APPLIED GEOPHYSICS, Vol.5, No.4 (December 2008), P. 340 - 349 , 9 Figures.

DOI:10.1007/s11770-008-0037-z

Numerical simulation of downhole temperature

distribution in producing oil wells
Shi Ying1,2, Song Yanjie1, and Liu Hong2

Abstract: An improved numerical simulation method is presented to calculate the

downhole temperature distribution for multiple pay zones in producing oil wells. Based
on hydrodynamics and heat transfer theory, a 2-D temperature field model in cylindrical
coordinates is developed. In the model, we considered general heat conduction as well as the
heat convection due to uid ow from porous formation to the borehole. We also take into
account the uid velocity variation in the wellbore due to multiple pay zones. We present
coupled boundary conditions at the interfaces between the wellbore and adjacent formation,
the wellbore and pay zone, and the pay zone and adjacent formation. Finally, an alternating
direction implicit difference method (ADI) is used to solve the temperature model for the
downhole temperature distribution. The comparison of modeled temperature curve with
actual temperature log indicates that simulation result is in general quite similar to the actual
temperature log. We found that the total production rate, production time, porosity, thickness
of pay zones, and geothermal gradient, all have effects on the downhole temperature
distribution.
Keywords: oil well, downhole temperature distribution, heat transfer, numerical simulation

Introduction by many researchers (Sagar and Dotty, 1989; Corre et

The temperature log is used not only to study formation
temperature (Kutasov and Eppelbaum, 2005), but also
to evaluate production well performance by analyzing
anomalous temperature behavior. It can provide an
important basis for dynamic analysis and wellbore
technology diagnosis of production wells (Zhang et al.,
2004). Many analysts are paying more attention to the study
of downhole temperature distribution of production wells,
because it reects production or injection history, contains
extremely abundant information (Jin et al., 2003), and is
especially useful for interpreting problem wells. Numerical
simulations of downhole temperature distributions for
various kinds of wells have been previously developed
al., 1984; Stone and Bennett, 2002; Hasan and Kabir,
1991a and b; Song and Shi, 2007), mainly based on
Rameys theory (Ramey, 1962). Ramay was the first to
develop a theoretical solution for estimating wellbore uid
temperature. He presented an approximate solution of the
wellbore heat transfer problem involving injection of hot
or cold fluids. The solution provides an estimate of the
uid, tubing and casing temperatures as functions of depth
and time. Fagley and Scott (1982) presented an improved
injection-well temperature simulator. Their simulator offers
an advantage over previous ones in that the wellbore water
heat transfer is modeled both before and after shut-in of
the well. Hasand and Kabir (1991) constructed an one-
dimentional radial heat transfer model with proper initial
and boundary conditions. Frdric et al. (1994) described

Manuscript received by the Editor September 17, 2008, revised manuscript received October 24, 2008.
* This work was sponsored by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 40830424).
1.School of Geoscience, Daqing Petroleum Institute, Daqing 163318, China.
2.Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China.

