V¼ ¼ Z λmax
A π Df 3 Df
Df λmax λ dλ
λmin 4

0 1 (A2.6)

� � �1þ3n � � �� �1=n B 1þ3n nDf 1þ3n nDf

C
n � 1 n n 2 Df 1 dp Bλmaxn λmin n
C
¼ 4ϕ B 2 D 2 D C
1 þ 3n 2 1 þ 3n nDf 2C dL @ λ f λmin f A
max

After rearrangement, the above equation can be expressed as:

0 1n
R λmax 1þ2n nDf
h i B dλC
1 ϕn B λmin λ C dp
n n

V¼ n 1 B R λmax 1 D C
4CV 2ð1 þ 3nÞ @ λ f
dλ A dL
λmin

8 9n (A2.7)
>
> � � 1þ3n nDf >
>
>� 1þ3n nDf
>
1 h ϕn in < n 2 Df λmaxn λmin n = dp
¼ n 1 2 D
4CV > 1 þ 3n nDf
2ð1 þ 3nÞ > λ2maxDf λmin f >
> dL
>
: >
;

Based on related definitions, the effective viscosity μe and effective permeability Ke is expressed as:
0 1nþ1
n 8 9nþ1
n

R λmax 1þ2n nDf >

> � >
1þ3n nDf >
>�
< n 2 D � 1þ3n nDf >
h ϕn i1 n 1 n B
B λ λ
n dλC
C λmaxn λmin n =
(A2.8)
f
μe ¼ C λ0 ; λ0 ¼ B Rmin
λ C ¼ 2 D
2ð1 þ 3nÞ @ max
λ 1 D f
dλ A >
> 1 þ 3n nDf 2
λmax D f
λmin f > >
λmin >
: >
;

1 h ϕn i 2
Ke ¼ λ0 ; (A2.9)
4 2ð1 þ 3nÞ

2
where λ0 average diameter, λ0 is the square of λ0 . Thus, the effective mobility can be expressed as:
0 1n
R λmax 1þ2n nDf
Ke 1 h ϕn in B B λmin λ
n dλC
C
¼ B R λmax 1 D C (A2.10)
μe 4C 2ð1 þ 3nÞ @ λ f
λmin
dλ A

13
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 190 (2020) 107092

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107092.

