Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133 – 144

www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Thermal transients during nonisothermal fluid

injection into oil reservoirs
Ibrahim Kocabas *
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, UAE University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

Abstract

During hot fluid injection into oil reservoirs, the importance of determining the temperature profile to estimate the thermal
efficiency is well known. In addition, the resultant temperature distribution due to cold water injection into a hot reservoir
during waterflooding may significantly influence the stress distribution in the reservoir. Owing to these facts, in this work we
present a new two-dimensional analytical model for analyzing the thermal transients during nonisothermal fluid injections into
oil reservoirs that may provide a better insight into the mechanisms of heat transfer in oil reservoirs.
The new model has several distinguishing aspects. Primarily, it is the first analytical solution of an unsteady state two-
dimensional heat transport process in a laterally/vertically confined layer. In addition, both finite longitudinal and transverse
heat dispersions have been accounted for in the model as well as the heat loss to the bounding layers. Thus, the model allows
one to observe the roles of both boundary conditions and fluid mechanics controls simultaneously, a feature not possessed by
the previous analytical models that assume either boundary conditions or fluid mechanics controls. Hydrodynamic heat
dispersion concept has also been incorporated in the new model in order to account for the much larger temperature transition
zones observed in the field than that would be caused by pure conduction. Finally, since the solution is free of numerical
dispersion and nonphysical oscillations, especially in two-dimensional domains, it serves as a higher stepping stone for
validation of numerical models.
D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Thermal transients; Convection dispersion equation; Thermal dispersion; Nonisothermal flow; Heat transport

1. Introduction great importance. In addition, the temperature depen-

All modern secondary and/or enhanced oil recov-
ery methods utilize the injection of a non-isothermal
fluid into an oil reservoir. First of all, in case of a
heat carrying fluid injection for a thermal recovery
technique, determining the temperature profile and
consequently estimating the thermal efficiency are of
* Tel.: +971-3-705-1546; fax: +971-3-762-4262.
E-mail address: ikobacas@uaeu.ac.ae (I. Kocabas).
dence of processes such as acid reaction rate and the
injected material properties such as polymer rheolo-
gy makes an accurate estimation of temperature field
a requirement in many EOR methods. Finally and
most importantly, the geomechanical aspects of non-
isothermal flow is of increasing concern in the oil
industry such as the case of cold water injection into
a hot reservoir, where the thermal and fluid pressure
gradients could be used to estimate the net stress
distribution, and hence, the possibility of fracture
development.