340
 Shi et al.
a new temperature model that takes into account the
temperature effect due to the uid decompression and the
frictional heating occurring in the formation. Feng et al.
(1996) constructed a mathematical model in the injection
well and discussed the numerical arithmetic. Farshad et
al. (2000) developed two articial neural network models
(ANN) that predicted the temperature of the owing uid
at any depth of the oil well. Using the wellbore temperature
recovery data after drilling mud circulation, Lee et al. (2003)
presented a method based on a genetic algorithm to calculate
the formation temperature and thermal conductivity. Gao et
al. (2008) developed a temperature distribution model for
deepwater drilling pipe, annulus, and insulating layer and
obtained the deepwater wellbore temperature distribution
during circulation and non-circulation.
Because temperature logs in producing oil wells are
more complicated with many inuencing factors and the
temperature difference between wellbore and formation
is quite small, numerical simulations for such cases are
rare. Although there have been calculations of wellbore
fluid temperature for producing oil wells, they do not
consider the heat transfer between pay zone and adjacent
formation. Most temperature models focused on the
wellbore thermal exchanges due to conduction and
convection and assumed that the produced fluid enters
the wellbore at geothermal temperature.
Using hydrodynamics and heat transfer theory and
considering actual operating conditions, we develop a 2-D
temperature field model for production wells in cylindrical
coordinates with initial and boundary conditions. For
complicated heat transfer such as convection, we used the nite
difference method to solve the temperature model. Dynamic
downhole temperature distributions are simulated for different
production and formation conditions with multiple pay zones.
We also consider the variation of uid velocity in the wellbore
to reflect the actual production conditions of multiple pay
zones. The coupled wellbore, pay zone and adjacent formation
Wellbore
Adjacent formation
Pay zone
Adjacent formation
Pay zone
z r
Adjacent formation
Fig. 1 Schematic of ow in a production well.
temperature eld models are solved simultaneously. To describe
the subsurface temperature distribution, we chose equidistant
radial grid spacing for the wellbore, and logarithmic grid
spacing for the formation. Our results should be very useful for
determining pay zone locations, analyzing produced uids, and
nding leaking layers. It can also provide a reliable theoretical
basis for establishing oilfield exploitation schemes. The
prediction of flowing fluid temperature profiles in the wells is
essential for solving and optimizing design problems in oil well
production.
Temperature eld model
After the fluid in a pay zone enters the wellbore, it
will mix with uids from lower pay zones which cause
its temperature to be higher than that of the adjacent
formation (Hill, 1995). Because of such temperature
difference, there is heat transfer between the fluids
in the wellbore and the adjacent formation by way of
conduction and convection. Heat transfer due to radiation
can be neglected since it is comparatively insignicant.
We assume the downhole temperature distribution to
be axial symmetric. Hence, the three-dimensional heat
transfer model can be simplified to a two-dimensional
one. Figure 1 shows our 2-D temperature eld model in
cylindrical coordinates for a wellbore with production
fluid flow and the surrounding formation with two pay
zones. For multiple pay zones, the change of uid velocity
in the wellbore is considered with uid owing upward.
As illustrated in Figure 2, uid 1 from zone 1 enters the
wellbore, and mixes with uid 2 from the lower zone 2.
Hence, the uid ow over zone 1 in the borehole equals
the sum of flows of fluids 1 and 2, causing the fluid
velocity to increase. Here, we regard two-phase mixed
two phase mix ow as a weighted single-phase ow.
Mixed uid
Fluid 1
Fluid 2
Fig. 2 Schematic of two-phase uid ow in the wellbore.
341
 Downhole temperature distribution in producing oil wells

Assumptions of the model If we neglect the pressure effect in the formation while
assuming the oil and water velocities are the same in
the pay zone, we can obtain the seepage velocity for the
We have made the following assumptions in our uid in the pay zone as
model: ql
Xl . (4)
1. J o u l e - T h o m s o n e ff e c t o n t h e t e m p e r a t u r e 2 S rD I 1
distribution in the wellbore and formation is neglected.
2. Original temperature distribution in the formation For the adjacent formation regions above and below
changes linearly with depth and the thermodynamic the pay zone, we assume that the heat transfer is solely
parameters in the equation do not change with due to conduction, not convection (Fagley and Scott,
temperature. 1982). The temperature eld for the adjacent formation
3. Pay zones and adjacent zones are isotropic in can be written as
their thermal properties and borehole radius remains w wT w wT 1 w wT
unchanged with depth. (O l )  (O l ) (O l T ) U l cl , (5)
wz wz wr wr r wr wt
4. Frictional heating is negligible.
5. The thermal property of the mixture of the two- where
phase uid is homogenous. Or O(s12I ) (O w s w 2  Oo s o 2 )I ,
2 2

