SPE 84583
Accurate Prediction Wellbore Transient Temperature Profile Under Multiple
Temperature Gradients: Finite Difference Approach and Case History
Zhongming Chen, SPE, and Rudolf J. Novotny, SPE, BJ Services Company
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5 8 October 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Failure to estimate the correct temperature during cementing
operations can often lead to long delays in rig operations or
can allow the flow of gas or water from shallow over
pressured formations. API (American Petroleum Institute)
Sub-committee 10 (Well cements) has developed methods to
determine the bottom hole circulating temperature (BHCT) for
the proper design of cementing slurries. These methods work
adequately in most cases. But, in wells that are deviated and
have multiple temperature gradients like those found offshore
in deep water basins, these methods are inadequate.
This paper presents a finite difference model developed to
predict the wellbore and formation transient temperature
behavior during fluid circulation in the wellbore. It also
provides the information on temperature recovery after the
cement slurry becomes static. Emphasis is placed on
evaluation of wells with multiple temperature gradients,
multiple fluid circulation schedule, and wellbore deviations.
The effect of offshore water currents is also discussed.
The predictions of the wellbore temperature profiles and
return temperatures from this model are validated through
actual measured wellbore temperature profile history,
including offshore and onshore cases. The paper also
discusses the impact of job execution parameters such as fluid
density, flow rates, inlet temperature, and fluid rheology.
Guidelines are provided to help the engineer design an optimal
working schedule to achieve ones particular goal of
controlling wellbore temperature at desired level during actual
cement placement operation.
Introduction
The prediction of wellbore temperatures is above all other
parameters; the single most influencing assumption made in
the design and testing of cement slurry. Wellbore temperature
affects all aspects of cement slurry design, including
thickening time, compressive strength development, fluid
rheology, and fluid loss. The primary chemical reactions
governing the hydration process of the cement slurry are
directly affected by temperature. Over or under estimation of
the wellbore temperature can lead to any number of possible
nonproductive time events ranging from excessive Wait On
Cementing (WOC) to the drilling out of cement filled casing.
The effect of small changes in estimated temperature on
additives used to control cement slurry properties can be
significant. Besides the properties of cement slurry, the
rheology of other fluids pumped into the well will also be
affected by well temperatures.
For decades the thickening time well simulation schedules
contained in API RP10B Recommended Practice for Testing
Well Cements, have served as the fundamental basis for
determining well cementing temperatures. With the
increasing thermal complexity of horizontal, extended reach,
and deepwater wells, the predictive limits of the schedules
contained in the API document were exceeded. As such, the
need for well condition specific cementing temperature
determinations became evident.
Over the years two approaches have been emerged to estimate
the circulating fluid temperature: analytical and numerical.
The analytical solutions were obtained for system geometries
of lesser complexity, such as the case of a single casing string
and single temperature gradient. Holmes and Swift1 obtained
solution for steady-state heat transfer both in the conduits and
in the formation. Arnold2 presented analytic solutions for
steady heat flow in the conduits but unsteady-state flow in the
formation. The coupling of steady heat flow in the wellbore
with unsteady heat flow in the formation was first introduced
by Ramey3, which has been successfully applied by many
authors, dealing with steam injections, oil, and geothermal
steam production, among others. Note that these earlier
analytical models, proposed by Edwardson et al4. and
modified version by Tragesser et al5., are good for a simple
specific condition but unsuitable as generalized predictive
tool.
In the second approach, numerical solutions of the governing
finite-difference equations dealing with the unsteady-state heat
transfer problem were sought. Raymond6 proposed the first
2 SPE 84583

numerical model for predicting circulating fluid temperatures
during both unsteady and pseudo steady-state conditions.
Subsequent improvements made to Raymonds model evolved
from modification of heat transfer correlations to the inclusion
of several casing strings in the physical model. More recently,
an improved numerical solution technique was proposed
leading to a rapid yet stable solution.
A number of related papers describing different approaches to
the solution of the wellbore temperature problem are listed in
the references. Some of the efforts found in the literature use
simplified approaches that do not properly simulate the
unsteady-state nature of the problem. In this paper, we present
a finite difference model (FDM) which is capable of
simulating the cases from normal onshore wells to the riser-
less offshore well with mud return to sea floor. The FDM
presented is designed to meet all the challenges and to obtain
accurate transient wellbore and formation temperature
profiles.
Numerical Approach
To accurately describe the heat transfer phenomenon in the
well-bore (casing, tubing, coiled tubing, and annulus) and the
formation, a set of rigorous governing differential equations
were derivated. The governing differential equations were
then solved numerically by means of finite difference
techniques.
The heat exchange at the interface between annulus and
formation is defined as:
T ( r, z, t )
2raU a ( z, t )(T f ( ra , z, t ) Ta ( z, t )) = 2ra K f a
t r =ra
........(4)
The proper boundary and initial conditions are also needed to
solve the above governing equations. The undisturbed static
temperature profile is used as the initial condition, including
the wellhead temperature at surface, the temperature at bottom
of the wellbore and the formation temperature profile, which
is a function of depth. The boundary conditions include the
surface fluid temperature, which can be either constant or can
change as function of time.
At bottom the circulation depth,
T p ( z = H , t ) = Ta ( z = H , t ) ....(5)
Inside the formation there are inner and outer boundary
conditions. The interface between the wellbore and formation
defines the inner boundary. The outer boundary is defined as
a sufficient distance away from wellbore where the formation
remains undisturbed at static temperature. In mathematical
language it is expressed as,
T f ( r , z, t ) = Ts + G ( z ) z .(6)