0920-4105/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2003.12.006
134 I. Kocabas / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133–144
A comprehensive modeling of the temperature
transients in the porous media can best be achieved
by the numerical models. However, in the implemen-
tation of numerical models there are some points to be
understood and several critical issues to be resolved
for the practicing engineer. First of all, gaining a good
insight into the physical processes influencing the
transport and accurately accounting for them in the
numerical model is of vital importance. Analytical
models are quite useful to provide the basic insight
into the mechanisms of heat transport in porous
media. Hence, a number of analytical models have
been presented on the temperature distributions due to
a purely convective flow in linear (Lauwerier, 1955),
and radial (Malofeev, 1963) reservoirs and heat losses
to the confining impermeable layers of infinite length.
Rubinshtein (1959), on the other hand, presented an
expression for the heating efficiency without deriving
a temperature distribution for a convective flow in a
radial layer with both longitudinal and transverse
thermal conductivities in both the flowing and its
confining layers. Then, Avdonin provided temperature
distribution solutions that incorporate an additional
finite longitudinal (Avdonin, 1964a) or transverse
(Avdonin, 1964b) thermal conductivity term in the
Lauwerier and Malofeev models. Later on, Spillette
(1965) summarized the previous studies and presented
a numerical solution to the problem of hot water
injection into a horizontal layer, where assumptions
made by Lauwerier and Advonin are relaxed by
incorporating finite longitudinal and transverse ther-
mal conductivities. For both Lauwerier and Malofeev
models, Spillette (1965) has also reported the formu-
las for the thermal efficiency that is defined as the
fraction of the total injected energy that remains in the
productive layer. Further improvement of solutions to
be able to model various cases such as finite confining
layers separated by multiple fractures (Gringarten et
al., 1975; Satman, 1988), modeling thermal injection
backflow tests (Kocabas and Horne, 1990), applica-
tions to naturally fractured geothermal reservoirs
(Cendejas and Rodriguez, 1994) and development of
analogies to tracer transport (Ramirez et al., 1993;
Kocabas and Islam, 2000a,b) has continued up to
present.
The issues of numerical dispersion, grid size and
orientation effects and other behavioral errors such as
nonphysical oscillations were recognized at very early
stages of numerical simulation of convective disper-
sive processes (Peacemean and Rachford, 1962).
Later on, significant progress has been made on
quantification (Lantz, 1971) and elimination (Leo-
nard, 1981; Leonard et al., 1995; LeVeque, 1996) of
numerical dispersion. However, numerical dispersion
and nonphysical oscillations still continue to be major
problems in numerical modeling of heat transport
(Gupta, 1990; Kocabas and Margoub, 2000). Hence,
for quantifying the accuracy of numerical models,
comparison of the numerical model results with the
available analytical models is of vital importance too.
Therefore, development of more sophisticated an-
alytical models serves invaluably for both gaining
better insight into the transport mechanisms and
numerical model validation purposes. In addition,
the analytical models are valuable tools for studying
the collective role of the parameters influencing the
transport (Kocabas and Islam, 2000a,b).
2. Theoretical development
The design and evaluation of the hot fluid injection
into an oil reservoir depend on the ability to predict
the thermal transients that occurs in the field during
the project life. Such a prediction requires, in addition
to the description of reservoir and thermal parameters,
an accurate accounting of the thermal energy utilized
in the process. Therefore, an understanding of the heat
transfer mechanisms in porous media is essential to
the development of the heat balance equation that
accurately represents the processes involved.
In this work we present a new two-dimensional
analytical model for analyzing the thermal transients
during nonisothermal fluid injections into oil reser-
voirs. The new model has several distinguishing
aspects regarding both describing the processes and
as well as accurately accounting for them in modeling.
The detailed features of the new model are presented
in the following.
2.1. Heat transfer mechanisms and thermal disper-
sion concept
The proposed theory in this work for heat transfer
mechanisms during a hot fluid injection into an oil
reservoir has originated from the work of Sauty et al.
 I. Kocabas / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133–144
(1978). Based on this theory the heat transfer mech-
anisms during non-isothermal flow in porous in media
may be divided into three major types.
The first type is the energy transfer due to physical
movement of the injected fluid. In other words, the
average bulk movement of the injected fluid in the
reservoir causes a forced heat convection.
The second type of heat transfer is due to hydro-
dynamic dispersion. The velocity variations in both
direction and magnitude in the porous media couple
with the thermal conduction and give rise to a phe-
nomenon called hydrodynamic thermal dispersion.
The variations in the velocities are due to velocity
profile in a single pore, velocity differing from one
pore to another and tortuosity of the streamlines.
While the variations in the velocity vector cause extra
spreading of the transition zone between hot and cold
fluids, the thermal conductivity makes this mixing
irreversible. In other words, upon the reversal of the
flow direction the transition zone does not become
smaller, on the contrary, it becomes larger. Such a
hydrodynamic dispersion occurs in both longitudinal
and transverse directions and the corresponding ther-
mal dispersion coefficients are defined as (Sauty et al.,
1978):
KL ¼ k þ aL qw cw uL ð1Þ
Kt ¼ k þ at qw cw ut ð2Þ
Additionally, heat is transferred by thermal con-
duction from the reservoir into the virtually imperme-
able confining layers. This assumption of virtual
impermeability allows us to use conductivity in the
confining layers rather than dispersion.
Finally, the convective transfer between the
injected fluid and the original reservoir fluids and
solid material should be considered. Fortunately, the
velocities in the reservoir are low enough to justify the
assumption of instant thermal equilibrium. In fact, it is
reported that the temperature equilibrium is reached in
1 s for 1 mm, in 1 min for 1 cm and in 2 h for 10 cm
diameter grains (Sauty et al., 1982).
Consequently, the concept of thermal dispersion is
important to be included in the modeling, and hence,
it forms a distinguishing feature of the new model.
135
2.2. Two dimensional analytical model
The analytical solutions for temperature distribu-
tions presented in earlier works (Lauwerier, 1955;
Malofeev, 1963; Avdonin, 1964a,b; Gringarten et al.,
1975; Satman, 1988; Kocabas and Horne, 1990;
Ramirez et al., 1993; Cendejas and Rodriguez,
1994; Kocabas and Islam, 2000a,b) are all one-
dimensional solutions. In addition they can account
for only one type of dominant heat transfer mecha-
nism, and hence, can be divided into two types. The
first types of solutions are those that assume the heat
losses to impermeable bounding layer, and hence, the
boundary conditions dominate. The first and the
most well-known of these solutions is due to Lau-
werier (1955). The Lauwerier model assumes a
linear, one-dimensional incompressible flow in a
homogeneous layer, constant physical properties
and saturations, infinite thermal conductivity in
transverse direction and zero longitudinal thermal
conductivity in the reservoir, finite and equal trans-
verse thermal conductivities and zero longitudinal
thermal conductivities in the bounding layers, and a
constant injection temperature.
The solution to the Lauwerier problem for the
radial flow geometry was presented by Malofeev
(1963). The two other solutions regarding the temper-
ature distributions due to hot liquid injection were
presented by Avdonin (1964a,b). His first work in-
cluded a constant longitudinal conductivity for both
linear and radial geometries. All other assumptions
were identical to those made by Lauwerier. Later, he
presented solutions for a finite transverse conductivity
in the reservoir but the longitudinal one was assumed
to be negligible. Such solutions are applicable to
relatively thin productive layers. Then, slight modifi-
cations to Avdonin’s first model were presented by
Gringarten et al. (1975), Satman (1988), and Kocabas
and Islam (2000a,b).
The second type of models assumes that the
reservoir is thick enough to neglect the heat losses
to the impermeable bounding layer. However, the
reservoir is assumed to consist of two superposed
continua namely a highly permeable fracture network
and a relatively small permeability matrix blocks.
Such models are considered to be controlled by fluid
mechanics. The major heat transfer mechanism is the
one that occurs between the fractures and matrix
136 I. Kocabas / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133–144

