Analytical Model For Fluid Flow Coupling

ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR FLUID FLOW
COUPLING WITH HEAT TRANSFER

INTEGRATING HEAT CONDUCTION AND
CONVECTION IN RADIAL SYSTEM
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
Master of Applied Science
in
Petroleum Systems Engineering
University of Regina
By
Wanju Yuan
Regina, Saskatchewan
September, 2015
© Copyright 2015: Wanju Yuan

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH
SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINING COMMITTEE
Wanju Yuan, candidate for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Petroleum Systems
Engineering, has presented a thesis titled, Analytical Model for Fluid Flow Coupling
With Heat Transfer Integrating Heat Conduction and Convection in Radial System, in
an oral examination held on August 20, 2015. The following committee members have
found the thesis acceptable in form and content, and that the candidate demonstrated
satisfactory knowledge of the subject material.
External Examiner: Dr.Yiyu Yao, Department of Computer Science
Supervisor: Dr. Gang Zhao, Petroleum Systems Engineering
Committee Member: Dr. Peter Gu, Petroleum Systems Engineering
Committee Member: Dr. Tsun Wai Kelvin Ng, Environmental Systems Engineering
Chair of Defense: Dr. Dianliang Deng, Department of Mathematics & Statistics

ABSTRACT
Enormous heavy oil resources has been found in western Canada. But some factors
especially high viscosity limit their development. Thermal recovery methods which
injecting heat into the reservoir or in-situ combustion, have been widely used to enhance
heavy oil recovery. The viscosity of the crude oil has been lowered by raising the
temperature of the reservoir, so temperature and pressure profiles are important factors for
making operations and development plans in thermal recovery process. Understanding
how heat transfer influences the fluids flow is the key knowledge for us to make the right
decisions.
In this study, a novel heat transfer model in radial system, integrating both
conduction and convection, has been developed to describe the heat transfer in the heating
reservoir. In this temperature domain model, heat injection rate keeps constant and
dimensionless variables are defined to reduce the model to the dimensionless form.
Variable transformation and Laplace transformation are performed to derive the analytical
solution in Laplace space. By using Stehfest inverse algorithm, the solution in Laplace
space can be converted to dimensionless analytical solution in real time space.
With an analytical solution of temperature domain, fluid flow in the reservoir can be
generated by dividing the whole reservoir into numbers of sub-sections. Pseudo-time is
introduced to solve the changing viscosity and makes the analytical model can be solved.
Dimensionless variables are also defined and the pressure are solved in Laplace space.
I
Sequentially coupling method is applied to use the temperature profiles in pressure domain.
The final dimensionless analytical solutions are obtained by Stehfest inverse algorithm.
Numerical simulations by COMSOL Multiphysics are conducted to validate the
analytical solutions of the models. Satisfactory agreements of the results are achieved
between analytical solutions and numerical simulation results. Sensitivity analysis are also
conducted to analyze the influence factors of heat transfer and fluid flow. Heat injection
rate, heat capacity of fluids and rock, permeability are important parameters for heat
transfer and fluid flow. They have their unique effects on the heating injection process.
II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Gang Zhao, who has
offered and supported me the precious opportunity to study in University of Regina.
Without his excellent guidance, continuous encouragement and financial support, I would
not complete the Master degree and also this thesis. He is an excellent and friendly
supervisor.
All members in our Dr. Zhao’s research group also gives me technical support and many
useful discussion. They are Ms. Jianli Li, Ms. Yue Zhu, Mr. Lei Xiao, Mr. Kuizheng Yu,
Mr. Chang Su, Mr. Shuai Cheng, Mr. Ning Ju, and Mr. Jiawei Li.
I would also like to acknowledge Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC) for the
funding to Dr. Zhao and Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research (FGSR) at the
University of Regina for awarding the Graduate Student Scholarship to me.
Thanks my friends and everyone who extended their love, kindness and help to me during
my 3 years’ stay in the beautiful City of Regina.
III
DEDICATION
To my dearest parents,
Ms. Xiuqin Wan and Mr. Haidong Yuan,
and my love,
Ms. Hang Yin,
for their continuous support, unconditional love and precious understanding
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... III
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................... IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. V
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... IX
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... X
NOMENCLATURE................................................................................................ XIII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1
1.1 HEAVY OIL RESOURCES...........................................................................................1
1.2 RECOVERY TECHNIQUES USED IN HEAVY OIL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT..................4
1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS THESIS STUDY ..............................................................................8
1.4 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS ..........................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................9
2.1 MECHANISMS OF HEAT TRANSFER IN POROUS MEDIA ..............................................9
2.1.1 Heat conduction ..............................................................................................9
2.1.2 Heat convection ............................................................................................ 12
2.2 MATHEMATICAL STUDIES OF HEAT TRANSFER IN POROUS MEDIA ............................ 14
V
CHAPTER 3 MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF RADIAL SYSTEM HEAT
TRANSFER INTEGRADTING HEAT CONDUCTION AND HEAT
CONVECTION ........................................................................................................... 19
3.1 RADIAL CONDUCTION AND CONVECTION PROCESS ................................................. 19
3.2 MATHEMATICAL MODEL ....................................................................................... 22
3.2.1 Governing heat transfer equation ................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Initial and boundary conditions ..................................................................... 23
3.2.2.1 Initial condition ................................................................................................. 23
3.2.2.2 Boundary condition ........................................................................................... 23
3.3 ANALYTICAL SOLUTION ........................................................................................ 24
3.3.1 Governing equations ..................................................................................... 24
3.3.2 Dimensionless form ...................................................................................... 25
3.3.3 Laplace transformation .................................................................................. 26
3.3.4 Transformation of dependent variable ........................................................... 27
3.3.5 Solution in Laplace domain and inverse Laplace transformation by Stehfest
algorithm ............................................................................................................... 28
3.4 MODEL VALIDATION ............................................................................................. 29
3.5 MODEL RESULTS ..................................................................................................36
3.6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 40
3.6.1 Effect of heat injection rate ........................................................................... 40
3.6.2 Effect of reservoir thermal conductivity ........................................................ 44
3.6.3 Effect of volumetric heat capacity of fluid ..................................................... 47
3.6.4 Effect of volumetric heat capacity of rock matrix .......................................... 49
VI
CHAPTER 4 STEADY FLUIDS FLOW COUPLED WITH TEMPERATURE
CHANGE .................................................................................................................... 51
4.1 HEAT TRANSFER IN FINITE BOUNDARY................................................................... 51
4.1.1 Governing equations ..................................................................................... 51
4.1.3 Transformation of dependent variable ........................................................... 53
algorithm ............................................................................................................... 54
4.2 FLUID FLOW MODEL DURING THE INJECTION PROCESS ............................................55
4.2.1 Governing equation ....................................................................................... 57
4.2.2 Initial and boundary condition ....................................................................... 57
4.2.2.1 Initial condition ................................................................................................. 57
4.2.2.2 Boundary condition ........................................................................................... 58
4.2.3 Connection condition .................................................................................... 58
4.2.4 Pseudo time ..................................................................................................59
4.2.5 Dimensionless form ...................................................................................... 59
4.2.7 Analytical solution and inverse Laplace transformation by Stehfest algorithm
.............................................................................................................................. 62
4.3 COUPLING METHOD .............................................................................................. 65
4.4 MODEL VALIDATION ............................................................................................. 67
4.5 MODEL RESULTS ..................................................................................................74
4.6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 80
VII
4.6.1 Effect of heat injection rate ........................................................................... 80
4.6.2 Effect of reservoir thermal conductivity ........................................................ 84
4.6.3 Effect of reservoir permeability ..................................................................... 87
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 90
5.1 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 90
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 91
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 92
VIII
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1 Classification of heavy oil and bitumen (Gibson, 1982; Farouq Ali, 2006) ..2
TABLE 3-1 Basic parameters in mathematical and numerical simulation models under
steady flow condition ............................................................................... 30
TABLE 3-2 Sensitivity analysis parameters illustration ................................................ 42
steady flow condition for two domains coupling validation ...................... 69
steady flow condition for two domains coupling ...................................... 75
TABLE 4-3 Sensitivity analysis parameters illustration ................................................ 81
IX
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1 Heavy oil and bitumen deposits in western Canada (AER, 2011) ..............3
FIGURE 1-2 A viscosity-temperature curve of heavy oil (Canadian Heavy Oil
Association, 2013) ..................................................................................6
FIGURE 1-3 CSS process stages illustration (Imperial Oil, 2012) ..................................7
FIGURE 2-1 Heat transfer mechanisms in molecules of porous media (Yu, 2014) ....... 10
FIGURE 2-2 (a) Temperature distributions with pure conduction; (b) Temperature
distributions with convection-conduction (Yu, 2014) ............................ 13
FIGURE 3-1 Illustration of heat transfer model integrating conduction and convection21
FIGURE 3-2 Heat transfer simulation model and mesh system used in COMSOL
Multiphysics ......................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 3-3 2-D Heat transfer process simulated by COMSOL Multiphysics ............. 32
FIGURE 3-4 3-D Heat transfer process simulated by COMSOL Multiphysics ............. 33
FIGURE 3-5 Temperature distribution at different times for validation ........................ 34
FIGURE 3-6 Temperature propagation at different locations for validation.................. 35
FIGURE 3-7 Temperature distribution at different times .............................................37
FIGURE 3-8 Temperature propagation at different locations .......................................38
FIGURE 3-9 3-D Heat transfer simulated result ........................................................... 39
FIGURE 3-10 (a) Temperature distribution at 10 tD with different heat injection rate; (b)
Temperature propagation at r=10 rD with different heat injection rate .... 43
X
FIGURE 3-11 (a) Temperature distribution at 10 tD with different thermal conductivity;
(b) Temperature propagation at r=10 rD with different thermal
conductivity .......................................................................................... 46
FIGURE 3-12 (a) Temperature distribution at 10 tD with different volumetric heat
capacity of fluid; (b) Temperature propagation at r=10 rD with different
volumetric heat capacity of fluid ........................................................... 48
FIGURE 3-13 (a) Temperature distribution at 10 tD with different volumetric heat
capacity of rock; (b) Temperature propagation at r=10 rD with different
volumetric heat capacity of rock ............................................................ 50
FIGURE 4-1 Illustration of Fluid flow coupling heat transfer model ............................ 56
FIGURE 4-2 Flowchart of pressure domain coupling temperature domain ................... 66
FIGURE 4-3 Two domains coupling simulation model and mesh system used in
COMSOL Multiphysics ........................................................................ 70
FIGURE 4-4 Test heavy oil viscosity-temperature curve .............................................71
FIGURE 4-5 Temperature propagation at 170.5 rD for validation ................................. 72
FIGURE 4-6 Pressure and Pressure derivative curve by analytical model and COMSOL
.............................................................................................................73
FIGURE 4-7 (a) Temperature propagation at different distances; (b) Temperature
distribution at different time .................................................................. 76
FIGURE 4-8 (a) Pressure curve at different distances; (b) Pressure distribution at
different times ....................................................................................... 77
FIGURE 4-9 (a) Illustration of 5 stages divided by pressure derivative curve; (b)
Pressure derivative curve at different distances ...................................... 79
XI
FIGURE 4-10 Pressure curve at 160 rD with different thermal fluid injection rate ........ 82
FIGURE 4-11 Pressure derivative curve at 160 rD with different thermal fluid injection
rate........................................................................................................83
FIGURE 4-12 Pressure curve at 160 rD with different reservoir thermal conductivity... 85
FIGURE 4-13 Pressure derivative curve at 160 rD with different reservoir thermal
conductivity .......................................................................................... 86
FIGURE 4-14 Pressure curve at 160 rD with different reservoir permeability ............... 88
FIGURE 4-15 Pressure derivative curve at 160 rD with different reservoir permeability
.............................................................................................................89
XII
NOMENCLATURE
Notations
ρc Volumetric heat capacity, J/(m3∙K)
C1, C2 Coefficients in general temperature solution
A1..Bn Coefficients in general pressure solution
k Permeability, µm2
K Thermal conductivity, W/(m∙K)
P Pressure, kPa
PD Dimensionless pressure
qi Thermal fluid injection rate, m3/s
s Laplace parameter
T Temperature, K
TD Dimensionless temperature
t Time, s
tD Dimensionless time
V Darcy’s velocity, m/s
r Radius, m
rD Dimensionless radius
T Temperature gradient, K/m
P Pressure gradient, Pa/m
N Stehfest inverse parameter
XIII
Abbreviations
AER Alberta Energy Regulator
AEUB Alberta Energy and Utilities Board
API American Petroleum Institute
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CSS Cyclic Steam Stimulation
CHOA Canadian Heavy Oil Association
CHOPS Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand
ODE Ordinary Differential Equation
OOIP Original Oil in Place
PDE Partial Differential Equation
SAGD Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage
VAPEX Vapour Extraction
Greek letters
ϕ Porosity, fraction
µ Viscosity, Pa∙s
ρ Density, kg/m3
ϑ Comparison factor defined in equation (4.26)
τ Pseudo time variable defined in equation (4.22)
XIV
Subscript
D Dimensionless
f Fluid
i Initial condition
o Oil
r Reservoir
m Matrix/Rock
XV
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Heavy oil resources
Heavy oil resources have been developed for decades and become more and more
important because of the decreasing production of conventional oil resources. Heavy oil
is characterized by low API gravity and high oil viscosity compared with that of
conventional oil. Heavy oil is classified by viscosity and density. The viscosity is usually
larger than 100 cp and density is less than 22 °API. It is closely related to bitumen from
oil sand and the density of bitumen is less than 12 °API. Heavy oil is not recoverable in its
natural state through a well by ordinary production methods (Canadian Heavy oil
Association, 2013). The classification of heavy oil and bitumen are listed in TABLE 1-1.
Heavy oil and bitumen resources have been found in western Canada which holds
tremendous resource with an estimated original oil in place (OOIP) of 5.7 billion m3 in
Alberta and 3.4 billion m3 in Saskatchewan (AEUB, 2007), respectively. Athabasca
Wabiskwa-McMurray, Cold Lake Clearwater and Peace River Bluesky-Gething are three
major heavy oil and bitumen deposits in Alberta (AER, 2011). Heavy oil deposits are
found in the sands of the Bakken formation (Mississippian) and the Mannville group in
Saskatchewan (Wilson and Bennett, 1985). The geographical distributions of heavy oil
and bitumen deposits in western Canada are shown in FIGURE 1-1.
1
TABLE 1-1 Classification of heavy oil and bitumen (Gibson, 1982; Farouq Ali, 2006)
Classification Viscosity[1], mPa∙s Density[2], g/cm3 API gravity[2], °API[3]
Heavy oil 100 ~ 10,000 0.943 ~ 1.0 20 ~ 10
Bitumen > 10,000 > 1.0 < 10
Note: [1] Degassed oil viscosity at reservoir temperature, 0.1MPa