6. Fluid is not compressible, i.e., fluid density is

constant. ( Uc) ** (1  I 2 )( U s 2 c s 2 )  I 2 ( U o co so 2  U w c w s w 2 ) .
Because uid does not ow in the interval between the
Governing equations lowest pay zone and the bottom of the borehole, there is
no heat transfer by convection, and only heat transfer by
conduction is considered. The heat transfer in the interval
We consider the heat transfers in the wellbore as is unsteady, and the equations (1) and (2) can be simplied
continuous medium conduction and convection in a into the equations (6) and (7), respectively, as follows:
vertical tube while the well is producing. Considering w wT w wT 1 w wT
only the vertical component and ignoring the radial (O l )  (O l ) (O l T ) U l cl ,(6)
component of the fluid velocity, we can express the wz wz wr wr r wr wt
temperature eld model in the wellbore as w wT w wT wT
(Ol )  2 (Ol ) U l cl . (7)
w
(Ol
wT w
)  (Ol
wT 1 w
) (Ol T )U l cl
wT
 U l clQ z
wT
, wz wz wr wr wt
wz wz wr wr r wr wt wz
(1)
and the temperature eld model at the center axis(r=0) of Initial and boundary conditions
the wellbore as
w wT w wT wT wT
(Ol )  2 (Ol ) U l cl  U l clQ z . (2) Initial temperature of the formation and wellbore is at
wz wz wr wr wt wz
the geothermal condition. Thus, the initial condition can
We assume that fluids in the formation flow radially be written as
through porous media, with oil and water velocities
being the same in the pay zones. The heat transfers in T t 0 a  bz . (8)
the pay zones are treated as conduction and convection
in porous media. Neglecting the pressure effect and We further assume that no heat transfer occurs at the
frictional heating from fluid flow, we can express the top and bottom of the modeled borehole and formation.
temperature eld in the pay zones as Their boundary conditions can be written as equations (9),
(10), (11) and (12). The adiabatic boundary condition at
wT o o
( U c )* ( U l clXl ) gradT  div (Oc gradT ) , (3) the well axis can be described as equation (13). The outer
wt boundary of the formation is maintained at the geothermal
where temperature when the value of r is sufficiently large. Its
Oc O(s11I ) (O w s w1  Oo s o1 )I ,
1 1 boundary condition is given in equation (14).
wT
( Uc) (1  I1 )( U s1c s1 )  I1 ( U o co s o1  U w c w s w1 ) . Ol z z max ; r d rb 0, (9)
wz
342
 Shi et al.

wT h by convection is obtained as the following.

Ol z 0 ;r d rb 0, (10) From Dittus-Boelter equation,
wz
wT N uf 0.023Ref0.8 Pefn ,
Or z z max ;rb  r  re 0, (11)
wz and non-dimensional denition of Nusselt number,
wT
Or z 0;rb  r  re 0, (12)
N uf
hd
,
wz Ol
wT we have,
Ol 0, (13)
wr
r 0
Ol
h 0.023 Ref0.8 Pefn .
T a  bz . (14) d
r re
Here, we let n = 0.3.
The dynamic coupling boundary conditions at
interfaces between the wellbore and adjacent formation,
the wellbore and pay zone, and the pay zone and Inuence factor analysis
adjacent formation can be described as equations (15),
(16), and (17), respectively.
The nite difference method is used to solve the above
wT set of second-order partial differential equations with the
h(Tlr  Tr ) Or wr
'
r rb prescribed initial and boundary conditions. Details of the
,
nite difference solution are given in the Appendix. We
Tlr Tr r r assume that the modeled region is consisted of a well,
b (15)
two pay zones, and three shoulder beds, with the well
wT wT * radius being 0.1m. The parameters for the simulation
Oc wr r rb Ol wr r rb  Ul clX r (Tc  Tlc' ) r rb are given in Tables 1 and 2. We use these parameters
, to investigate factors that influence the downhole
Tlc Tc r r temperature distribution. The modeled results follow.
b (16)

wT wT Table 1 Thermal parameters for water and oil

Or wz z zi Oc
wz
z zi Density Specic heat Thermal conductivity
. Fluid
kg/m3 J/(kg K) W/(m K)
T1 z z T2
i z zi (17)
Water 1000 4220 0.622