blocks. Such types of models are based on tracer Based on the assumptions of the conceptual model
transport models (Ramirez et al., 1993) or geothermal described in the previous section, the governing
models (Cendejas and Rodriguez, 1994) and are equations become:
applicable to relatively thick and, also, densely frac-
tured reservoirs. BT BT B2 T B2 T
qr cr þ /uqf cf  KL 2  Kt 2 ¼ 0; ð8Þ
In the new analytical model presented here, the Bt Bx Bx Bz
assumptions in Lauwerier’s model have been relaxed
to include both a finite longitudinal dispersion (usu- BTm B2 Tm
ally neglected in earlier models) and a transverse qm cm  km ¼ 0: ð9Þ
Bt Bz2
thermal dispersion in the productive layer, making
the solution two-dimensional. In order to build a
The initial and boundary conditions are specified
conceptual model, first we assume a linear flowing
as follows:
unit confined by two impermeable layers. We also
assume an incompressible fluid flow with constant
T ¼ Tm ¼ T0 at t¼0 ð10Þ
linear flow velocities in x and z directions leading to
constant longitudinal and transverse thermal disper-
sion coefficients. In addition, the assumption that the T ¼ Ti at x¼0 ð11Þ
velocity in z direction is negligible compared to that in
x direction allows us to neglect the convective trans-
port in z direction and yet preserve the thermal Both mediums are assumed to be semi-infinite:
transverse dispersion term in the governing equations. T !0 as xD ! l ð12Þ
Finally, we assume constant and equal heat conduc-
tion coefficients in the bounding layers. Tm ! 0 as zD ! l ð13Þ

2.3. Governing equations and development of solution Then the two equations are coupled through the
equality of temperatures and fluxes at the boundary.
The two-dimensional governing differential equa-
tions of the heat transport during nonisothermal fluid T ¼ Tm at z¼b ð14Þ
injection into an oil layer where no phase change and
instantaneous equilibrium of injected and resident
liquids are assumed are as follows: BT BTm
Kt ¼ km at z¼b ð15Þ
Bz BZ
Bðqr cr T Þ
þ j  ðqf cf ðq=AÞT Þ  j  KjT ¼ 0 ð3Þ
Bt The mathematical formulation is simplified using
following dimensionless variables:
and
T0  T T0  Tm
Bðqm cm Tm Þ TD ¼ and TmD ¼ ð16Þ
 j  km jTm ¼ 0; ð4Þ T0  Ti T0  Ti
Bt

where /qf cf ux ð/qf cf uÞ2 t

xD ¼ ; tD ¼ ; and
KL qr cr KL
q=A ¼ /u and qf cf ¼ qw cw Sw þ qo co So ð5Þ /qf cf uz
zD ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð17Þ
KL Kt
qr cr ¼ /qf cf þ ð1  /Þqs cs ð6Þ
qm cm Kt km pffiffiffiffiffi
h1 ¼ ; h2 ¼ ; and h ¼ h2 h1 ð18Þ
qm cm ¼ /m qw cw þ ð1  /m Þqs cs ð7Þ qr cr km Kt
 I. Kocabas / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133–144 137