[2] Degassed oil density/API gravity at 15.6 °C, 0.1 MPa
141.5
[3] API gravity   131.5

2
FIGURE 1-1 Heavy oil and bitumen deposits in western Canada (AER, 2011)
3
1.2 Recovery techniques used in heavy oil resources development
Usually, there are two approaches for developing heavy oil and bitumen resources.
They are open pit mining and in-situ methods, depending on the depth of the deposit (AER
2015). In open pit method, overburden is removed, oil sands ore is mined, and bitumen is
extracted from the mined material in large facilities using hot water. At greater depths,
where it is not economical to recover the bitumen by mining, in situ methods are employed.
In situ recovery takes place both by primary development, similar to conventional crude
oil production, and by enhanced development.
Generally, the enhanced development methods are classified into two categories:
thermal recovery methods and non-thermal recovery methods. The common point of this
two categories is to hence the heavy oil mobility by reduce the oil viscosity.
Thermal recovery methods are using heat to reduce oil viscosity. Because we know
the viscosity of fluids will decrease when we heat them. As can be seen in FIGURE 1-2,
heating the heavy oil can reduce its viscosity by several orders of magnitude. Cyclic steam
stimulation (CSS) and steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) are the two main methods
of enhanced development whereby the reservoir is heated to reduce the viscosity of the
bitumen, allowing it to flow to a vertical or horizontal wellbore (AER 2015). Except these
two methods, steam flooding and in-situ combustion are also the thermal recovery methods.
CSS is a typical method to heat the reservoir and make it recoverable.
In CSS process, Steam is injected to the well at the highest possible rate (to minimize
the heat losses rate) for several weeks. After injecting the desired volume of steam, the
well is shut in for about a week. This will promote partial condensation of steam, thereby
4
heating the rock and the fluids, as well as to achieve even distribution of the injected heat.
During the steam injection and soak periods, the oil viscosity is lowered; thermal
expansion of oil and water occurs; any free gas is forced into solution. The well thus
produces for an extended period of time, at a rate many times the cold production rate.
With the passage of time, the steam-heated sand cools down as a result of heat losses and
heat production, and the oil production rate declines. At minimum economic rate, the
whole cycle is repeated. Up to 22 cycles have been reported. The process stages can be
shown by FIGURE 1-3.
In comparison with thermal recovery processes, non-thermal recovery techniques
have been applied in the past few decades because of their reduced energy consumption
and good applicability to thin formations. In general, non-thermal techniques can be
classified as sand production and solvent-based methods. Sand production is technically
known as Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS). The use of high quality PCP
allows co-production of sand and heavy oil (Lea et al., 1988). This simultaneous extraction
of oil and san generates porosity channels, called “wormholes” that improve effective
permeability. The extraction process consequently causes the pressure to drop below the
bubble point and the dissolved-gas to evolve from the solution. Solution gas that remained
in the oil makes it lighter and easier to flow (Huerta et al., 1996). Solvent-based methods
include vapour extraction (VAPEX), cyclic solvent injection, CO2 injection and light
hydrocarbon flooding. The primary oil recovery mechanism in these processes is to reduce
oil viscosity through solvent dissolution rather than heat.
5
FIGURE 1-2 A viscosity-temperature curve of heavy oil (Canadian Heavy Oil
Association, 2013)
6
FIGURE 1-3 CSS process stages illustration (Imperial Oil, 2012)
7
1.3 Purpose of this thesis study
The objective of the study is to comprehensively understand the heat transfer
mechanism in porous media and theoretically model radial system fluid flow coupled with
heat transfer. The primary objectives of the study include:
1) To develop a novel mathematical model integrating conduction and convection in
a radial system which could describe transient heat transfer process in heavy oil
resources.
2) To solve the pressure domain in the injection heat process coupled with the new
heat transfer model, and find the pressure change mechanism during heat
injection period, such as CSS, steam flooding.
1.4 Outline of the thesis
This thesis is composed of six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the research topic
together with its major research objectives. Chapter 2 provides an updated literature review
on mechanisms of heat transfer coupled with fluid flow in porous media. It also includes
previous mathematical studies of heat transfer in porous media. Chapter 3 presents a
mathematical model that describe the radial system heat transfer integrating heat
conduction and heat convection. Sensitivity analysis shows the factors that affect the heat
transfer. Chapter 4 presents a radial systems heat injection model. Pressure domain and
temperature domain are solved by a novel couple method. And sensitivity analysis is also
done to analyze the influence factors. Chapter 5 summarizes the conclusions of current
research and provides some recommendations for future work.
8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Mechanisms of heat transfer in Porous Media
In porous media, conductive and convective heat transfers occur simultaneously
with fluids flow, and the rate of heat transfer by convection is usually quicker than that by
conduction (Kaviany, 1995). The stationary fluids and reservoir matrix are heated by
conduction, while the displacement of oil and movement of injection fluid in reservoir are
the sources of convective heat transfer. Heat conduction is dominated by temperature
gradient, while heat convection is dominated by pressure gradient. Conduction transfers
heat to the surrounding area in all directions, while convection mainly transports heat
along the direction of fluid flow, which is illustrated in FIGURE 2-1 (Yu, 2014).
2.1.1 Heat conduction
Heat conduction transfer occurs at the molecular scale, by means of collisions and
interactions between molecules at different energy states. Conductive heat transfer is
caused by temperature difference between adjacent particles (Kaviany, 1995). When hot
fluid is injected into the reservoir, its heat is transferred to the molecules it contacts, which,
in turn, conduct the heat to neighboring molecules and so on. The Fourier’s equation below
shows the conductive heat flux (Irani and Ghannadi, 2013):
qd   K T (2.1)
where, qd is conductive heat flux, K is thermal conductivity, T is temperature gradient.
9
Heat transfer by conduction
Heat transfer by convection
Solid metrix of porous media
FIGURE 2-1 Heat transfer mechanisms in molecules of porous media (Yu, 2014)
10
A more well-known equation to describe transient heat conduction can be
constructed by performing an energy balance on a small control volume, using Fourier’s
law. The result is a second order partial differential equation, often called the “heat
diffusion equation” or simply the “heat equation” (Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959):
T
   K T   Q   c (2.2)
t
where, Q is the internal heat generation rate per unit volume, ρ is the density, and c is the
specific heat capacity.
Similarly, fluid diffusion problem in reservoir engineering can be solved by using
source and sink functions and Green’s function (Zhao, 2002).
When the heat is conducted through an isotropic medium (in which the thermal
conductivity is equal in all directions), then the heat equation can be expanded as follows
in three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates (Baston, 2008):
  T    T    T  T
K  K  K   Q  c (2.3)
x  x  y  y  z  z  t
11
2.1.2 Heat convection
Heat may also be transported through the movement of heated fluids. Heat transfer
by convection occurs when hot fluids flow in the heavy oil reservoir, and heat is
transported by the movements of particles within the fluids. The velocity of fluids flow
can be described from Darcy’s law. The following equations show the convective heat flux
and Darcy’s velocity (Baston, 2008; Irani and Ghannadi, 2013):
qv   f c f V (T  Tr ) (2.4)
k
V  P (2.5)