Combining the Dittus-Boelter equation and the Oil 800 1920 0.148
denition of Nusselt number, the heat transfer coefcient

Table 2 Formation parameters

Density Specic heat Thermal conductivity
Zone number Water saturation Porosity
kg/m3 J/(kg K) W/(m K)
1 2650 802 2.8 100% 30%
2 2450 820 2.1
3 2650 802 2.8 100% 30%
4 2450 820 2.1
5 2650 802 2.8 100% 30%

Effect of total production rate and production
time
We assume porosity and water saturation of both pay
zones are 20% and 80%, respectively, the thickness of
the two pay zones are 5 m.
Assuming the production time is 200 days,we modeled
the downhole temperature distribution with different
343
 Downhole temperature distribution in producing oil wells

production rates as shown in Figure 3.. The result shows
that the higher the total production rate, the wider the
separation between the downhole uid temperature and the
geothermal temperature. The conclusion is consistent with
the result of Ramey's equation.
Suppose that total production rate is kept constant at
16 m3/d, and production time is varied. The modeled
result shows that the longer the production time, the
wider the separation between the downhole fluid
temperature curve and the geothermal gradient line, as
shown in Figure 4. However, we find that the curves
of 400 d and 1000 d overlap, which indicates that the
temperature in the wellbore does not change much over
long production times.

900 900

920 920

940 940
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
960 960

Geothermal gradient Geothermal gradient

980 16 m3/d 980 5d
25 m3/d 400 d
40 m3/d 1000 d
1000 1000
40 41 42 43 40 41 42 43
Temperature ( ) Temperature ( )
Fig. 3 Effect of total production rate Fig.4 Effect of production time on the
on the temperature prole. temperature prole.

Effect of oil saturation and porosity of pay zone
We now assume that production time is 400 days, total
production rate is 16 m3/d, porosity of the pay zones is
20%, and the thicknesses of the two pay zones are all 5 m.
We obtain the downhole temperature distributions as
900
shown in Figure 5 for pay zone oil saturations of 10%,
50%, and 80%. The result indicates that the variation of
oil saturation has little effect on the downhole temperature
profile. This may be due to the fact that we assume the
produced uid as a single phase uid.
900

920 920

940 940
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

960 960

Geothermal gradient Geothermal gradient

980 Oil saturation 10% 980 5%
Oil saturation 50% 20%
Oil saturation 80% 35%
1000 1000
40 41 42 43 40 41 42 43
Temperature ( ) Temperature ( )

Fig. 5 Effect of pay zone oil saturation on Fig. 6 Effect of pay zone porosity on
the temperature prole. the temperature prole.

When the pay zone oil saturation is kept constant the downhole temperature. The higher the porosity, the
at 0.8, and their porosity is varied, we modeled the bigger the temperature profile anomaly. For the same
downhole temperature distribution with the result shown production rate, the higher the porosity, the smaller the
in Figure 6. This indicates that porosity has an effect on seepage velocity in the pay zone, leading to a smaller