In terms of the dimensionless variables the govern- TD ¼ TmD at zD ¼ zDb ð25Þ

ing equations and initial and boundary conditions
reduce to:
BTD BTmD
¼ h2 at zD ¼ zDb ð26Þ
BzD BzD
BTD BTD B2 TD B2 TD
þ   ¼ 0; ð19Þ
BtD BxD Bx2D Bz2D
In order to derive the solution, we have first
performed a dependent variable transformation for
BTm B2 Tm dimensionless temperatures in both regions:
h1  ¼ 0; ð20Þ
BtD Bz2D
TD ¼ vexpðxD =2Þ; ð27Þ
TD ¼ TmD ¼ 0 at tD ¼ 0 ð21Þ
TmD ¼ vm expðxD =2Þ: ð28Þ
TD ¼ 1 at xD ¼ 0 ð22Þ
Then we have applied the Laplace and Fourier sine
transforms to the equations of v and vm. Finally,
TD ! 0 as xD ! l ð23Þ
applying the initial and boundary conditions we have
obtained the following solution in the Laplace-Fourier
TmD ! 0 as zD ! l ð24Þ space (Kocabas, 2001).

" pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi   pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  #

2x hs exp s þ k zD þ exp  s þ k zD
v̈ ¼ 1  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  ð29Þ
psðs þ kÞ s þ k þ hs exp s þ k zDb  s þ k  hs exp  s þ k zDb

where k = x2 + a.

To simplify the derivations we have assumed that space solution for the dimensionless temperature in
the parameter h has a unit value. This assumption is the oil layer:


made in order to obtain a real space solution. After 1 xD  tD

manipulating Eq. (29) considerably and using tables TD ¼ erfc pffiffiffiffi
2 2 tD
of Laplace transforms together with the convolution

xD þ t D
theorem, we have obtained the following Fourier sine þ expðxD Þerfc pffiffiffiffi  TDsinv2 ð30Þ
2 tD

where
l Z
X tD
expððð2n þ 1ÞzDb  zD Þ2 =4sÞ þ expððð2n þ 1ÞzDb þ zD Þ2 =4sÞ
TDsinv2 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Fsinv ds ð31Þ
n¼0 0 p sðtD  sÞ

and
Z l 2

1 x þa x þa
Fsinv ¼ exp  ðtD  sÞ I nþ1=2 ðt D  sÞ sin xxdx: ð32Þ
0 ðx2 þ aÞ1=2 2 2
138 I. Kocabas / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133–144

To carry out the above inverse Fourier sine trans- Then we have performed a term-by-term inversion
form (Eq. (32)), we have utilized the following using the tables of Fourier sine and cosine integral
relation which is selected as the most convenient transforms, and the theory of convolution. For exam-
one among the available Modified Bessel Function ple when n = 0, the first approximation to the term
In + 1/2 representations: TDinv2 in the solution becomes:
rffiffiffiffiffi Z
2y 1 0 expððzDb  zD Þ2 =4sÞ þ expððzDb þ zD Þ2 =4sÞ
tD
Inþ1=2 ðyÞ ¼ TDinv2 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p 2y 0 p sðtD  sÞ
8 X 9 8

9
>
>
n
ðn þ mÞ! m >
> > erfc s pxffiffiffiD  expðx Þerfc s þpxffiffiffiD  >
> >
> ð2yÞ expðyÞ > 1< =
D
< m!Cðn  m þ 1Þ = 2 s 2 s
m¼0

ds
Xn : > erfc D pffiffiffiffiffiD þ expðx Þerfc D pffiffiffiffiffiD >
2> t  x t þ x >
>
> ðn þ mÞ! > : ;
>
: ð1Þ
n
ð2yÞm expðyÞ >
>
; 2 tD
D
2 tD
m¼0
m!Cðn  m þ 1Þ
ð33Þ ð34Þ

For n = 1, the second order approximation to the term TDinv2 in the solution is obtained as:

Z
1 0 expðð3zDb  zD Þ2 =4sÞ þ expðð3zDb þ zD Þ2 =4sÞ
tD
TDsinv2 ¼ TDinv2 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 p sðtD  sÞ
8 
 