where, qv is convective heat flux, ρf is fluid density, cf is the specific heat capacity of
injection fluid, V is Darcy’s velocity, k is reservoir permeability, µ is fluid viscosity, P is
pressure, T is the temperature of injection fluid and Tr is reservoir temperature.
When a fluid moves with a constant velocity, the effect of convective heat transfer
can be modeled by the addition of this convective heat flux into the heat equation (2.2):
T
   K T       f c f V (T  Tr )   Q   c (2.6)
t
Convection-Conduction is a dynamic heat transfer process, which transfers the
energy of a moving heat source over a much further distance. A comparison of heat transfer
efficiency between pure conduction (Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959) and convection-
conduction is performed, which indicates that convection plays an important role in
accelerating heat transfer (see FIGURE 2-2).
12
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 2-2 (a) Temperature distributions with pure conduction; (b) Temperature
distributions with convection-conduction (Yu, 2014)
13
2.2 Mathematical studies of heat transfer in porous media
The heat transfer through a permeable domain coupled with migration of fluids is a
common problem in reservoir engineering. It is found that more fundamental researches
are conducted in early ages but more numerical simulation results are presented in recently
years.
Miller and Seban (1955) realized that problems relating to thermal methods of oil
recovery had been given increasing attention during the past years. One of the processes
involved was the transfer of heat by conduction in oil reservoir rocks containing moving
reservoir fluids. This technical note deal with heat conduction in a laboratory sand column
filled with a moving hydrocarbon and therefore should be contributory to the presently
inadequate fund of knowledge on the over-all subject. Their results disclosed that rates of
heat transfer by conduction, in the direction of fluid motion, generally would be small for
systems of the type studied.
Ramey (1959) presented a general solution for the transient temperature distribution
caused by radial movement of a cylindrical heat source through a homogeneous medium
of infinite extent. This was a highly simplified model of the movement of a combustion
front during the thermal recovery of oil. Numerical solutions were presented for both finite
and infinite vertical thickness of the heat source.
Bailey and Larkin (1960) proposed a model of heat flow in an underground
combustion process. This model included convection effects and thus was more general
than previous studies which considered conduction as the only mechanism for heat transfer.
In this model, both linear and radial geometries were considered. The results were in the
14
form of equations and are presented in graphical form for a number of cases. Convection
effects increased frontal temperatures about 25 per cent over those computed for
conductive transfer for typical field operating condition.
Thomas (1964) presented a simplified mathematical model of underground
conduction heating in a system of limited permeability. This model applied to underground
retorting of oil shale, or to reservoirs containing extremely heavy oils. It is assumed that
heat is introduced at a constant rate into a horizontal fracture which communicates between
wells. The radial temperature distribution along the fractured surface was approximated
by a step-function. Heat transfer away from the fracture was assumed to be by vertical
conduction, and all convection effects were neglected. A general expression for calculating
the growth of the step-function temperature distribution with time was derived. The use of
this expression and solutions to the one-dimensional heat equation made it possible to
construct isotherms.
Abdus Satter (1967) provided Solutions using a simplified heat flow model to
estimate steam injection rate, growth of steam zone and temperature distribution as a result
of injecting steam into either a fracture or a thin section of the pay. Equations were also
presented to obtain temperature distribution after termination of steam injection.
Calculated results showed the effects of injection rate, temperature, pay thickness, and
well spacing.
Connaughton and Crawford (1970) studied heat conduction as a principal heating
mechanism when steam enters an oil reservoir or shale-oil bed through a single high-
permeability channel or fracture. In their new model, superposition of heating rates was
15
used to evaluate temperature distributions for varying heat rates. Using this model, they
found that, after steam injection, the temperature distribution was characterized by nearly
horizontal isotherms. For injection periods and rates normally used in petroleum reservoirs,
the vertical penetration of the isotherms was much less than penetration of the isotherms
was much less than their radial spread for the initial injection period.
Gringarten and Henry (1971) illustrated the application of the P function to heat
conduction and fluid flow problems, and presented the derivation of useful approximating
forms at limiting values of the parameters. Actually, the P function was a solution of the
diffusivity equation, and therefore was of interest in problems of heat conduction and fluid
flow through porous media. In these problems, the solution was usually obtained as an
integral. It was often sufficient to find approximations corresponding to limiting values of
the variables. Their study presented useful approximating forms for the P function, while
obtaining the time ranges for which these approximate solutions are valid.
Zolotukhin (1979) proposed a new approach to define the value of the overall
coefficient in their study. It was shown that the value of the overall heat transfer coefficient
was not constant, but changes with respect to time. The use of the overall heat transfer
coefficient had shown the applicability of this coefficient for solving some problems
connected with thermal recovery and that high problems connected with thermal recovery
and that high accuracy solutions were obtained.
Satman, Zolotukhin and Soliman (1984) presented a new mathematical formulas
involving the concept of a time-dependent overall heat-transfer coefficient. Since the new
analytical model considered the heat conduction in addition to convection and heat loss. It
16
described the thermal behavior in a more general form than does Lauwerier's model. These
two models were compared also. The application of the time-dependent overall heat-
transfer coefficient concept to the thermal behavior of the steam plateau portion of the in-
situ combustion process was discussed.
Duong, Tomberlin and Cyrot (2008) proposed a new analytical model to predict the
temperature fronts and heating efficiency between and along the horizontal well pair
during the SAGD circulation phase. By using the exponential integral solution for radial
heating in a long cylinder and superposition in space for multi-heating sources, the
proposed model could be used to predict these temperature profiles, provided that the
steam temperatures or pressures were known during the circulation period.
Cernocky, Bayazitoglu and Paslay (2008) explained how to model the convective
heat transfer of Bingham and Power Law fluids across parallel plates. Their analysis
enabled specification of the fluid properties necessary in order for Bingham or Power Law
fluids to prevent or reduce convection and thus minimize wellbore heat transfer. Their
paper gave the analytical, convective heat transfer flow solution for the Bingham material
and Power Law fluids and used this to determine example Nusselt numbers.
Lawal and Vesovic (2009) investigated possible buoyancy-induced natural
convection by simulating one-dimensional vertical temperature profiles of a semi-infinite
reservoir column, fully saturated with undersaturated heavy oil, subjected to conduction
heating from the bottom. Using a realistic temperature dependence of the density and
viscosity of typical Athabasca bitumen, vertical distributions of in-situ oil density, velocity
and Nusselt number consistent with the induced temperature gradient were established.
17
The simulation results indicate that at any time, oil density increases vertically away from
the heat source, a condition that was gravitationally unstable, with a potential for fluid-
redistribution, triggering convection.
Irani and Ghannadi (2013) compared the conduction and convection flux in bitumen
reservoirs in order to understand the heat transfer mechanism in the SAGD process. Their
study supported the idea that although convection can dominate near the chamber edge in
high-water-saturation reservoirs, in bitumen-rich reservoirs, its contribution to heat
transfer is less than 1% and can be neglected.
18
CHAPTER 3
MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF RADIAL SYSTEM HEAT
TRANSFER INTEGRATING HEAT CONDUCTION AND HEAT
CONVECTION
3.1 Radial conduction and convection process
Modeling of 1-D transient heat transfer coupled with steady fluid flow has been
presented with integrating both conduction and convection (Yu, 2014). But when it applies
to radial system, it cannot directly use the solutions to describe the process.
In a radial system, like Figure 3-1, heat has been injected from the centre of the
circle at a constant rate and transfer towards outside. Heat conduction and heat convection
occur simultaneously in this homogeneous system. For most cases, it is acceptable to
assume there is local thermal equilibrium where Tm=Tf, and Tm and Tf are the temperatures
of the rock matrix and fluid phases, respectively. A further assumption is that there is a
parallel conduction heat transfer taking place in the rock matrix and fluid phases, so there
is no net heat transfer from one phase to the other. Taking one element for studying, the
energy equation can be conducted as following:
qr r d t  qr r (r   r) d t
  f C f V (T  Ti ) r d t   f C f V (T  Ti ) (r  r ) d t (3.1)
r r r
  C (T  Ti ) r r d t t   C (T  Ti ) r r d t
19
where qr, qr+∆r are the heat transfer rate by conduction including fluid and porous medium
phase, J / (m2  s) ; ρfCf, ρC are volumetric heat capacity of fluid system and overall
reservoir, J / (m3  K ) ; T, Ti are the current and initial temperature, K; r, d are radius and
net pay thickness, m; ∆t is the interval time, s; V is the fluid flow velocity, m/s.
Divided by ( r  r d t ), equation (3.1) can be simplified to:
1 (rq r ) T T
   f CfV  C (3.2)
r r r t
All the parameters are defined as follows:
qr  (1   ) q rm   qrf (3.3)
C  (1   ) mCm   f C f (3.4)
Here the subscripts m and f refer to the rock matrix and fluid phases, respectively.
According to the Fourier’s equation, we have:
T
qrm   K m ( )m (3.5)
r
T
qrf   K f ( )f (3.6)
r
20
FIGURE 3-1 Illustration of heat transfer model integrating conduction and convection
21
Using the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, i.e., Tm  T f , and adding
equations (3.3), (3.5) and (3.6) yields:
 2T (1   ) K m   K f  T T T
(1   ) K m   K f  2     f CfV  C (3.7)
r r r r t
Define K  (1   ) K m   K f , and equation (3.7) can be written as:
 2T K T T
K  (   f CfV )  C (3.8)
r 2
r r t
According to mass balance:
Vr
0 (3.9)
r
Because the thermal fluid injection rate is injected into the reservoir at a constant
rate qi, m3/s, and the fluid is assumed incompressible:
V 2 r d  qi
qi 1 (3.10)
V
2 d r
Equation (3.8) can be changed to:
 2T  f C f qi 1 T T
K  (K  )  C (3.11)
r 2
2 d r r t
3.2 Mathematical model
3.2.1 Governing heat transfer equation
22
The thermal conductivity and heat capacity of the heavy oil reservoir is assumed to
be constant.
The partial differential equation (PDE) describing radial heat transfer including heat
conduction and convection under steady fluid flow conditions is taken as:
 2T  f C f qi 1 T T
K  (K  )  C (3.11)
r 2
2 d r r t
where thermal conductivity K and thermal capacity  f C f ,  C are constant coefficients,
and 0  x   , 0  t   .
3.2.2 Initial and boundary conditions
3.2.2.1 Initial condition
The general initial condition is:
T (r,0)  Ti , r  rw (3.12)
where Ti is the initial reservoir temperature, °F.
3.2.2.2 Boundary condition
For the inner boundary, the constant temperature at wellbore is assumed:
T (rw , t)  Tf , t  0 (3.13)
where Tf is the temperature of injected thermal fluid.
For the outer boundary at r=∞, zero heat flow boundary (zero temperature gradient)
is applied:
23
T
 0, t  0 (3.14)
r r 
3.3 Analytical solution
The objective is to characterize the temperature as a function of distance and time.
For convenience, mathematical model are first reduced to the dimensionless form by
introducing dimensionless variables. Then dimensionless variables is performed to
simplify the governing equation which can be solved more easily. After that, Laplace
transformation is applied to derive the analytical solution in Laplace domain. And the
solution in Laplace domain can be inversed to dimensionless solution in real time domain
by Stehfest algorithm (Stehfest, 1970). Finally, the final analytical solution is obtained.
3.3.1 Governing equations
The mathematical solution of this heat transfer model is taken as equations (3.11),
(3.12), (3.13) and (3.14):
  2T  f C f qi 1 T T
K 2  (K  )  C
 r 2 d r r t
T (r, 0)  T , r  r
 i w
 (3.15)
T (rw , t)  T f , t  0