344

flow velocity at the exit of the pay zone. Because the
uid can mix sufciently well with the uids of higher
temperatures from the lower zones, larger anomalies are
formed on the temperature prole.
Effect of bed thickness and original geothermal
gradient
Assume that production time is 200 days, total
production rate is 16 m 3 /d, and the porosity and
oil saturation of both pay zones are 20% and 20%,
respectively.
Figure 7 shows the downhole temperature distributions
for two cases when the two pay zones are either 5 m or
8 m thick. The two pay zones are located at 925 to 930
m and 965 to 970 m for 5 m thick pay zones, or 925 to
933 m and 965 to 973 m for 8 m thick pay zones. The
modeled result shows that the downhole temperature
900
920
940
Depth (m)
960
980 Geothermal gradient
5m
8m
1000
40 41 42
Temperature ()
Fig.7 Effect of bed thickness on the
temperature prole.
Real data example
Our temperature field model was applied to
producing oil well #1 in Daqing Oil Field to calculate
the downhole temperature distribution. The simulation
curve from the model calculation is compared with
actual temperature log in Figure 9. The well radius is
0.1 m, and the production time is 100 d. Table 2 lists
the thermal conductivities of the matrix of the pay
zone s1 and the adjacent formation s2, the specific
heats of the matrix of the pay zone cs1 and the adjacent
formation c s2, and the densities of the matrix of the
pay zones s1 and the adjacent formation s2. Other
parameters used in the simulation are given in Table 3.
Shi et al.
anomalies for thicker pay zones are more obvious. The
seepage velocity of fluid in the pay zones decreases
as the pay zone thickness increases holding the total
production rate constant. Thus, the uid at the pay zone
exit can mix very well with uids of higher temperature
from lower zones, leading to higher downhole fluid
temperature for thicker pay zone.
We now assume that the pay zone thickness is 5
m, while keeping other parameters the same, and
investigate of the effect on downhole temperature
distribution when the geothermal gradient is varied.
As shown in Figure 8, we find that the downhole
temperature increases as the geothermal gradient
increases. This is because when geothermal gradient
increases, the formation temperature increases, leading
to uid temperature increase in the pay zone as well as
in the wellbore.
900
0.025 /m geothermal
gradient
0.025 /m prole
920 0.032 /m geothermal
gradient
0.032 /m prole
Depth (m)
940
960
980
1000
43 40 41 42 43 44
Temperature ()
Fig.8 Effect of original geothermal
gradient on the temperature prole
The equivalent thermal capacitances (c)* in the pay
zone and (c)** in the adjacent formation are the same
as that dened in the model. From Figure 9, we notice
that the simulation curve is in general quite similar to
the actual temperature log, except the anomaly at the
pay zone is not as big. The possible reasons are: (1)
The actual production rate was not constant. (2) We
ignore the frictional heating between uid and matrix
which can cause downhole uid temperature increase.
(3) We neglect that the Joule-Thomson effect. As the
fluid exited the pay zone, it experienced a pressure
drop which led to a sudden temperature increase,
affecting the fluid temperature next to the pay zone.
All these factors contributed to larger temperature
anomaly near the pay zone.
345
 Downhole temperature distribution in producing oil wells

Table 3 Parameters for Well #1

Interval Oil saturation Water saturation Porosity Production rate Adjacent formation or pay
m so sw m3/d zone

970.0-996.2 0 100% 30% 0.0 Adjacent formation 1

996.2-996.9 16% 84% 31.5% 11.9 Pay zone 1
996.9-1003.5 0 100% 30% 0.0 Adjacent formation 2
1003.5-1004.8 16% 84% 26.3% 6.2 Pay zone 2
1004.8-1020.0 0 100% 0.0 0.0 Adjacent formation 3

44.2 44.8 45.4

970
Actual prole
Simulation prole
Acknowledgements
980
This work was sponsored by the National Nature
Science Foundation of China (No. 40830424). The
990 authors are thankful to Daqing Oil Field Company
Depth (m)

Limited for providing the temperature log data and

also thank anonymous reviewers for their comments to
1000 improve the original manuscript.