References Li, C., Lin, M., Ji, L., Jiang, W., 2019a. Multiphase flow in tight sandstone: an improved
application for 3D intermingled fractal model. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 177, 403–414.
Li, C., Lin, M., Ji, L., Jiang, W., Cao, G., 2018. Rapid evaluation of the permeability of
Abramowitz, M., 1972. Abramowitz and Stegun: Handbook of Mathematical Functions,
organic-rich shale using the 3D intermingled-fractal model. SPE J.
vol. 10. US Department of Commerce.
Li, X., et al., 2019b. Quantitative criteria for identifying main flow channels in complex
Akter, S., Hashmi, M.S.J., 1999. Analysis of polymer flow in a conical coating unit: a
porous media. Petrol. Explor. Dev. 5 (46), 998–1005.
power law approach. Prog. Org. Coating 37 (1–2), 15–22.
Lian, P., Li, L., Duan, T., 2018. Injection parameters optimization of crosslinked polymer
Balankin, A.S., Elizarraraz, B.E., 2012a. Hydrodynamics of fractal continuum flow. Phys.
flooding by genetic algorithm. Adv. Geo-Energy Res. 2 (4), 441–449.
Rev. E - Stat. Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys. 85 (2 Pt 2), 025302.
Manichand, R.N., Moe Soe Let, K.P., Gil, L., Quillien, B., Seright, R.S., 2013. Effective
Balankin, A.S., Elizarraraz, B.E., 2012b. Map of fluid flow in fractal porous medium into
propagation of HPAM solutions through the tambaredjo field during a polymer
fractal continuum flow. Phys. Rev. E - Stat. Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys. 85 (5 Pt 2),
flood. In: SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry. Society of Petroleum
056314.
Engineers, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, p. 14.
Bodvarsson, G., 1972. Thermal problems in the siting of reinjection wells. Geothermics 1
Meng, Q., Cai, J., 2018. Recent advances in spontaneous imbibition with different
(2), 63–66.
boundary conditions. Capillarity 1 (3), 19–26.
Cai, J., 2014. A fractal approach to low velocity non-Darcy flow in a low permeability
Monroy, F., Hilles, H.M., Ortega, F., Rubio, R.G., 2003. Relaxation dynamics of Langmuir
porous medium. Chin. Phys. B 23 (4), 044701.
polymer films: a power-law analysis. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (26 Pt 1), 268302.
Cai, J., Yu, B., Zou, M., Mei, M., 2010. Fractal analysis of invasion depth of extraneous
Olajire, A.A., 2014. Review of ASP EOR (alkaline surfactant polymer enhanced oil
fluids in porous media. Chem. Eng. Sci. 65 (18), 5178–5186.
recovery) technology in the petroleum industry: prospects and challenges. Energy
Chaudhuri, A., Vishnudas, R., 2018. A systematic numerical modeling study of various
77, 963–982.
polymer injection conditions on immiscible and miscible viscous fingering and oil
Restolho, J., Serro, A.P., Mata, J.L., Saramago, B., 2009. Viscosity and surface tension of
recovery in a five-spot setup. Fuel 232, 431–443.
1-ethanol-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate and 1-methyl-3-octylimidazolium
Chen, C.S., Reddell, D.L., 1983. Temperature distribution around a well during thermal
tetrafluoroborate over a wide temperature range. J. Chem. Eng. Data 54 (3),
injection and a graphical technique for evaluating aquifer thermal properties. Water
950–955.
Resour. Res. 19 (2), 351–363.
Satman, A., Zolotukhin, A.B., Soliman, M.Y., 1984. Application of the time-dependent
Chen, P., Gao, D., Wang, Z., Huang, W., 2017. Study on aggressively working casing
overall heat-transfer coefficient concept to heat-transfer problems in porous media.
string in extended-reach well. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 157, 604–616.
Soc. Petrol. Eng. J. 24 (1), 107–112.
Chen, P., et al., 2018. Poroelastic modeling of cutting rock in pressurized condition.
Seright, R.S., Fan, T., Wavrik, K., Balaban, R.d.C., 2011. New insights into polymer
J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 169, 623–635.
rheology in porous media. SPE J. 16 (1), 35–42.
Choi, B.I., Jeong, M.S., Lee, K.S., 2014. Temperature-dependent viscosity model of HPAM
Seright, R.S., Seheult, J.M., Talashek, T., 2009. Injectivity characteristics of EOR
polymer through high-temperature reservoirs. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 110, 225–231.
polymers, 12 (5), 783–792. SPE-144234-PA.
Cihan, A., Sukop, M.C., Tyner, J.S., Perfect, E., Huang, H., 2009. Analytical predictions
Shen, W., Song, F., Hu, X., Zhu, G., Zhu, W., 2019. Experimental study on flow
and lattice Boltzmann simulations of intrinsic permeability for mass fractal porous
characteristics of gas transport in micro-and nanoscale pores. Sci. Rep. 9 (1), 1–10.
media. Vadose Zone J. 8 (1), 187.
Sheng, J., 2013. Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Case Studies. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Delshad, M., et al., 2008. Mechanistic interpretation and utilization of viscoelastic
Sheng, G.L., Su, Y.L., Wang, W.D., 2019. A new fractal approach for describing induced-
behavior of polymer solutions for improved polymer-flood efficiency. In: SPE
fracture porosity/permeability/compressibility in stimulated unconventional
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Tulsa,
reservoirs. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 179, 855–866.
Oklahoma, USA, p. 15.
Sidiq, H., Abdulsalam, V., Nabaz, Z., 2019. Reservoir simulation study of enhanced oil