 T
 r  0, t  0
 r 
24
3.3.2 Dimensionless form
For convenience in solving the problem, the partial differential equation system and
solution are often expressed in dimensionless form. Hence, the following dimensionless
variables are defined as follows:
T  Ti
TD  (3.16)
T f  Ti
r
rD  (3.17)
rw
K
tD  t (3.18)
 Crw2
Rewriting the above three equations in the following forms:
T  Ti  TD (Tf  Ti ) (3.19)
r  rD  rw (3.20)
 Crw2
t  tD  (3.21)
K
Substituting equations (3.19)-(3.21) into the governing equation (3.15), the
dimensionless form of the mathematical model is obtained:
25
  2TD  f C f qi 1 TD TD
 2  (1  ) 
  rD 2  dK rD rD t D

TD (rD , 0)  0, rD  1
 (3.22)
TD (1, t D )  1, t D  0

TD
 r  0, t D  0
 D rD 
Constant D is defined as:
 f C f qi
D  (1  ) (3.23)
2 dK
So the governing equation (3.22) can be rewritten as following:
  2TD 1 TD TD

 2 D 
 rD rD rD t D

TD (rD , 0)  0, rD  1
 (3.24)
TD (1, t D )  1, t D  0

TD
 r  0, t D  0
 D rD 
3.3.3 Laplace transformation
Applying Laplace transformation on equation (3.22), the following ordinary
differential equations (ODE) are obtained:
26
 d 2T 1 dTD
 2D  D  sTD  TD (t D  0)  sTD
 drD rD drD

 1
TD (rD  1)  (3.25)
 s

 dTD 0
 drD
 rD 

where TD (rD ,s)   TD (rD , tD )e stD dtD , s is the Laplace parameter.
0
3.3.4 Transformation of dependent variable
Because the conduction-convection equation cannot be solved by modified Bessel
function directly, a new dependent variable is introduced by the following variable
transformation:
1 D
TD (rD ,s)  rD 2  Z D (rD ,s) (3.26)
The conduction-convection equation can be rewritten as:
1 D  2
1 dZ D  1  D  2  
2
d Z 
rD 2  2D     rD  s  Z D   0 (3.27)
 drD
 rD drD  2    
So we can know the general solution to the ZD by modified Bessel function is:
Z D (rD ,s)  C1I 1 D

2
 
srD  C2 K1 D
2
 srD  (3.28)
According to equation (3.26), the general solution for TD is obtained:
27
1 D
 
TD (rD ,s)  rD 2 C1I 1 D
 2
 
srD  C2 K1 D
2
 
srD 

(3.29)
where TD (rD ,s) is the solution of temperature in Laplace space respectively; s is the time
variable in Laplace space; I 1 D and K 1 D are modified Bessel Function; C1 and C2 are the
2 2
coefficients of the I 1 D and K 1 D which can be determined by boundary conditions.

2 2
algorithm
Combining the inner and outer boundary condition, the solution in Laplace domain
can be obtained:
1 D
K1 D  srD
TD (rD ,s)  r 2
 2
(3.30)
D
s  K1 D
2
 s
This solution can be inversed to real time domain by Stehfest algorithm:
ln 2 N ln 2
TD  
t i 1
Vi TD (
t
 i) (3.31)
where Vi can be calculated as following and N is 6,8, or 10:
 N  N
1

 k   2 k ! 
min  i, 
N   2 2
Vi   1  i 
2 
 i 1

  N  k  !k ! i  k ! 2k  i !
 (3.32)
  2 
k
2
 
28
3.4 Model validation
COMSOL Multiphysics is used to validate the analytical solutions. COMSOL is a
general-purpose software platform based on advanced numerical methods. It models and
simulates coupled or multiphysics phenomena based on the finite element method, which
is commonly used in solving engineering problems. It also has the physics and equation-
based modeling interfaces, and the automatic and semi-automatic meshing tools.
In COMSOL Multiphysics simulation, a 3-D radial simulation model is developed
to simulate the radial system heat transfer and fluid flow (see FIGURE 3-2). The model
contains 122 triangular elements in the cross section, and the radius is much larger than
the length in z-direction. The initial condition remains at constant with distance. The upper
boundary in r-direction is kept at certain temperature. The tow boundaries in the y-
direction and the lower boundary in the r-direction are set to be zero heat flow boundaries.
At the end of the simulation, the temperature surface profiles are obtained and the
simulated temperature data can be exported. The basic parameters used in the simulation
models under steady flow condition are listed in TABLE 3-1. The temperature
distributions by COMSOL simulation are shown in FIGURE 3-3 and FIGURE 3-4.
The simulated temperature data by COMSOL was exported to plot the curves of the
temperature distributions and propagations. And C++ programming was used to obtain the
temperature distributions and propagations by the analytical solutions. The comparisons
between the COMSOL numerical simulation results and analytical solutions are conducted
in an attempt to obtain the agreements between them. The results are shown in FIGURE
3-5 and FIGURE 3-6.
29
steady flow condition
Parameter Value Unit
Reservoir thickness, d 41 feet
Reservoir porosity, ɸ 30% 1
Reservoir thermal conductivity, K 1.21 Btu/hr-ft-°F
Volumetric heat capacity of fluid, ρfCf 41 Btu/ft3-°F
Volumetric heat capacity of rock matrix, ρmCm 21 Btu/ft3-°F
Fluid injection rate, qi 500 bbl/day
Initial reservoir temperature, Ti 93 °F
Injection fluid temperature, Tf 400 °F
Radius of injection wellbore, rw 0.292 feet
30
FIGURE 3-2 Heat transfer simulation model and mesh system used in COMSOL
Multiphysics
31
FIGURE 3-3 2-D Heat transfer process simulated by COMSOL Multiphysics
32
FIGURE 3-4 3-D Heat transfer process simulated by COMSOL Multiphysics
33
1.2
After 1 tD,
COMSOL
After 5 tD,
1 COMSOL
After 10 tD,
COMSOL
Dimensionless Temperature, TD
0.8 After 1 tD,

Analytical
After 5 tD,
Analytical
0.6
After 10 tD,
Analytical
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dimensionless Radius, rD
FIGURE 3-5 Temperature distribution at different times for validation
34
1.2
0.8
7.875 rD, COMSOL
11.625 rD, COMSOL

0.6
15.375 rD, COMSOL
7.875 rD, Analytical

0.4

0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dimensionless Time, tD
FIGURE 3-6 Temperature propagation at different locations for validation
35
3.5 Model results
This novel analytical model gives accurate solution about how heat conduction and
convection affects the heat transfer in a radial system. Through the results, they can help
us roughly understand how injected heat transfer in the reservoir and the temperature
change with time and distance, which can help us evaluate the energy consumption during
the heavy oil recovery and determine the best time cycle for heating the reservoir.
Temperature distribution at different time and temperature propagation at different
distance are illustrated in FIGURE 3-7 and FIGURE 3-8. Temperature grows faster near
the wellbore area and grows slower when it comes to the area far away from the injection
wellbore.
We can divide the whole reservoir into three zones, as shown in FIGURE 3-9. Zone
I is the heated zone. The temperature in zone I is at the injected fluid temperature. Zone
III is cold zone. This zone has not been heated so the temperature keeps the initial
temperature. Zone II we called transitional zone. In this zone, temperature decreases from
injected fluid temperature to initial temperature with distance going further. With time
goes, we can see the transitional zone become larger. In other words, the heating efficiency
is decreasing, so we need consider when we should stop heating the reservoir.
36
1.2
After 1 tD
After 2 tD
1
After 3 tD
After 4 tD
After 5 tD
0.8
After 6 tD
After 7 tD
After 8 tD
0.6
After 9 tD
After 10 tD
After 11 tD
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dimensionless Radius, tD
FIGURE 3-7 Temperature distribution at different times
37
1.2
1 rD
2 rD
1
3 rD
4 rD
5 rD
0.8
6 rD
7 rD
8 rD
0.6
9 rD
10 rD
11 rD
0.4
12 rD
13 rD
0.2 14 rD
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
FIGURE 3-8 Temperature propagation at different locations
38
FIGURE 3-9 3-D Heat transfer simulated result
39
3.6 Sensitivity analysis
Based on the analytical solution of this mathematical model, thermal fluid injection
rate, reservoir thermal conductivity, volumetric heat capacity of fluid and rock matrix are
important parameters in the mathematical models. The above case is the base case of this
study, which has the parameters shown in TABLE 3-1.
To study the effects of these important coefficients in the partial differential equation,
the analytical solution to the base case of this study was chosen to conduct the sensitivity
analysis. The sensitivity analysis results of the base case can reflect how these factors
affect the temperature profiles. The details of different cases are shown in TABLE 3-2.
3.6.1 Effect of thermal fluid injection rate
Thermal fluid injection rate represents the convection velocity which measures the
ability of injected fluid to transport heat energy along the direction of the fluid flow. This
value describes how fast the heated injection fluid can transport its heat to further distances.
The other parameters, heat conductivity, heat capacity of fluid and matrix, are kept
the same as the base case. The temperature distributions at 10 t D and propagations at 10 rD
with different injection rate are illustrated in FIGURE 3-10.
From FIGURE 3-10 (a), it is found that for injection fluid with higher rate, heat can
be transported to further distance after a period of time. And the slope of the temperature
curves are nearly the same with different heat injection rate.
From FIGURE 3-10 (b), the results indicate that for injection fluid with higher heat
injection rate, reservoir temperature begins to increase earlier at the same location, and the
40
increasing rate of reservoir temperature is larger than those with lower injection rate. This
means injection fluids with higher rate can increase reservoir temperature to the
temperature of injection fluid much faster. This is because injection fluid with high
injection rate can accelerate the heat transfer in porous media.
41
TABLE 3-2 Sensitivity analysis parameters illustration
Parameters Base case Comparison Case
Thermal fluid injection