1100
Nomenclature
1200
Temperature () o thermal conductivity of oil, W/(m K)
Fig.9 Comparison of the modeled temperature curve w thermal conductivity of water, W/(m K)
with the actual temperature log for Well #1. l thermal conductivity of uid in wellbore, W/(m K)
s1thermal conductivity of matrix in pay zones,
W/(m K)
Conclusions s2thermal conductivity of matrix in adjacent
formation, W/(m K)
c thermal conductivity of pay zones, W/(m K)
We proposed a temperature field model to calculate
r thermal conductivity of adjacent formation,
the temperature distribution with multiple pay zones in
W/(m K)
producing oil wells. In the model, we considered the
porosity
fluid flowing through porous pay zones, the change of
1porosity in pay zones
fluid velocity in the wellbore with multiple pay zones,
2porosity in adjacent formation
and heat convection. The alternating direction implicit
s1matrix density in pay zones, kg/m3
(ADI) finite difference method was used to solve the
s2matrix density in adjacent formation, kg/m3
temperature field model. The comparison of modeled
o density of oil, kg/m3
temperature curve with actual temperature log indicates
w density of water, kg/m3
that simulation curve is, in general, quite similar to the
l uid density in wellbore, kg/m3
temperature log, except for the anomaly near the pay
cs1specic heat of matrix in pay zones, J/(kg K)
zones is not as large. Total production rate, production
cs1specific heat of matrix in adjacent formation,
time, porosity, thickness of pay zones and geothermal
J/(kg K)
gradient have varying degrees of effects on the downhole
co specic heat of oil, J/(kg K)
temperature distribution, except the oil saturation whose
cw specic heat of water, J/(kg K)
effect is minor. The simulation results should be quite
cl specic heat of uid in wellbore, J/(kg K)
useful for evaluating producing oil well and providing
so1oil saturation in pay zones,
insights for designing the exploitation scheme.

346
 Shi et al.
sw1water saturation in pay zones,
so2oil saturation in adjacent formation,
sw2water saturation in adjacent formation,
zuid velocity in wellbore, m/s
r seepage velocity of uid in pay zones, m/s
rb well radius, m
re a sufcient distance far away from wellbore, m
h heat transfer coefficient by convection at
wellbore and formation interface, W/(m2 K)
Tlr fluid temperature at the coupling boundary
between wellbore and adjacent formation,
Tl'r fluid temperature next to coupling boundary
between wellbore and adjacent formation,
Tl'c fluid temperature next to coupling boundary
between wellbore and pay zone,
Tlc fluid temperature at the coupling boundary
between wellbore and pay zone,
Ref Reynolds number
Prf Prandtl number
Nuf Nusselt number
T r formation temperature at the coupling
boundary between wellbore and adjacent formation,
Tc formation temperature at the coupling
boundary between wellbore and pay zone,
T 1T 2formation temperature at the coupling
boundary between pay zone and adjacent formation,
z depth, m
zi the boundary between adjacent formation and
pay zone, m
z vertical grid spacing, m
formation temperature at z = 0,
b geothermal gradient, /m
qo oil production rate, m3/d
qw water production rate, m3/d
D thickness of pay zones, m
r radial grid spacing in the wellbore, m
ri radial distance from well axis at node (i, j), m
t time, s
t time increment per time step, s
References
Corre, B., Eymard, R., and Guenot, A., 1984, Numerical
computation of temperature distribution in a wellbore
while drilling: SPE-13208, 1 9.
Fagley, J., and Scott F. H., 1982, An Improved Simulation
for Interpreting Temperature Logs in Water Injection
Wells: SPEJ (Oct), 709 718.
Farshad, F. F., Garber, J. D., and Juliet, N. L., 2000,
Predicting temperature profiles in producing oil
wells using artificial neural networds: Engineeing
Computations, 17(6), 735 754.
Feng, N. M., Yan, G. F., AND Hu, Z.R., 1996, Numerical
simulation and optimization for the ooding temperature
elds:Acta Petrolei Sinica (in chinese), 17(1), 96 101.
Frdric, M., Michel, P.D., and Martyn, B.B., 1994,
Temperature model for flow in porous media and
wellbore: SPWLA, 35th, Annual Logging Symposium,
Tulsa, klahoma, USA, June 19 22.
Gao, Y. H., Sun, B. J., Wang, Z. Y., Cao, S. J., Song, L.
S., and Cheng, H. Q., 2008, Calculation and analysis of
wellbore temperature eld in deepwater drilling: Journal
of China University of Petroleum (Natural Science
Series)(in Chinese), 32(2), 58 62.
Hasan, A. R., and Kabir, C. S., 1991, Heat transfer during
two-phase flow in well bores: Part I Formation
Temperature: The SPE 66th Annual Technical Conference,
Dallas, Texas, SPE-22866, 469 487.
Hasan, A.R., and Kabir, C.S., 1991, Heat transfer during
two-phase flow in well bores:Part Well bore Fluid
Temperature: The SPE 66th Annual Technical Conference,
Dallas, Texas,SPE-22948, 695 708.
Hill, A.D., 1995, Production logging: theoretical and
interpretive Elements: Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing.
Jin, N.D., Nie, X.B., Yin, Z., and Zhao, F. H., 2003,
Investigation on the applicability of oil/water two-
phase profiles interpretation based on temperature and
owmeter logs: Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Xi
an, 390 395
Kutasov, I.M., and Eppelbaum, L.V., 2005, Determination
of formation temperature from bottom-hole temperature
logsa generalized horner method: J. Geophys. Eng, 2,
90 96, doi: 10.1088/1742-2132/2/2/002.
Lee,T.C., Duchkov, A.D., and Morozov, S.G., 2003,
Determination of thermal properties and formation
temperature from borehole thermal recovery data:
Geophysics, 68(6),1835 1846.
Ramey, H.J.,Jr., 1962, Well bore Heat Transmission:
Journal of Petroleum Technology, Apr., 427 435.
Sagar, R.K., and Dotty, D.R., 1989, Predicting Temperature
Proles in a Flowing Well: 1989 SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition, Paper SPE 19702.
Song, Y. J., and Shi, Y., 2007, Numerical simulation of
downhole temperature distribution in polymer injection
well: Progress in Geophysics (in Chinese), 22(5), 1533
1538.
Stone, T. W., and Bennett, J., 2002, Thermal Simulation
With Multisegment Wells: SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering (June ), 206 218.
Zhang, S.Y., Guo, Q., and Zhu, Y., 2004, Application of
temperature logging data of logging interpretation of
ultra-deep viscous oil wells in Tahe oilfield: Journal of
Jianghan Petroleum Institute (in Chinese), 26(1), 66 68.
347
 Downhole temperature distribution in producing oil wells