9
> 1 s  xD s  xD s þ xD 1 s þ xD >
> þ
< 2 t s erfc p ffiffi
ffi  þ expðx D Þerfc p ffiffi
ffi >
=
D 2 s tD  s 2 2 s
 
 
ds ð35Þ
>
> t  xD 1 t D  xD t D þ xD 1 t D þ xD >
: D þ erfc pffiffiffiffi þ þ expðxD Þerfc pffiffiffiffi >
;
tD  s 2 2 tD tD  s 2 2 tD

The equations for n = 2 are quite complex and do
not lend themselves to a practical solution easily.
However, as discussed in the average temperatures
section, the accuracy of this second order approxima-
tion is quite adequate for the computational purposes,
and for most of the time we have utilized this form to
compute the temperature profiles.
3. Two-dimensional temperature profiles in the oil
layer
The two-dimensional temperature distributions
give us a general idea about the temperature surface
in the oil layer. Such information may be used to
design and interpret the fluid injection operations into
oil reservoirs. It may also be used to justify/discard a
one-dimensional model. Figs. 1, 2 and 3 show tem-
perature gradients developed along the transport di-
rection as well as across half of the injection plane of
the reservoir, where the other half would be the exact
mirror image.
In the two dimensional temperature distributions,
the following features are of great importance,
namely, the extent of the transition region in both
lateral/vertical and longitudinal directions and mag-
nitude of gradients in each direction. These features
may be inferred from the number of grids with
similar shape, size and orientation. The square
shaped small grids indicate regions of constant
temperatures at or close to the injection temperature.
The rectangular shaped grids indicate regions of
temperature variations, the larger the aspect ratio of
a rectangle the greater the temperature gradient.
Finally, the orientation of rectangles coincides with
the direction of the gradient.
Fig. 1 shows that the temperature surface for a large
Peclet number and a small L/b ratio consists of three
distinct regions. The small size square grids occupy the
largest area indicting that most of the reservoir is
heated to the injection fluid temperature. Then, there
exists a narrow region of high lateral/vertical temper-
ature gradients next to the confining layer boundary.
Finally, there is a region of high temperature gradients
 I. Kocabas / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133–144 139

Fig. 1. Dimensionless temperature distributions across half of the injection plane, Pe = 100, KL/Kt = 10, L/b = 10.

along the flow direction. From these observations, we
expect a high heating efficiency.
Fig. 2 shows the effect of increasing dispersivity
(smaller Peclet numbers) on the temperature distribu-
tion. There are also three distinguishable regions in
Fig. 2. Here the increasing dispersivity reduces the
portion of the reservoir heated close to the injection
fluid temperature. The two transition regions near the
confining layer boundary and along the flow direction
occupy relatively larger portions than that in Fig. 1.
These regions are characterized by large rectangles
with small aspect ratios. Thus, while the transition
zone gets larger the temperature gradients become less
pronounced.
Fig. 3 shows the effect of a large L/b ratio
representing a long thin reservoir. In this case, the
transition zone develops only along the flow direction
extending over the whole flow distance. The
smoothed transverse gradients indicate the total dom-
inance of heat losses through the confining layer
boundary leading to a low heating efficiency.
More importantly, however, is that two-dimension-
al temperature distribution surfaces serve a higher
stepping stone for validating numerical models. Nu-

Fig. 2. Dimensionless temperature distribution across half of the injection plane, Pe = 100, KL/Kt = 10, L/b = 10.
140 I. Kocabas / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133–144

Fig. 3. Dimensionless temperature distributionsacross half of the injection plane, Pe = 100, KL/Kt = 10, L/b = 100.

merical models are known to suffer at varying degrees Applying this relation to the solution, one obtains:
from errors such as numerical dispersion, and grid size 

orientation effects and other behavioral errors such as 1 xD  t D

T̄D ¼ erfc pffiffiffiffi
nonphysical oscillations. In fact these errors may 2 2 tD


become quite difficult to evaluate for multidimension- xD þ tD
al models (Kocabas and Margoub, 2000). Therefore, þ expðxD Þerfc pffiffiffiffi  T̄Dsinv2 ð37Þ
2 tD
this is the first time a two-dimensional analytical
model is presented for confined reservoirs, and hence, where
it gives us the opportunity to match two dimensional l Z
error free temperature surfaces serving to better eval- 1 X tD
T̄Dsin v2 ¼
uate some of the errors involved in numerical models. zDb n¼0 0