300
rate
500
qi
400
bbl/day
Reservoir thermal
2.42
conductivity
1.21
K
3.63
Btu/hr-ft-°F
Volumetric heat
21
capacity of fluid
41
(ρC)f
31
3
Btu/ft -°F
Volumetric heat
31
capacity of rock matrix
21
(ρC)m
41
Btu/ft3-°F
42
1.2
300 bbl/day, Injection rate, At 10 tD
1
400 bbl/day, Injection rate, At 10 tD
0.8 500 bbl/day, Injection rate, At 10 tD
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(a)
1.2
1
0.8
300 bbl/day, Injection rate, At 10 rD
0.6
400 bbl/day, Injection rate, At 10 rD
0.4 500 bbl/day, Injection rate, At 10 rD
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(b)
FFIGURE 3-10 (a) Temperature distribution at 10 t D with different heat injection rate; (b)
Temperature propagation at r=10 rD with different heat injection rate
43
3.6.2 Effect of reservoir thermal conductivity
Reservoir thermal conductivity measures the ability of a reservoir to transfer thermal
energy by heat conduction. This value describes how quickly a reservoir to conduct heat.
The other parameters are kept as same as the base case. The temperature distributions
at 10 tD, and temperature propagations at 10 r D with different reservoir thermal
conductivity are illustrated in FIGURE 3-11.
From FIGURE 3-11 (a), it is found that for reservoir system with larger thermal
conductivity, the heating area is larger and the slope of temperature curve is smaller, which
means temperature gradient is smaller. This is because a reservoir system with larger
thermal conductivity can conduct heat quickly and adjust its temperature to that of their
surroundings more rapidly.
From FIGURE 3-11 (b), the results show that for reservoir system with larger
thermal conductivity, reservoir temperature begins to increase earlier at the same location.
However, the increasing rate of reservoir temperature is smaller than those with smaller
thermal conductivity. This is because reservoirs with large thermal conductivity have poor
ability to store energy while they transfer heat more easily.
The figures of temperature profile in FIGURE 3-11 (a) and FIGURE 3-10 (b) show
that there always exists a cross point at certain distance or time. From FIGURE 3-11 (a),
this point is in the middle of the Zone II, which is transitional zone. It gives the temperature
and position of this middle point. The temperature of this middle point is always kept at
certain temperature. The cross point in FIGURE 3-11 (b) represents the time needed for
the middle point of transition zone to travel to the specific position 10rD. When other
44
parameters keep at the same value, the location and time of the middle point are kept the
same.
45
1.2
1.21 Btu/hr-ft-°F, K, At 10 tD
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(a)
1.2
0.8
0.6
1.21 Btu/hr-ft-°F, K, At 10 rD
0.4 2.42 Btu/hr-ft-°F, K, At 10 rD
3.63 Btu/hr-ft-°F, K, At 10 rD
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(b)
FIGURE 3-11 (a) Temperature distribution at 10 t D with different thermal conductivity;

(b) Temperature propagation at r=10 rD with different thermal conductivity
46
3.6.3 Effect of volumetric heat capacity of fluid
Volumetric heat capacity of fluid measures the ability of fluids in the reservoir to
store thermal energy. This parameter not only affects the local temperature value, but also
affects the heat convection process.
at 10 tD, and temperature propagations at 10 rD with different volumetric heat capacity of
fluid are illustrated in FIGURE 3-12.
From FIGURE 3-12 (a), it is found that for fluid with higher volumetric heat
capacity, heat can be transported to further distance after a period of time. And the slope
of the temperature curves are nearly the same with different volumetric heat capacity of
fluid.
From FIGURE 3-12 (b), the results indicate that for fluid with higher volumetric
heat capacity, reservoir temperature begins to increase earlier at the same location, and the
increasing rate of reservoir temperature is larger than those with lower volumetric heat
capacity. This means fluids with higher volumetric heat capacity can increase reservoir
temperature to the temperature of injection fluid much faster.
47
1.2
41 Btu/ft^3-°F, (ρC)f, At 10 tD
1
Dimensionless Temperature, TD 31 Btu/ft^3-°F, (ρC)f, At 10 tD
0.8
21 Btu/ft^3-°F, (ρC)f, At 10 tD
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(a)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6 41 Btu/ft^3-°F, (ρC)f, At 10 rD
31 Btu/ft^3-°F, (ρC)f, At 10 rD
0.4
21 Btu/ft^3-°F, (ρC)f, At 10 rD
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(b)
FIGURE 3-12 (a) Temperature distribution at 10 t D with different volumetric heat capacity
of fluid; (b) Temperature propagation at r=10 rD with different volumetric heat capacity of
fluid
48
3.6.4 Effect of volumetric heat capacity of rock matrix
Volumetric heat capacity of rock matrix measures the ability of rock matrix to store
thermal energy. This value describes the rock matrix keep the thermal energy.
at 10 tD, and temperature propagations at 10 rD with different volumetric heat capacity of
fluid are illustrated in FIGURE 3-13.
From FIGURE 3-13 (a), it is found that for rock matrix with lower volumetric heat
capacity, heat can be transported to further distance after a period of time. And the slope
of the temperature curves are nearly the same with different volumetric heat capacity of
rock matrix.
From FIGURE 3-13 (b), the results indicate that for rock matrix with lower
volumetric heat capacity, reservoir temperature begins to increase earlier at the same
location, and the increasing rate of reservoir temperature is larger than those with higher
volumetric heat capacity. This means rock matrix with higher volumetric heat capacity can
increase reservoir temperature to the temperature of injection fluid much faster.
49
1.2
21 Btu/ft^3-°F, (ρC)m, At 10 tD
1
Dimensionless Temperature, TD 31 Btu/ft^3-°F, (ρC)m, At 10 tD
0.8
41 Btu/ft^3-°F, (ρC)m, At 10 tD
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(a)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
21 Btu/ft^3-°F, (ρC)m, At 10 rD
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(b)
FIGURE 3-13 (a) Temperature distribution at 10 t D with different volumetric heat capacity
of rock; (b) Temperature propagation at r=10 rD with different volumetric heat capacity of
rock
50
CHAPTER 4
STEADY FLUIDS FLOW COUPLED WITH TEMPERATURE
CHANGE
Pressure domain coupling with temperature domain has been a persistent issue in
petroleum engineering. With the achievement in Chapter 3, analytical solution of
temperature can be calculated at any time and location. However, when it comes to
pressure domain, many properties may change with temperature, which will bring much
more difficult in solving the pressure domain problems.
In order to briefly understand the influence of temperature to pressure domain, the
physical model of injecting heat is simplified and makes some reasonable assumptions. In
a finite boundary reservoir, heat is injected into the reservoir as steam at constant high
temperature and rate. In the reservoir, phase behavior, multiphase flow, thermal properties’
change of fluids and rock are ignored. Steam is just recognized as a function of heat
injection and the temperature only affects the viscosity of heavy oil. Because the
temperature changes with time and location, so the viscosity of the heavy oil is also a
function of time and location. That makes the solution of pressure domain more complex.
4.1 Heat transfer in finite boundary
4.1.1 Governing equations
In a finite boundary reservoir, I assume the boundary is sealed and thermal insulation,
which means there is no fluid and heat exchange with the outsides. From Chapter 3, we
51
get the general heat transfer equation in Laplace domain integrating heat conduction and
convection:
 2TD  f C f qi 1 TD TD

 (1  )  (4.1)
rD2 2 dK rD rD t D
The boundary condition of temperature domain has been changed to:
T
 0, t  0 (4.2)
r r  re
where re is the radius of the reservoir boundary.
In dimensionless form, boundary condition is changed to:
TD
 0, tD  0 (4.3)
rD rD  reD
where reD is the dimensionless radius of reservoir boundary, which means r eD=re/rw.
Constant D is defined as:
 f C f qi
D  (1  ) (4.4)
2 dK
So the governing equation of finite reservoir heat transfer model can be rewritten as
following:
52
  2TD 1 TD TD
 2 D 
  rD rD  r D t D

TD (rD , 0)  0, rD  1
 (4.5)
TD (1, t D )  1, t D  0

TD
 r  0, t D  0
 D rD  reD
 d 2T 1 dTD
 2D  D  sTD  TD (t D  0)  sTD
 drD rD drD

 1
TD (rD  1)  (4.6)
 s

 dTD 0
 drD
 rD  reD

where TD (rD ,s)   TD (rD , tD )e stD dtD , s is the Laplace parameter.
0
4.1.3 Transformation of dependent variable
Because the conduction-convection equation cannot be solved by modified Bessel
function directly, a new dependent variable is introduced by the following variable
transformation:
1 D
TD (rD ,s)  r D
2
 Z D (rD ,s) (4.7)
53
The conduction-convection equation can be rewritten as:
1 D  2
1 dZ D  1  D  2  
2
d Z 
rD 2  2D     rD  s  Z D   0 (4.8)
 drD
 rD drD  2    
So the general solution to the ZD by modified Bessel function can be known as:
Z D (rD ,s)  C1I 1 D

2
 
srD  C2 K1 D
2
 srD  (4.9)
According to equation (4.7), the general solution for TD is obtained:
1 D
 