Model development
The governing differential equations were developed based on
the law of conservation of mass and energy transfer. The heat
transfer between tubing and annulus was considered as steady-
state heat flow. The heat transfer between the annulus and
formation was treated as unsteady state flow.
The finite difference approach is used to solve the governing
equation (1) to (6). Fully implicit solution techniques are used.
Fig. 1 is a sketch of the numerical grid system. In the
dimension of space, there are axis of z and r; in the dimension
of time, there is time t. The assumptions used in the solution
are listed in appendix A.

The equation of conservation of energy for a control volume The simulator

inside the pipe is: The simulator was built based on the rigorous heat transfer
governing equation (1)-(6). It is a FDM developed to simulate
T p ( z , t )
2rpU p ( z, t )(Ta ( z, t ) T p ( z , t )) = Ap f v p c f transient temperature profiles in the wellbore and formation
z during fluid circulation. It also predicts the heat recovery after
T p ( z, t ) circulation is stopped. The main features of the simulator
+ m pc p include the evaluation of :
t
........(1)
1. Multi-formation layers
2. Multi-fluid properties
The equation of conservation of energy for a control volume
3. Multi-fluid rate schedules
inside the annulus is:
4. Formation database to manage different formation
thermal properties
5. Fluid database to provide oil based and water based
2raU a ( z, t )(T f ( z, t ) Ta ( z, t )) 2rpU p ( z, t )(Ta ( z, t ) T p ( z, t )) = mud properties
Ta ( z, t ) T ( z, t ) 6. Well deviation survey data
Aa f v a (t )c f ma c f a 7. Multiple depth temperature profiles
z t
........(2) 8. Report utility providing report formation and plot
control
The temperature in formation is governed by the equation: 9. Unit conversion control