nzDb ðn þ 1ÞzDb
erfc pffiffiffi  erfc pffiffiffi
s s
4. Average temperature profile in the oil layer pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p sðtD  sÞ
Obtaining an expression of average temperature Fsinv ds: ð38Þ
profile is important for determining the heating effi-
ciency, which is the most important parameter of Similar to the derivation of the two dimensional
thermal recovery methods. Particularly for the present temperatures, the following approximate solutions are
model, the average temperature serves as an accurate derived for the average temperatures along the trans-
one-dimensional solution. In addition, we can infer port direction. For n = 0, the first approximation to the
the collective roles of parameters and geometric term T̄Dinv2 in the solution is:
dimensions on the heating efficiency. The average

zDb
Z erf pffiffiffi
temperature across the half width of the reservoir 0 1 tD
s
T̄Dsinv2 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(which is also equal to the average temperature zDb 0 p sðtD  sÞ
8

9
distribution across the whole width) is found using > s  xD s þ xD
>
> erfc pffiffiffi  expðxD Þerfc pffiffiffi  >>
>
the following relation: 1 < 2 s 2 s =


ds
2>> t x t þx >
>
Z : erfc D pffiffiffiffiffiD þ expðxD Þerfc D pffiffiffiffiffiD >
> ;
ZDb
1 2 tD 2 tD
T̄D ¼ TD ðzD Þ dzD ð36Þ
zDb 0 ð39Þ
 I. Kocabas / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133–144 141

Fig. 6. Comparison of Lauwerier, Avdonin and 2D models for KL/

Fig. 4. The new solution for L/b = 20 and various KL/Kt values.
Kt = 1 and various L/b values.

For n = 1, the second order approximation to the solution is:

zDb 2zDb
Z tD erfc pffiffiffi  erfc pffiffiffi
1 0 1 s s
T̄Dsin v2 ¼ T̄Dsinv2 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
zDb 0 pðtD  sÞ
8 
 
9
> 1 s  xD s  xD s þ xD 1 s þ xD >
> p ffiffi
ffi
< 2 þ t  s erfc 2 s  t  s þ 2 expðxD Þerfc 2 s p ffiffi
ffi >
=
D D
 
 
ds ð40Þ
>
> 1 t  xD t D  xD tD þ xD 1 t D þ xD >
>
: þ D erfc pffiffiffiffi þ þ expðxD Þerfc pffi ;
2 tD  s 2 tD tD  s 2 2 tD

The average temperature equations are first used to
investigate the accuracy of the first and second order
approximations of the full solution (n = 0 and n = 1,
respectively). Figs. 4 and 5 show the temperature
profiles for a range of parameters for the cases of
n = 0 and n = 1 where curves of the first and second
approximations coincide except the lowest pairs of
curves in both figures. The concurrence of the first
and second order approximations indicates that the
approximate solution for those cases is highly accu-
rate. The lowest pairs of curves in both figures
correspond to the combinations of a large L/b with a
low KL/Kt. In the case of a large L/b, however, one
would expect that the Lauwerier and Avdonin
assumptions to hold, and hence, those solutions to
approach the full solution. In fact, Figs. 6 and 7 show
the comparison of the second order approximation
with the Lauwerier and Avdonin solutions. The lower
pair of curves in Figs. 6 and 7 corresponding to L/