TD (rD ,s)  rD 2 C1I 1 D
 2
 
srD  C2 K1 D
2
 srD 

 (4.10)
algorithm
From the inner boundary condition:
TD  C1I 1 D
2
 s   C K  s   1s
2 1 D
2
(4.11)
From the outer boundary condition:
1  D 12 D 1 D
1 D
{ reD I 1 D ( s reD )  reD2 s [ I1 D ( s reD )  I 3 D ( s reD )]}C1 
2 2 2 s reD 2 2
(4.12)
1  D 12 D 1 D
1 D
{ reD K1 D ( s reD )  reD2 s [ K 1 D ( s reD )  K 3 D ( s reD )]}C 2  0
2 2 2 s reD 2 2
Combine equation (4.11) and (4.12), Constants C1 and C2 can be calculated.
54
This solution can be inversed to real time domain by Stehfest algorithm:
ln 2 N ln 2
TD  
t i 1
Vi TD (
t
 i) (4.13)
 N  N
1

 k 2   2 k ! 
min  i, 
N   2
Vi   1  i 
2 
 i 1

  N  k  !k ! i  k ! 2k  i !
 (4.14)
  2 
k
2
 
4.2 Fluid flow model during the injection process
When it comes to pressure domain, oil viscosity changes with time and location. So
the pressure cannot be solved directly. In order to solve the problem, the reservoir has been
divided into N sub-zones. In each sub-zone, the temperature is assumed same, which
means the viscosity in the sub-zone is same. But the pressure in each sub-zone could be
different because of the location. The illustration is shown as FIGURE 4-1.
55
FIGURE4-1 Illustration of Fluid flow coupling heat transfer model
56
4.2.1 Governing equation
For radial flow of a slightly compressible liquid in a reservoir, the differential
equation is following (Lee, 1982):
1  P Ct u P
(r )  (4.15)
r r r k t
In each zone, we have:
1  P1  C u P
Zone1: (r )  ( t )1 1 , rw  r  r1
r r r k t
1  P2  C u P
Zone 2 : (r )  ( t ) 2 2 , r1  r  r2
r r r k t
1  P3  C u P
Zone 3 : (r )  ( t )3 3 , r2  r  r3 (4.16)
r r r k t
...
1  Pn  C u P
Zone N : (r )  ( t ) n n , rn 1  r  rn  re
r r r k t
where P1, P2, ... Pn is the pressure in each zone, Pa; ɸ is the porosity of the reservoir; k is
the permeability, D; Ct is the total compressibility of the reservoir, 1/kPa; rw and re is the
radius of wellbore and boundary, m.
4.2.2 Initial and boundary condition
4.2.2.1 Initial condition
The general initial condition is:
P(r,0)  Pi , r  rw (4.17)
where Pi is the initial reservoir pressure, Pa.
57
4.2.2.2 Boundary condition
For the inner boundary, constant injection rate is assumed:
P1 q Bu
(r )rw  i s , for t  0 (4.18)
r 2 kh
where qi is the injection rate of the steam, m3/s; h is the reservoir thickness, m; us is the
viscosity of fluid at wellbore, which is a constant because the temperature at wellbore is
constant, Pa·s.
For the outer boundary at r=re, sealed boundary (zero pressure gradient) is applied:
Pn
(r )r  0 (4.19)
r e
4.2.3 Connection condition
Between two neighbouring sub-zones, two conditions should be met. The first one
is the pressure at the boundary should be equal:
Pi (r  ri )  Pi 1 (r  ri ),i  1, 2...n 1. (4.20)
The other one is the flow rate across the boundary should be equal:
Pi 2 khr Pi 1 2 khr

   , i  1, 2...n  1. (4.21)
r ri ui B ri
r ri ui 1B r
i
I assume all zones have the same permeability, porosity and total compressibility.
58
4.2.4 Pseudo time
In each zone, the viscosity changes with the local temperature, and the temperature
changes with time. So the viscosity is also a function of time. From Chapter 3, we know
how temperature changes with location and time, but we cannot just use some simple
functions to describe the change. Considering this problem, I define the pseudo time term
in the equation as following:
k
Let  (t)  , pseudo time  is:
 Ct u (t)
t t k
    (t) dt   dt (4.22)
0 0  C u (t)
t
4.2.5 Dimensionless form
For convenience in solving the problem, the partial differential equation system and
solution are often expressed in dimensionless form. Hence, the following dimensionless
variables are defined as follows:
59
r
rD 
rw
2 kh
PD1  (P1  Pi )
qi Bus
2 kh
PD 2  (P2  Pi )
qi Bus (4.23)
2 kh
PD 3  (P3  Pi )
qi Bus
...
2 kh
PDn  (Pn  Pi )
qi Bus
Because different zone have different viscosity value, the zone 1 is set as the base.
t t k
1   1 (t) dt   dt (4.24)
0 0 Ct u1 (t)
So the dimensionless time is defined as:
1
tD  (4.25)
rw2
Substituting equation (4.23) and (4.25) into the governing equation from equation
(4.16) to (4.21), the dimensionless form of the mathematical model is obtained:
60
  2 PD1 1 PD1 PD1
 2  
  rD rD rD t D

 t 1
  PD 2 1 PD 2 1 PD 2
2  0 u (t)
dt
   , 2  t 2
 r 2
r  r  t 1


D D D 2 D
 0 u (t)
1
dt

 t 1
 2P 1 PD 3 1 PD 3  0 u (t)
dt
 2  D3
 , 3  t 3
 rD rD rD 3 t D 1
  0 u (t)
dt

1
...

 t 1
 2
  PDn  1 PDn  1 PDn ,   un (t)
 0
dt
 rD2 rD rD  n t D
n t 1
 0 u1 (t) dt


 PD (rD , 0)  0, 1  rD  rDe  re
 rw

 P
 D1  1, t D  0
 rD rD 1

 P (4.26)
 Dn  0, t D  0
 rD rDe

 r r
 PDi (rD  rDi  i )  PDi 1 (rD  rDi  i ),i  1, 2...n  1.
 rw rw

 PDi 1 P 1
   Di 1  ,i  1, 2...n  1.
 rD rDi ui rD r ui 1
Di
where  2 , 3 … n are ratios of integration of viscosity reciprocal with the value of zone
1.
61

 2
 d PD1  1 d PD1  sPD1
 drD2 rD drD

d2 P 1 d PD 2 s
 D2
  PD 2
 drD
2
rD drD  2

 d 2 PD 3 1 d PD 3 s
   PD 3
 dr 2
D rD dr D 3

...

 d 2 PDn 1 d PDn s
   PDn
 drD
2
rD drD  n

 d PD1 1
 dr 
 D rD 1 s

 d PDn
 0
 drD rDe

 P (r  r )  P (r  r ) (4.27)
 Di D Di Di 1 D Di

 d PDi  1  d PDi 1  1
 drD ui drD r ui 1
 rDi Di

where PD (rD ,s)   PD (rD , tD )e stD dtD , s is the Laplace parameter.
0
4.2.7 Analytical solution and inverse Laplace transformation by Stehfest algorithm
The general solution of pressure in Laplace space can be written as:
62
PD1  A1 I 0 (rD S )  B1 K 0 (rD S )
s s
PD 2  A2 I 0 (rD )  B2 K 0 (rD )
2 2
s s
PD 3  A3 I 0 (rD )  B3 K 0 (rD ) (4.28)
3 3
...
s s
PDn  An I 0 (rD )  Bn K 0 (rD )
n n
where PD1 , PD 2 …, PDn are the solution of pressure in each zone in Laplace space
respectively; s is the time variable in Laplace space; I 0 and K 0 are the modified Bessel
Function of the 1st and 2nd kind in the 0th order; A1, A2,…, An and B1, B2,…, Bn are the
coefficients of the I 0 and K 0 which can be determined by the boundary conditions and
connection conditions.
From the boundary conditions, we can get:
d PD1 1
 A1 sI1 ( s )  B1 sK1 ( s )   (4.29)
drD rD 1
s
d PDn s s s s
 An I1 (rDn )  Bn K1 (rDn )0 (4.30)
drD rDe
n n n n
From the connection conditions, we have:
s s
A1I 0 (rD1 s )  B1 K 0 (rD1 s )  A2 I 0 (rD1 )  B2 K 0 (rD1 ) (4.31)
2 2
63
1
[ A1 sI1 (rD1 s )  B1 sK1 (rD1 s )] 
u1
(4.32)
s s s s 1
 [ A2 I1 (rD1 )  B2 K1 (rD1 )] 
2 2 2  2 u2
s s s s
A2 I 0 (rD 2 )  B2 K0 (rD 2 )  A3 I 0 (rD 2 )  B3 K0 (rD 2 ) (4.33)
2 2 3 3
s s s s 1
[ A2 I1 (rD 2 )  B2 K1 (rD 2 )] 
2 2 2 2 u2
(4.34)
s s s s 1
 [ A3 I1 (rD 2 )  B3 K1 (rD 2 )] 
3 3 3 3 u3
s s s s
An1I 0 (rDn1 )  Bn1 K0 (rDn 1 )  An I 0 (rDn 1 )  Bn K 0 (rDn 1 ) (4.35)
n1 n1 n n
s s s s 1
[ An 1 I1 (rDn 1 )  Bn 1 K1 (rDn 1 )] 
n 1 n 1 n 1 n 1 un 1
(4.36)
s s s s 1
 [ An I1 (rDn 1 )  Bn K1 (rDn 1 )] 
n n n  n un
Combining equation (4.29)-(4.36), we get the following matrix to solve A1, A2… An
and B1, B2… Bn:
64
* *   A1   1/ s 
* * * *  B   0 
  1   
* * * *   A2   0 
    
 * * * *   B2   0 
 * * * *  .   . 
    (4.37)
 . . . .  .   . 
 . . . .  A   0 
   n 1   
 * * * *   Bn 1   0 
 * * * *  An   0 
    
 * *  Bn   0 
This solution can be invers to real time domain by Stehfest algorithm:
ln 2 N ln 2
PD  
t i 1
Vi PD (
t
 i) (4.38)
 N  N
1

 k 2   2 k ! 
min  i, 
N   2
Vi   1  i 
2 
 i 1

  N  k  !k ! i  k ! 2k  i !
 (4.39)
  2 
k
2
 
4.3 Coupling method
How to apply the solved temperature profile into pressure calculation is key problem
in the model. First of all, the injection rate qi should be equal. So that the two domain has
the same input rate. And then, because of the different dimensionless time definitions, how
to determine the current temperature when I calculate the pressure is crucial. The coupling
procedure is shown in FIGURE 4-2.
65
FIGURE 4-2 Flowchart of pressure domain coupling temperature domain
66
4.4 Model validation
COMSOL Multiphysics is used to validate the analytical solutions. COMSOL is a
general-purpose software platform based on advanced numerical methods. It models and
simulates coupled or multiphysics phenomena based on the finite element method, which
is commonly used in solving engineering problems. It also has the physics and equation-
based modeling interfaces, and the automatic and semi-automatic meshing tools.
In COMSOL Multiphysics simulation, a 3-D radial simulation model is developed
to simulate the radial system heat transfer and fluid flow (see FIGURE 4-3). The model
contains 188 triangular elements in the cross section. The initial condition remains at
constant with distance for both domains. The upper boundary in r-direction is kept at
certain temperature for temperature domain. For fluid flow, it keeps at constant pressure
gradient. The top boundaries in the y-direction and the lower boundary in the r-direction
are set to be zero heat flow boundaries and zero flow boundaries. At the end of the
simulation, the temperature surface profiles and pressure data are obtained and the
simulated data can be exported. The basic parameters used in the simulation models under
steady flow condition are listed in TABLE 4-1.
The test heavy oil properties are assumed as following correlation (Walther, 1931)
and the viscosity-temperature curve is shown as FIGURE 4-4:
67
API  13.5
oi  141.5 / (131.5  API )