Ganguly, S., Kumar, M.S.M., 2014. Analytical solutions for transient temperature
recovery by sequential polymer flooding method. Adv. Geo-Energy Res. 3 (2),
distribution in a geothermal reservoir due to cold water injection. Hydrogeol. J. 22
115–121.
(2), 351–369.
Skauge, T., et al., 2016. Radial and linear polymer flow-influence on injectivity. In: SPE
Garmeh, G., et al., 2012. Thermally active polymer to improve sweep efficiency of
Improved Oil Recovery Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
waterfloods: simulation and pilot design approaches, 15 (1), 86–97. SPE-144234-PA.
Stavland, A., Jonsbraten, H., Lohne, A., Moen, A., Giske, N.H., 2010. Polymer flooding -
Green, D.W., Willhite, G.P., 1998. Enhanced Oil Recovery, 6. Henry L. Doherty Memorial
flow properties in porous media versus rheological parameters. In: SPE EUROPEC/
Fund of AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Barcelona,
Haj-Kacem, R.B., et al., 2014. Contribution to modeling the viscosity Arrhenius-type
Spain, p. 15.
equation for some solvents by statistical correlations analysis. Fluid Phase Equil.
Stehfest, H., 1970. Algorithm 368: Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms [D5].
383, 11–20.
van den Hoek, P., et al., 2012a. Application of injection fall-off analysis in polymer
Hamid, S.A.A., Muggeridge, A.H., 2018. Analytical solution of polymer slug injection
flooding. In: SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
with viscous fingering. Comput. Geosci. 1–13.
Copenhagen, Denmark, p. 10.
Heemskerk, J., Rosmalen, R., Janssen-van, R., Holtslag, R.J., Teeuw, D., 1984.
van den Hoek, P., et al., 2012b. Application of injection fall-off analysis in polymer
Quantification of viscoelastic effects of polyacrylamide solutions. In: SPE Enhanced
flooding. In: SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Oil Recovery Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma, p. 8.
Wang, W., Liu, Y., Gu, Y., 2003. Application of a novel polymer system in chemical
Ikoku, C.U., Ramey Jr., H.J., 1979. Transient flow of non-Newtonian power-law fluids in
enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Colloid Polym. Sci. 281 (11), 1046–1054.
porous media. Soc. Petrol. Eng. J. 19 (3), 164–174.
Weiss, W.W., Baldwin, R.W., 1985. Planning and implementing a large-scale polymer
Ikoku, C.U., Ramey Jr., H.J., 1980. Wellbore storage and skin effects during the transient
flood, 37 (4), 720–730. SPE-2867-PA.
flow of non-Newtonian power-law fluids in porous media. Soc. Petrol. Eng. J. 20 (1),
Xia, Y., et al., 2019. Fractal dimension, lacunarity and succolarity analyses on CT images
25–38.
of reservoir rocks for permeability prediction. J. Hydrol. 579, 124198.
Jennings, R.R., Rogers, J.H., West, T.J., 1971. Factors influencing mobility control by
Yeh, H.D., Yang, S.Y., Li, K.Y., 2011. Heat extraction from aquifer geothermal systems.
polymer solutions, 23 (3), 391–401. SPE-2867-PA.
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods GeoMech. 36 (1), 85–99.
Jiang, T., Fang, T., Chen, g., 1982. Study on the rheological properties of non-Newtonian
Yu, B., Cheng, P., 2002. A fractal permeability model for bi-dispersed porous media. Int.
power law fluids. J. East China Inst. Chem. Technol. 1 (1), 25–34.
J. Heat Mass Tran. 45 (14), 2983–2993.
Jiang, T.Q., 1982. STUDY ON THE RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF NON-NEWTONIAN
Zechner, M., Clemens, T., Suri, A., Sharma, M.M., 2015. Simulation of polymer injection
POWER LAW FLUIDS.
under fracturing conditions—an injectivity pilot in the Matzen field, Austria, 18 (2),
Kamal, M., Goyal, S., Chu, E., 1988. Simulation of injection mold filling of viscoelastic
236–249. SPE-144234-PA.
polymer with fountain flow. AIChE J. 34 (1), 94–106.
Zhang, J., Cheng, S., Zhu, C., Luo, L., 2019. A numerical model to evaluate formation
Kong, X., 1999. Advanced Mechanics of Fluids in Porous Media. Press of University of
properties through pressure-transient analysis with alternate polymer flooding. Adv.
Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China, p. 503.
Geo-Energy Res. 3 (1), 94–103.
Laforce, T., Ennis-King, J., Paterson, L., 2013. Magnitude and duration of temperature
Zhang, L.-j., Yue, X.-a., 2008. Displacement of polymer solution on residual oil trapped in
changes in geological storage of carbon dioxide ☆. Energy Procedia 37, 4465–4472.
dead ends. J. Cent. S. Univ. Technol. 15 (1), 84–87.
Laforce, T., Ennis-King, J., Paterson, L., 2014a. Semi-analytical solutions for
Zhang, Z., Li, J., Zhou, J., 2011. Microscopic roles of “viscoelasticity” in HPMA polymer
nonisothermal fluid injection including heat loss from the reservoir: Part 1.
flooding for EOR. Transport Porous Media 86 (1), 199–214.
Saturation and temperature. Adv. Water Resour. 73, 242–253.
Zheng, M., Tian, J., Mulero, A., � 2013. New correlations between viscosity and surface
LaForce, T., Ennis-King, J., Paterson, L., 2014b. Semi-analytical solutions for
tension for saturated normal fluids. Fluid Phase Equil. 360, 298–304.
nonisothermal fluid injection including heat loss from the reservoir: Part 1.
Zolotukhin, A., 1979. Analytical definition of the overall heat transfer coefficient. In: SPE
Saturation and temperature. Adv. Water Resour. 73, 227–241.
California Regional Meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

14