Fig. 7. Comparison of Lauwerier, Avdonin and 2D models for L/

Fig. 5. The new solution for KL/Kt = 1 and various L/b values. b = 1 and various KL/Kt values.
142 I. Kocabas / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133–144
b = 30 and 20 respectively and KL/Kt = 1, show that
the differences between the Avdonin and the two
dimensional models are negligible. Thus, as Avdonin
solution approaches the full solution, its proximity to
the second order approximation as shown in Figs. 6
and 7, further builds the confidence on the accuracy of
the second order approximation. Therefore, consider-
ing that curves in Figs. 4, 5 and 6 correspond to a
wide range of practical values, we can be confident
that the second order approximation is sufficiently
accurate for computational purposes.
In Figs. 6 and 7, a comparison of the Luwerier and
Avdonin models with the two dimensional model
indicates that for a small KL/Kt value, as the aspect
ratio (i.e. large L/b) increases the Lauwerier and
Avdonin solutions approximate the two dimensional
solution fairly closely. On the other hand, as aspect
ratio gets smaller or KL/Kt increases even in the case
of fairly large L/b (i.e. 20) values, use of the two
dimensional solution becomes a necessity for accurate
temperature profile estimations.
The average temperature distributions for a wide
range of values of the aspect ratio, L/b and the Peclet
number, Pe, are given in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of L/b ratio on the average
temperature distribution for a large Peclet number.
Qualitatively, heating efficiency is proportional to the
area under the curve of average temperature. Thus,
one can see that as L/b ratio increases, heating
efficiency decreases rapidly. If one were to define
the effective heating of the reservoir as increasing the
reservoir temperature to 0.5 TD with 2PV injection,
Fig. 8 shows that even for a small dispersivity case, L/
b should be at least 20. Naturally, increasing disper-
Fig. 8. Effect of L/b ratio on average temperature distribution, for
PV = 0.9, Pe = 100, and K/Kt = 10.
Fig. 9. Effect of Peclet number on average temperature distribution,
for PV = 0.9, K/Kt = 10 and L/b = 20.
sivity will increase the requirement of L/b ratio or PV
injection.
Fig. 9 shows the effect of dispersivity on the
average temperature distributions for an L/b ratio of
10 and indicates that as the dispersivity increases the
transition zone will get larger, reducing the effective-
ness of the reservoir heating.
Finally, one can infer that as L/b ratio becomes
greater or Peclet number gets smaller, the transition
zone along the flow direction increases. However, as
for their collective role on increasing the transition
zone along the flow direction, L/b ratio dominates,
smoothing the temperature gradient across the reser-
voir width and spreading the transition zone over the
whole flow distance.
A major advantage of the present solution is that
it provides a more accurate thermal efficiency esti-
mate than the one-dimensional models that use
infinite transverse conductivity. However, neither
the development of an analytical expression nor a
numerical integration of the average temperature of
the new model profile for the thermal efficiency
calculations was attempted here and should be dealt
with elsewhere.
5. Conclusions
A new two-dimensional analytical solution of the
convection – dispersion equation based on a constant
linear velocity and constant longitudinal and trans-
verse dispersion coefficients is presented. The thermal
transients during nonisothermal fluid injection into a
linear confined oil reservoir have been studied
 I. Kocabas / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133–144
through these solutions. The model presented for
studying the thermal transients has several significant
features such as ability to generate error free two-
dimensional temperature surfaces and employing the
thermal dispersion concept. Furthermore, it serves to
observe the roles of both fluid mechanics through
dispersion parameters and boundary conditions via
heat loss terms at the confining boundaries. Thus, it
has the potential to be used in all modern nonisother-
mal liquid injection processes for design and interpre-
tation purposes as well as identifying the numerical
dispersion errors involved in two dimensions for
comprehensive numerical simulators.
Nomenclature
a a constant equal to 0.25
A area open to flow
c heat capacity
k thermal conductivity
K thermal dispersion
In + 1/2 Modified Bessel Function of order (n + 1/2)
L length of the reservoir
m dummy variable (integer)
n dummy variable (integer)
Pe longitudinal Peclet number, Pe=xDxf
PV pore volume of water injected, PV=ut/L=tD/Pe
q injection rate into the reservoir
s Laplace transform variable
S saturation
t time variable of the transport equations
T temperature
T̄D dimensionless average temperature
u interstitial flow velocity
x space variable along the flow direction
y dummy variable
z space variable perpendicular to the flow
direction
a dispersivity
/ porosity
v transformed temperature variable
v¨ Laplace and Fourier Sine transformed v
v˙ Laplace transformed v