1 T f ( z, r , t ) T f ( z, r, t ) c f T f ( z, r, t )
2

r + =
r r r z 2 kf t
........(3)
SPE 84583
Case History and Model Validation
The static temperature profile of the well is an important
parameter to the simulator. It uses the true static or geothermal
temperature profile to simulate a realistic heat source to the
well. True static temperatures are the earth temperatures
before the well is drilled.
The FDM models the wellbore and formation transient
temperature behavior during fluid circulation and cement
placement operation. It accounts for the heat lost to and gained
from surrounding formation during circulation. Each
individual fluid in the pumping schedule is tracked. The data
associated with each simulation grid, including fluid and
formation thermal properties, fluid rheology, local temperature
gradient, pump rate and local fluid velocity, are critical and
calculated separately.
The following presents the comparison of FDM predicted
results with several field-measured wellbore temperature
profiles at different depths. Both offshore and onshore wells
are selected.
Two Offshore Cases
There is no API temperature table available that can be
directly used for deep water offshore application where cold
water has a pronounced effect on the temperature of fluids,
including cement, circulated into wellbore. The wellbore
temperature profiles of these wells are quite different from
these of onshore wells. Two offshore cases are first included
here to validate the FDM under multiple temperature gradients
of seawater and formation.
Offshore Well #1 is a deepwater offshore well with total
depth of 5778 ft., water depth of 3780 ft., circulation fluid
return to surface with a 21-in. riser. The circulation fluid was
pumped into wellbore through a 5 in. drill pipe to the
circulation depth of 5721 ft., and then fluid returned to surface
through annulus. The circulation fluid was seawater. Three
temperature gauges were placed in the wellbore. The first
gauge was placed inside the drill pipe at the depth of 5721 ft.
to record the Bottom Hole Circulation Temperature (BHCT) at
circulation depth. The second gauge was placed in the annulus
at the depth of 4786 ft. to record the annulus temperature, and
the third was at the surface to record the return fluid
temperatures. Prior to running the temperature gauge, its
accuracy was determined by comparison with a digital
thermometer, which was served as the standard. The gauge
was found to be within 1.5 oF at temperature of 67 oF.
During the circulation period the measured temperatures were
recorded every 4 - 5 minutes. The surface water temperature
was 77 oF. The water temperature decreased with water depth
and reached the minimum of 38oF at sea floor. Four
temperature gradients were found and can be used to
approximate the temperature profile in seawater. In the
formation temperature increases with depth at roughly the
same rate. Fig. 2 plots the temperature profile before the
circulation started, labeled as static, and two other simulated
temperature profiles at the end of circulation. One describes
3
the temperature inside the drill pipe and the other describes the
temperature in the annulus.
Offshore well #1 basic data:
Water depth = 3780 ft.
Casing size = 20 in.
Casing depth = 5778 ft.
Riser O.D. = 21 in.
Riser I.D. = 19.75 in.
Temperature gauge #1 at circulation depth = 5721ft.
Temperature gauge #2 in annulus at depth = 4786 ft.
Temperature gauge #3 at surface
Workstring size = 5 in. drill pipe
Ambient temperature = 77 oF
BHST = 59 oF
Fig. 3 plots the FDM predicted and measured temperatures at
circulation depth. The temperature dropped rapidly during the
first 5 minutes circulation. The FDM predicted that the
temperature dropped from initial 57.5 oF to the minimum of
46.5 oF. In contrast the recorded temperature dropped from
57.5 oF to the minimum of 47.5 oF indicated 4 minutes later.
There are two factors that can explain the discrepancy. The
first was mentioned before, the gauge has an accuracy of
within 1.5 oF error, and secondly the temperature gauge had a
2-minute response time. Especially when the temperature
changed rapidly during the initial 5 minutes, the gauge would
fail to record the peak low temperature due to the response
time. The temperature from FDM was based on heat and
energy balance and conservation, and represents instantaneous
or real-time temperature.
After the initial 5 minutes, the simulated and measured
temperatures are within 1.7 oF difference. At the end of
circulation both simulated and measured temperatures are
almost identical.
Table 1: Measured and predicted temperatures at circulation
depth (offshore well #1)
Circulation (min) 20 40 60
Measured (oF) 51.5 53.3 54.4
Predicted (oF) 53.2 54.0 54.3
Difference (oF) -1.7 0.7 0.1
Fig. 4 plots the measured and predicted temperatures in annulus
at the depth 4786 ft., 926 ft. above the circulation depth. When
the fluid flowed up in the annulus, it experienced the two heat
transfers: the heat exchange between the annulus fluid and drill
pipe fluid, and the heat exchange between annulus fluid and the
formation. Accurately predicting temperature at the annulus
requires the correct simulation of the overall heat exchange.
Fig. 4 demonstrated that both the FDM predicted and gauge
measured annulus temperatures increased for the first 20
minutes and dropped slightly before the upward trend
continues. During the whole 60 minutes circulation the
maximum difference between the measured and predicted is
within 2.0 oF. At the end of circulation, the difference between
measured and predicted temperatures is within 1.0 oF.
4 SPE 84583

Table 2: Measured and predicted annulus temperatures at 4786 Fig. 7 plots the measured and predicted temperatures vs. time
ft. (offshore well #1) at circulation depth. During initial 25 minutes of circulation,
Circulation (min) 20 40 60 the BHCT increased sharply and then stabilized at 76 to 77 oF.
Measured (oF) 51.5 53.3 53.9 Fig. 7 demonstrated the predicted temperature matched the
Predicted (oF) 52.4 52.5 53.0 measured temperature quite well, even the small temperature
Difference (oF) -0.9 0.8 0.9 variation (up and down bumps) during the early circulation.
The closely matched profiles between the predicted and
The returned surface fluid temperature is much easier to measured temperatures demonstrate the FDMs capability to
monitor and can serve as a good criterion to validate the FDM accurately simulate the Bingham plastic fluid heat transfer
since the fluid has experienced all the heat exchange in the drill behavior under unconventional condition.
pipe and annulus. Fig. 5 compares the temperatures of returned
fluid. The difference between the measured and predicted Table 4: Measured and predicted BHCT (offshore well #2)
temperatures for the first 20 minutes is within 3 oF, and then the Circulation (min) 50 100 150
difference between these two is within the range of 1.4 oF. Measured (oF) 76.7 76.5 77.2
Predicted (oF) 76.4 76.5 76.7
Table 3: Measured and predicted returned surface fluid Difference (oF) 0.3 0.0 0.5
temperatures (offshore well #1)
Circulation (min) 20 40 60
Measured (oF) 68.9 65.7 64.8 Onshore wells
Predicted (oF) 66.0 64.3 63.7 We selected two onshore wells with actual cement placement
Difference (oF) 2.9 1.4 1.1 pumping schedule for comparison. ERD Devices (Electrical
Resonating Diaphragm) were used to detect down-hole
Offshore Well #2 is also a deep water well. Comparing with annular temperature. The measured temperature is transmitted
Offshore Well #1, instead of a Newtonian fluid, Bingham electrically to surface via instrument cable. The device is
plastic fluids were used as the circulation fluid. This is a good permanently attached to casing and can continuously record
example to determine the FDMs ability to deal with complex the temperature in the annulus. It will record the circulation
fluid systems. temperature during circulation and also the bottom hole static
temperature (BHST) after the well is static.
Prior to circulation, the temperature gauge was lowered to the
circulation depth of 6826 ft. by wireline. The gauge recorded Onshore well # 1 is a shallow 2500 ft. vertical well with
the temperature every 30 seconds during the trip in the well. multiple pays. The temperature sensor is located at +/- 1500 ft.
The recorded temperature profile during the process of This well utilized 3 in. casing set in 7 7/8 in. hole and had a
lowering the gauge was assumed to be static and was used in very low BHST at the sensor depth of only 66 oF. The
simulation as the initial temperature profile. The circulation temperature in this onshore well was low and fluids lost some
started after the gauge was lowered to the circulation depth heat during circulation instead of gaining heat, making it more
and secured. like an offshore well.