Appendix
The nite difference expressions

An alternating direction implicit (ADI) difference described as follows.

method was used to solve the set of second partial The finite difference equations for the wellbore are
differential equations. Their difference expressions are written as

1 1 k
1
2 2 Ul cl k  12 1 1 k
1
(  )T 2
i 1, j  (  )T  (  )T 2
i 1, j
('r ) 2 2ri 'r ('r ) 2 Ol 't ('r ) 2 2ri 'r
i, j

1 U cX 2 2U c U c X 1
(  l l z )Ti ,kj 1  (  l l  l l z )Ti ,kj  Ti ,kj 1 , (A-1)
( 'z ) 2
Ol 'z ('z ) 2
Ol 't Ol 'z ('z ) 2

1 U cX 2 2U c U c X 1
(  l l z )Ti ,kj11  (  l l  l l z )Ti ,kj1 Ti ,kj11
( 'z ) 2
Ol 'z ( 'z ) 2
Ol 't Ol 'z ('z ) 2
1 1 k
1
2 2 Ul cl k  12 1 1 k
1

(  )T 2
i 1, j  (  )T  (  )T 
2
j . (A-2)
('r ) 2 Ol 't ('r ) 2 2ri 'r
i , j i 1,
('r ) 2 2ri 'r

The finite difference equations for the well axis are written as

2 k
1
4 2 Ul cl k  12 2 k
1
T 2
i 1, j  (  )T  T 2
i 1, j
('r ) 2 ('r ) 2 Ol 't ('r ) 2
i, j

1 U cX 2 2U c U c X 1
(  l l z )Ti ,kj 1  (  l l  l l z )Ti ,kj  Ti ,kj 1 , (A-3)
('z ) 2
Ol 'z ('z ) 2
Ol 't Ol 'z ( 'z ) 2