4
o  oi e3.510 (T  60) (4.40)
    
log log  o  0.6    16.1368  5.6934 log T  460 
  o  
where API is the American Petroleum Institute gravity;  oi ,  o are initial specific gravity
and specific gravity at certain temperature; T is the temperature, °F; u o is the oil viscosity,
cp.
The simulated temperature and pressure data by COMSOL was exported to plot the
curves of the temperature distributions, propagations and pressure, pressure derivative
curves. And MATLAB programming was used to obtain the temperature and pressure data
by the analytical solutions. The comparisons between the COMSOL numerical simulation
results and analytical solutions are conducted in an attempt to obtain the agreements
between them. The results are shown in FIGURE 4-5 and FIGURE 4-6.
68
steady flow condition for two domains coupling validation
Permeability, k 500 mD
Total compressibility, Ct 1.8*10-5 1/kPa
69
FIGURE 4-3 Two domains coupling simulation model and mesh system used in
COMSOL Multiphysics
70
2500
2000
1500
Viscosity, cp
1000
500
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Temperature, °F
FIGURE 4-4 Test heavy oil viscosity-temperature curve
71
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
comsol
0.4 analytical
0.2
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Time, T, hour
FIGURE 4-5 Temperature propagation at 170.5 rD for validation
72
14000
12000
Dimensionless pressure, PD
10000
8000
6000
analytical
4000
comsol
2000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Time, T, hour
(a)
3
Dimensionless Pressure derivative, dPD
2.5
1.5
comsol
1
analytical
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Time, T, hour
(b)
FIGURE 4-6 Pressure and Pressure derivative curve by analytical model and COMSOL
73
4.5 Model results
With this novel coupling method and model, analytical solution has been given to
briefly show the injection process. Through the results, they can help us roughly know
how temperature change influence the fluid flow, which will help us understand why
heating is so crucial to heavy oil recovery.
Temperature distribution at different time and temperature propagation at different
distance are illustrated in FIGURE 4-7. Pressure distribution at different time and pressure
propagation at different distance are illustrated in FIGURE 4-8. And a certain distance is
chosen to show the pressure change and pressure derivative change in FIGURE 4-9. The
parameters are shown in TABLE 4-2.
We can see from FIGURE 4-7, the temperature of the area near wellbore rises
rapidly compared to the area far away. With the heat injected into the reservoir, the
temperature increases and tend to injection temperature. Before all the reservoir reaches
to the highest temperature, local temperature are different because of the distance to the
wellbore. So the viscosity of oil should be different, which will influence the current
distribution of pressure.
From FIGURE 4-8 (a), the pressure of area near wellbore increase very quickly,
however the area far away from the center climb slowly. It is interesting that, after the area
warming quickly to a stage, it will slow down but still increasing. After all, from FIGURE
4-8 (b), all the temperate from everywhere will reach to nearby values but still follow the
change rule.
74
steady flow condition for two domains coupling
Permeability, k 500 md
Total compressibility, Ct 1.8*10-5 1/kPa
75
1.2
1
Dimension Temperature, TD
0.8
0.6
20 rD
0.4
80 rD
120 rD
0.2
160 rD
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Time, t, hour
(a)
1.2
0.8
0.6
1000 tD
0.4
2000 tD
3000 tD
0.2
4000 tD
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Dimensionless radius, rD
(b)
FIGURE 4-7 (a) Temperature propagation at different distances; (b) Temperature

distribution at different time
76
1200
1000
Dimesionless Pressure, PD
800
600 20 rD
80 rD
400
120 rD
160 rD
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Time, t, hour
(a)
600
500
Dimensionless Pressure, PD
400
300
300 tD
200 500 tD
700 tD
100
1000 tD
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Dimensionless radius, rD
(b)
FIGURE 4-8 (a) Pressure curve at different distances; (b) Pressure distribution at different
times
77
FIGURE 4-9 shows the pressure derivative at 160 rD changes with time in a semi-
log coordinate system. We can see the pressure derivative at first grow slowly and almost
near zero. And then it sharp increases for a while and decrease to the bottom. From the
bottom point, it grows up again and at last, it slows down and reach to a certain value.
To my understanding, I divide the procedure into 5 stages based on the pressure
derivative curve, as shown in FIGURE 4-9 (a). Stage I represents this distance has not
been affected by the injection. In Stage II, this distance begins to be influenced by injection
and the pressure derivative increase quickly. And in Stage III, the increased temperature
of the heated area begins to come into play. It makes pressure increase slow down because
the viscosity is decreasing. In Stage IV, all the reservoir has been heated, the pressure
derivative grows up again. At last in Stage V, all the reservoir reaches the highest
temperature, and the pressure has also reach the boundary, the derivative keeps at a certain
value.
This five stages successfully describe the physical process of heat injection with the
fluid viscosity decreasing. They help us understand how temperature influence the
pressure domain.
From FIGURE 4-9 (b), we can see the place wellbore closer will be influenced by
injection easier and the first peak will be larger than the place far away from the wellbore.
But after the pressure derivative decrease, they all grow up again at the same time and
same slope. Because at that time, heat is just transported to the boundary and the boundary
is sealed. So all the reservoir pressure derivative grows up as a whole.
78
3
IV V
2.5
Dimensionless Pressure defivative,
2
I
1.5 II III
dPD
0.5
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time, t, hour
(a)
3
Dimensionless Pressure derivative, dPD
130 rD
2.5
140 rD
2
170 rD
1.5
0.5
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time, t, hour
(b)
FIGURE 4-9 (a) Illustration of 5 stages divided by pressure derivative curve; (b) Pressure
derivative curve at different distances
79
4.6 Sensitivity analysis
Based on the analytical solution of this mathematical model, thermal fluid injection
rate, reservoir thermal conductivity, permeability are important parameters in the
mathematical models. The above case is the base case of this study, which has the
parameters shown in TABLE 4-2.
To study the effects of these important coefficients in the partial differential equation,
the analytical solution to the base case of this study was chosen to conduct the sensitivity
analysis. The sensitivity analysis results of the base case can reflect how these factors
affect the pressure profiles. The details of different cases are shown in TABLE 4-3.
4.6.1 Effect of thermal fluid injection rate
The injection rate is the common parameter used in heat transfer and fluid flow
equations. It is the bridge connecting temperature domain with pressure domain. So how
its value affects the result is initial for us to understand.
The different fluid injection rates are 500 bbl/day, 700 bbl/day and 900 bbl/day. And
the pressure profiles are chosen from the location at 160 r D. Because the function of
dimensionless pressure contains injection rate term. So I choose the dimensionless
pressure of 500 bbl/day as the comparison basis.
When fluid injection rate is larger from FIGURE 4-10, we can see that the pressure
grows up earlier and quicker. The final value is larger than low injection rate. And from
FIGURE 4-11, because the injection rates are different, the same location has different
first peaks, increasing slope and final stable value.
80
TABLE 4-3 Sensitivity analysis parameters illustration
Parameters Base case Comparison Case
Thermal fluid injection

700
rate
500
qi
900
bbl/day
Reservoir thermal
2.42
conductivity
1.21
K
3.63
Btu/hr-ft-°F
Reservoir Permeability 700