g space convolution variable
s time convolution variable
pffiffiffiffiffi
h dimensionless parameter equal to h2 h1
h1 dimensionless parameter equal to (qmcmKt)/
(qr cr km)
h2 dimensionless parameter equal to km/Kt
143
C Gamma function
q density
k parameter equal to (x2 + a)
x Fourier sine transform variable
j gradient operator
Subscripts
b boundary
D dimensionless
i inlet
L longitudinal
m confining layer
0 initial
o oil
r reservoir
t transverse
s solid grains
sinv inverse Fourier sine
w water
Acknowledgements
Funding of this research was provided by the Abu
Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC). Many
fruitful discussions with Dr. Hassan Hejase of UAE
University have significantly facilitated our work.
Both contributions are gratefully acknowledged.
References
Avdonin, N.A., 1964a. Some formulas for calculating the temper-
ature field of a stratum subject to thermal injection. Neft Gaz 7
(3), 37 – 43 (in Russian).
Avdonin, N.A., 1964b. On the different methods of calculating the
temperature fields of a stratum subject during thermal injection.
Neft Gaz 7 (8), 39 – 44 (in Russian).
Cendejas, F.A., Rodriguez, H.R., 1994. Heat transfer processes
during low or high enthalpy fluid injection into naturally frac-
tured reservoirs. Proc. Nineteenth Workshop on Geothermal En-
gineering. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Gringarten, A.C., Witherspoon, P.A., Ohnishi, Y., 1975. Theory of
heat extraction from hot dry rock. J. Geophys. Res. 80 (8),
1120 – 1124.
Gupta, A.D., 1990. Accurate resolution of physical dispersion in the
multidimensional numerical modeling of miscible and chemical
displacement. SPE Reserv. Eng., Nov., 581 – 588.
Kocabas, I., 2001. Modeling of heat/tracer transport in oil reservoirs.
Externally Funded Project Report IV submitted to Exploration
and Production Division ADNOC, UAE Univ., Al Ain, UAE.
144 I. Kocabas / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 133–144
Kocabas, I., Horne, R.N., 1990. A new method of forecasting the
thermal breakthrough time during reinjection in geothermal res-
ervoirs. Proc. Sixteenth Workshop on Geothermal Engineering.
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Kocabas, I., Islam, M.R., 2000a. Concentration and temperature
transients in heterogeneous porous media, Part I: Linear trans-
port. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 26, 211 – 220.
Kocabas, I., Islam, M.R., 2000b. Concentration and temperature
transients in heterogeneous porous media: Part I. Radial trans-
port. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 26, 221 – 233.
Kocabas, I., Margoub, A., 2000. Improved numerical schemes for
transport equations in oil reservoirs. Externally Funded Project
Report III submitted to Exploration and Production Division
ADNOC, UAE Univ., Al Ain, UAE.
Lantz, R.B., 1971. Quantitative evaluation of numerical diffusion
(truncation error). Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 315 – 320.
Lauwerier, H.A., 1955. The transport of heat in an oil layer caused
by the injection of hot fluid. Appl. Sci. Res. 5 (2 – 3), 145 – 150.
Leonard, B.P., 1981. A survey of finite differences with upwinding
for numerical modelling of the incompressible convective dif-
fusion equation. In: Taylor, C., Morgan, K. (Eds.), Computa-
tional Techniques in Transient and Turbulent Flow, vol. 2.
Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 1 – 35.
Leonard, B.P., MacVean, M.K., Lock, A.P., 1995. The flux integral
method for multidimensional convection and diffusion. Appl.
Math. Model. 19, 333 – 342.
LeVeque, R.J., 1996. High-resolution conservative algorithms for
advection in incompressible flow. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 33 (2),
627 – 665.
Malofeev, G.E., 1963. Calculation of the temperature distribution in
a formation when pumping hot fluid into a well. Neft Gaz 9 (2),
31 – 45 (in Russian).
Peacemean, D.W., Rachford, H.H., 1962. Numerical calculation of
multidimensional miscible displacement. Soc. Pet. Eng. J.,
327 – 338.
Ramirez, J., Samaniego, F.V., Rivera, J.R, Rodriguez, F., 1993. Tracer
flow in naturally fractured reservoirs. SPE Paper #25900, Pro-
ceedings, Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reser-
voirs Symposium held in Denver, CO, USA, April 12 – 14.
Rubinshtein, L.I., 1959. The total heat losses in injection of a hot
liquid into a stratum. Neft Gaz 2 (9), 110 – 116 (in Russian).
Satman, A., 1988. Solutions of heat- and fluid flow problems in
naturally fractured reservoirs: Part 1-Heat flow problems. SPE
Prod. Eng., 463 – 466 (Nov.).
Sauty, J.P, Gringarten, A., Landel, P.A., 1978. The effect of thermal
dispersion on injection of hot water in aquifers. Proc. The Sec-
ond Invitational Well Testing Symposium. Div. of Geothermal
Energy, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Berkeley, CA, pp. 122 – 131.
Sauty, J.P, Gringarten, A.C, Menjoz, A., Landel, P.A., 1982. Sen-
sible energy storage in aquifers: 1. Theoretical study. Water
Resour. Res. 18 (2), 245 – 252.
Spillette, A.G., 1965. Heat transfer during hot fluid injection into an
oil reservoir. In: Dietz, D.N. (Ed.), Thermal Recovery Techni-
ques. SPE Reprint Series, vol. 10, pp. 21 – 26.