1 U cX 2 2U c U c X 1
(  l l z )Ti ,kj11  (  l l  l l z )Ti ,kj1  Ti ,kj11
('z ) 2
Ol 'z ('z ) 2
Ol 't Ol 'z ('z ) 2
2 Ul cl k  12
1 1
2 k 4 2 k
 T 
2
 (  )T  T 
2
(A-4)
('r ) 2 Ol 't ( 'r )
i 1, j
( 'r ) 2
i 1, j i , j 2

The finite difference equations for the pay zones are written as

1 U l clX l

1 1
k ri Oc 1 1 2( U c )* k  12
T 2
i 1, j (    )T
'ri ( 'ri 1  'ri ) 'ri 1 'ri 1 ( 'ri 1  'ri ) 'ri ('ri 1  'ri ) Oc 't i , j
1 U l clX l

1 ri Oc k
1
1 2 2( U c )* k 1
(  )Ti 1, 2j  Tk (
2 i , j 1
 )Ti , j  Ti ,kj 1, (A-5)
'ri 1 ( 'ri 1  'ri ) 'ri 1 ( 'z ) ( 'z ) 2
Oc 't ('z ) 2

2( U c)* k 1
1
1 2 1 1 k
T k 1  (
2 i , j 1
 )Ti , j  T k 1 
2 i , j 1
Ti 1, 2j
('z ) ('z ) 2
Oc 't ('z ) 'ri ('ri 1  'ri )
1 Ul clXl 1 Ul clXl
 
ri Oc 1 1 2( U c)* k  12 1 ri Oc k
1

(    )Ti , j (  )Ti 1, 2j . (A-6)

'ri 1 'ri 1 ('ri 1  'ri ) 'ri ('ri 1  'ri ) Oc 't 'ri 1 ('ri 1  'ri ) 'ri 1

348
 Shi et al.

The finite difference equations for the adjacent formation are written as

1 k
1
1 1 1 2( U c)** k  12 1 1 k
1
Ti 1, 2j  (    )Ti , j  (  )Ti 1, 2j
'ri ('ri 1  'ri ) 'ri 1ri 'ri 1 ('ri 1  'ri ) 'ri ('ri 1  'ri ) Or 't 'ri 1 ('ri 1  'ri ) 'ri 1ri
1 2 2( U c)** k 1
 T k
2 i , j 1
 (  )Ti , j  Ti ,kj 1 , (A-7)
('z ) ('z ) 2
Or 't ( 'z ) 2

1 k 1 2 2( U c)** k 1 1
Ti , j 1  (  )T  T k 1
('z ) 2 ( 'z ) 2 Or 't i , j ('z ) 2 i , j 1

1 k
1
1 1 1 2( U c)** k  12
 Ti 1, 2j  (    )Ti , j
'ri ('ri 1  'ri ) ri 'ri 1 'ri 1 ('ri 1  'ri ) 'ri ('ri 1  'ri ) Or 't
1
1 1 k
(  )Ti 1, 2j . (A-8)
'ri 1 ('ri 1  'ri ) ri 'ri 1

where, ri+1 = ri+1ri and ri = ri ri1, and ri denotes the wellbore and formation is equidistant with a size of 1 m.
radial distance from the well axis at node (i, j).
We obtain the tridiagonal linear set consisting of the
coefcients of these equations. The solution can be derived
by the tridiagonal forward and back substitution algorithm. Shi Ying graduated from DaQing Petroleum University in
In order to facilitate accurate representation of the radial 1999 with a Bachelors degree.
heat transfer terms and consider the variation of heat Currently she is studying for her
characteristics in the wellbore and formation, we used PhD at Institute of Geology and
an equidistant radial grid spacing for the wellbore and a Geophysics, Chinese Academy
logarithmic grid spacing in the formation. The size of the of Sciences, majoring in reservoir
radial gird step is 0.01 m in the wellbore, and the radial geophysics.
distance ri from the well axis is ri =rbeei in the formation. E-mail: yingshi@mail.iggcas.
Here, we let ee =1.1. The vertical grid spacing for the ac.cn

349