k 500
mD 900
81
FIGURE 4-10 Pressure curve at 160 rD with different thermal fluid injection rate
82
FIGURE 4-11 Pressure derivative curve at 160 rD with different thermal fluid injection
rate
83
4.6.2 Effect of reservoir thermal conductivity
Reservoir thermal conductivity measures the ability of a reservoir to transfer thermal
energy by heat conduction. This value describes how quickly a reservoir to conduct heat.
But this parameter only affects the temperature domain. So we can understand how
temperature domain affects pressure domain through studying the effect of reservoir
thermal conductivity.
The different reservoir thermal conductivity are 1.21 Btu/hr-ft-°F, 2.42 Btu/hr-ft-°F
and 3.63 Btu/hr-ft-°F. And the pressure profiles are chosen from the location at 160 r D.
Reservoir thermal conductivity is one thermal properties of the reservoir. From the
FIGURE 4-12 we can see that even it becomes 3 times larger, the pressure data change is
very limited. But for the entire, the lower conductivity can keep higher pressure.
From the FIGURE 4-13, it is shown that three pressure derivative curves are very
close and they reach to a common value at last. It is an interesting thing that there is also
a cross point existing compared to the thermal conductivity analysis in Chapter 3. I think
it is because the feature of thermal conductivity. In early period, higher conductivity can
transport heat quickly and lower viscosity quickly. So it behaves very active and then, the
heat is transported outside is also very quick at later period. So there should be a cross
point during the whole procedure.
84
FIGURE 4-12 Pressure curve at 160 rD with different reservoir thermal conductivity
85
FIGURE 4-13 Pressure derivative curve at 160 rD with different reservoir thermal
conductivity
86
4.6.3 Effect of reservoir permeability
Reservoir permeability measures the ability of fluids to flow through porous media.
It doesn’t show in heat transfer mathematical model. But it is a crucial parameter in
reservoir and fluids flow. In other word, it only affects the pressure domain.
The different reservoir permeability are 500 mD, 700 mD and 900 mD. And the
pressure profiles are chosen from the location at 160 r D.
From FIGURE 4-14 and FIGURE 4-15, there is only difference in Stage II and
Stage III. The permeability changes the fluid flow velocity. So at first pressure increases
quickly with higher permeability. But at last, they all reach the same.
87
FIGURE 4-14 Pressure curve at 160 rD with different reservoir permeability
88
FIGURE 4-15 Pressure derivative curve at 160 rD with different reservoir permeability
89
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The major conclusions that can be drawn from this thesis study are summarized as
follows:
1) Analytical model for radial system heat transfer integrating conduction and
convection are developed successfully to describe the heat injection process. The
analytical solutions are validated successfully with the numerical simulation results
generated by COMSOL Multiphysics.
2) Heat transfer and fluid flow occur simultaneously during thermal recovery
processes. Convection-conduction is a dynamic heat transfer process, which
transports the energy of a moving heat source to further distances and conducts
heat to the surroundings at the same time. Fluid flow motivates convective heat
transfer and increases the rate of energy transfer significantly.
3) Thermal fluid injection rate, reservoir thermal conductivity, volumetric heat
capacity of fluid and rock matrix are important parameters in the heat injection
process. They affect how further heat can be transported and how quick
temperature change at certain distance. With these knowledge, we can do
optimization on the heat injection strategy.
4) A novel model and coupling method has been proposed to describe the heat transfer
affecting fluid flow. Temperature change does play a great role in pressure domain
90
in heat injection process. The pressure change has its own characteristics
comparing to normal case.
5) Five stages have been divided for better understanding the pressure change during
the heat injection. Heat injection rate, reservoir thermal conductivity and reservoir
permeability are analyzed for their influence to pressure change. They do affect the
pressure change and the difference can be explained.
6) This is a novel attempt to use analytical method to couple pressure domain and
temperature domain and integrate heat conduction and convection in radial system.
5.2 Recommendations
Based on this thesis study, the following recommendations can be made for future
studies:
1) In this study, the temperature only affect fluid viscosity. However, temperature
change could affects many other parameters, such as porosity, permeability. If
taking these into consideration, we should extend the mathematical model and
coupling method to fix the problem.
2) When we need to consider multiphase flow and phase behavior, how to develop
the model in order to make it closer to the reality.
3) Some fluid thermal features are ignored in this thesis. When considering the fluids
heating expansion, how to describe the process better and apply into the
mathematical model.
4) This is a novel theoretical model and need field data to prove its reasonability.
91
REFERENCES
Abdus, Satter. A Prediction Method for Conduction Heating of Reservoirs by Steam
Injection. Paper SPE 1950-MS, presented at Fall Meeting of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Louisiana, New Orleans, USA, 1-4 October, 1967.
AER, ST98-2011. Alberta’s Energy Reserves 2010 and Supply/Demand Outlook 2011-
2020. ISSN 1910-4235, Carol Crowfoot, Coordinator, Energy Resources
Conservation Board, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2011.
AER, ST98-2015. Alberta’s Energy Reserves 2014 and Supply/Demand Outlook 2015-
2024. ISSN 1910-4235, Carol Crowfoot, Coordinator, Energy Resources
Conservation Board, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2015.
AEUB, ST98-2007. Alberta’s Energy Reserves 2006 and Supply/Demand Outlook 2007-
2016. ISSN 1910-4235, Farhood Rahnama, Coordinator, Alberta Energy and
Utilities Board, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2007.
Bailey, H.R. and Larkin, B.K. Conduction-Convection in Underground Combustion.
Paper SPE 1482-G, Petroleum Transactions, 219: 320-331, 1960.
Baston, D.P. Analytical and Numerical Modeling of Thermal Conductive Heating in
Fractured Rock. M.Sc. Thesis, Queen’s University, 2008.
Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C. Conduction of Heat in Solids, Second Edition. Oxford
University Press, Landon, 1959.
Cernocky, E.P., Bayazitoglu, Y. and Paslay, Paul. Convective Heat Transfer for Laminar,
Steady-State Flow of Bingham and Power Law Fluids Between Vertical, Parallel
92
Plates. Paper SPE 108307-MS, presented at SPE Western Regional and Pacific
Section AAPG Joint Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, 29 March-4 April,
2008.
CHOA, P2.Heavy oil. Heavy Oil Latin America Conference & Exhibition, Mexico, 2013.
Connaughton, C.R. and Crawford, P.B. An Improved Reservoir Conduction Heating
Model. Paper SPE 2979-MS, presented at Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Houston, Texas, USA, 4-7 October, 1970.
Duong, A.N., Tomberlin, T. and Cyrot, M. A New Analytical Model for Conduction
Heating During the SAGD Circulation Phase. Paper SPE 117434-MS, presented at
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 20-23 October, 2008.
Farouq Ali, S.M. Practical Heavy Oil Recovery. HOR Heavy Oil Recovery Technologies
Ltd., 2006.
Gibson, B.J. Methods of Classifying Heavy Crude Oils Using the UNITAR Viscosity-
Based Definition. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Heavy
Crude and Tar Sands Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, 7-17 February, 1982.
Gringarten, Alain C. and Henry J. Ramey Jr. Application Of The P Function To Heat
Conduct Ion And Fluid Flow Problems. Paper SPE 3816-MS, 1971.
Huerta, M., Otero, C., Rico, A., et al. Understanding Foamy Oil Mechanisms for Heavy
Oil Reservoir During Primary Production. Presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1996.
93
Imperial Oil, 2012 ERCB report. Cold Lake Approvals 8558 and 4510 Annual
Performance Review. ERCB Annual Performance Review Submission, 2012.
Irani, M. and Ghannadi, S. Understanding the Heat-Transfer Mechanism in the Steam-
Assisted Gravity-Drainage (SAGD) Process and Comparing the Conduction and
Convection Flux in Bitumen Reservoirs. SPE Journal, 18(1): 134-145, 2013.
Kaviany, M. Principles of Heat Transfer in Porous Media, Second Edition. Springer, New
York, 1995.
Lawal, K.A. and Vesovic, V. Analytic Investigation of Convection During Conduction
Heating of a Heavy-Oil Reservoir. Paper SPE 124072-MS, presented at SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4-7
October, 2009.
Lea, J.F., Anderson, P.O. and Anderson, D.G. Optimization of Progressive Cavity Pump
Systems in the Development of the Clearwater Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, 27(1): 58-67, 1988.
Lee, John. Well Testing. SPE Textbook Series VOL. 1. p. 101-102, 1982.
Miller, F.G. and Seban, R.A. The Conduction of Heat Incident to the Flow of Vaporizing
Fluids in Porous Media. Paper SPE 344-G, Petroleum Transactions, 204: 282-284,
1955.
Ramey, H.J. Transient Heat Conduction During Radial Movement of a Cylindrical Heat
Source - Applications to the Thermal Recovery Process. Paper SPE 1133-G,
Petroleum Transactions, 216: 115-122, 1959.
94
Satman, A., Zolotukhin, A.B. and Soliman, M.Y. Application of the Time-Dependent
Overall Heat-Transfer Coefficient Concept to Heat-Transfer Problems in Porous
Media. Paper SPE 8909-PA, SPE Journal, 24(4): 107-112, 1984.
Stehfest, H., 1970, Algorithm 368: Numerical inversion of Laplace transform,
Communication of the ACM, vol. 13 no. 1 p. 47-49.
Thomas, G.W. A Simplified Model of Conduction Heating in Systems of Limited
Permeability. Paper SPE 951-PA, SPE Journal, 4(4): 335-344, 1964.
Walther, C. Uber die Auswertung von Viskositatsangaben. Erdol und Teer, 7, p.382-384,
1931.
Wilson, M.A. and Bennett, R.W. Evaluation of Saskatchewan’s Heavy Oil Reserves.
Saskatchewan Energy and Resources, Saskatchewan, Canada, 1985.
Yu, Kuizheng. Analytical Modeling of Transient Heat Transfer Coupled with Fluid Flow
in Heavy Oil Reservoirs during Thermal Recovery Processes. MASc. Thesis,
University of Regina, 2014.
Zhao, G. and Thompson, L.G. Semi-Analytical Modeling of Complex Geometry
Reservoirs. Paper SPE 80409, SPEREE, 5(6): 437-446, 2002.
Zolotukhin, A.B. Analytical Definition Of The Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient. Paper
SPE 7964-MS, presented at SPE California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California,
USA, 18-20 April, 1979.
95

Analytical Model For Fluid Flow Coupling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analytical Model For Fluid Flow Coupling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR FLUID FLOW

COUPLING WITH HEAT TRANSFER

Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

Master of Applied Science

Petroleum Systems Engineering

© Copyright 2015: Wanju Yuan

FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH

SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINING COMMITTEE

External Examiner: Dr.Yiyu Yao, Department of Computer Science

Supervisor: Dr. Gang Zhao, Petroleum Systems Engineering

Committee Member: Dr. Peter Gu, Petroleum Systems Engineering

Chair of Defense: Dr. Dianliang Deng, Department of Mathematics & Statistics

making operations and development plans in thermal recovery process. Understanding

space can be converted to dimensionless analytical solution in real time space.

generated by dividing the whole reservoir into numbers of sub-sections. Pseudo-time is

Numerical simulations by COMSOL Multiphysics are conducted to validate the

offered and supported me the precious opportunity to study in University of Regina.

University of Regina for awarding the Graduate Student Scholarship to me.

my 3 years’ stay in the beautiful City of Regina.

Ms. Xiuqin Wan and Mr. Haidong Yuan,

Ms. Hang Yin,

for their continuous support, unconditional love and precious understanding

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... III

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. V

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... IX

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... X

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1

1.1 HEAVY OIL RESOURCES...........................................................................................1

1.2 RECOVERY TECHNIQUES USED IN HEAVY OIL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT..................4

1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS THESIS STUDY ..............................................................................8

1.4 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS ..........................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................9

2.1 MECHANISMS OF HEAT TRANSFER IN POROUS MEDIA ..............................................9

2.1.1 Heat conduction ..............................................................................................9

2.1.2 Heat convection ............................................................................................ 12

2.2 MATHEMATICAL STUDIES OF HEAT TRANSFER IN POROUS MEDIA ............................ 14

TRANSFER INTEGRADTING HEAT CONDUCTION AND HEAT

3.1 RADIAL CONDUCTION AND CONVECTION PROCESS ................................................. 19

3.2 MATHEMATICAL MODEL ....................................................................................... 22

3.2.1 Governing heat transfer equation ................................................................... 22

3.2.2 Initial and boundary conditions ..................................................................... 23

3.2.2.1 Initial condition ................................................................................................. 23

3.2.2.2 Boundary condition ........................................................................................... 23

3.3 ANALYTICAL SOLUTION ........................................................................................ 24

3.3.1 Governing equations ..................................................................................... 24

3.3.2 Dimensionless form ...................................................................................... 25

3.3.3 Laplace transformation .................................................................................. 26

3.3.4 Transformation of dependent variable ........................................................... 27

3.3.5 Solution in Laplace domain and inverse Laplace transformation by Stehfest

3.4 MODEL VALIDATION ............................................................................................. 29

3.5 MODEL RESULTS ..................................................................................................36

3.6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 40

3.6.1 Effect of heat injection rate ........................................................................... 40

3.6.2 Effect of reservoir thermal conductivity ........................................................ 44

3.6.3 Effect of volumetric heat capacity of fluid ..................................................... 47

3.6.4 Effect of volumetric heat capacity of rock matrix .......................................... 49

4.1 HEAT TRANSFER IN FINITE BOUNDARY................................................................... 51

4.1.1 Governing equations ..................................................................................... 51

4.1.2 Laplace transformation .................................................................................. 53

4.1.3 Transformation of dependent variable ........................................................... 53

4.1.4 Solution in Laplace domain and inverse Laplace transformation by Stehfest