Offshore well #2 basic data The pump schedule consisted of multiple stages with different
Water Depth = 3000 ft. fluids, including mud, cement and water. The fluid inlet
Hole Size = 22 in. temperatures were also different for fluids with mud and water
Hole Depth = 6832 ft. at 80 oF and cement at 85 oF. Fig. 8 plots the predicted and
Temperature Gauge Depth = 6826 ft. measured temperatures at sensor depth. The simulation used
Workstring Size = 5 in. the required static temperature profile as the starting
Ambient temperature = 80oF temperature at the time simulation started. The recorded
BHST = 69 oF temperature is the actual temperature. Since the wellbore
Fluid Weight = 10.7 ppg temperature profile did not reach static condition before the
Fluid Type = Polymer pump schedule started, the simulation results for the first 20
PV/YP = 11 / 19 minutes circulation should be interpreted as the transition
Pump Rate = 430 gpm for first 9 minutes, then switch to 930 period from static to the actual sensor recorded condition. The
gpm comparison between the two temperatures should start only
after the initial 20 minutes transition period was over. During
Fig. 6 plots the static temperature prior to circulation and two the 20 to 75 minutes of circulation, the predicted and
other temperature profiles at the end of circulation, including measured temperatures matched closely with a difference of
the temperature profiles in the pipe and in the annulus. The these two between 2-3 oF before cement arrived at sensor
recorded temperatures during the period of lowering the gauge depth at 75 minutes. After cement arrived at the sensor depth,
was plotted and labeled as static temperature. Using a single the difference between predicted and measured temperature
temperature gradient to describe the static temperature profile is grew bigger and peaked at 10 oF at the end of the cement
clearly unfeasible and multiple temperature gradients must be placement operation. The recorded temperature was 87 oF at
used. sensor depth at the moment circulation ended. This
SPE 84583
temperature (87 oF) was higher than the hottest static
temperature (84 oF) of the whole wellbore system prior to
circulation. The recorded static temperature close to surface
was 40 oF, at the sensor depth was 66 oF, and at the bottom
hole was 84 oF. The fluid was cooled down when it was
pumped into the wellbore. It was suggested that this difference
in the predicted and measured temperature might have been
due to the heat of hydration of the cement or additional
heating of the cement during the mixing operation.
Table 5: Measured and predicted in annulus 1500 ft. (onshore
well #1)
Circulation (min) 25 50 100
Measured (oF) 71.3 71.3 86.2
Predicted (oF) 73.3 73.8 75.8
Difference (oF) -1.9 -2.5 10.4
Onshore Well #2 was a deeper well with Total Depth (T.D.)
of +/- 9800 ft. The annular temperature sensor was placed
much closer to the casing shoe, at a depth about 9,500 ft. A 3
in. casing was used and set in a 7 7/8 in. hole. The BHST at
the sensor of the well was 202 oF. Fig 9 plots the predicted
and measured temperatures for comparison. The first 20
minutes circulation is the transition period from static to the
actual sensor recorded condition. The maximum difference
between the two is about +/- 4 oF for the whole 220 minutes
circulation until the cement was successfully placed. At the
end of circulation the simulated and measured temperatures
are virtually the same, rested at 132 oF.
Table 6: Measured and predicted in annulus 9500 ft. (onshore
well #2)
Circulation (min) 75 150 220
Measured (oF) 133.5 134.7 132.4
Predicted (oF) 128.6 135.1 132
Difference (oF) 4.9 -0.4 0.4
Hot Spot Temperature
Except for some offshore and shallow onshore wells, such as
Onshore Well #1, the majority of wells have a BHST higher
than the surface fluid temperature. Before circulation starts,
the bottom hole temperature is the highest in wellbore. The
depth where the highest temperature occurs in a well during
circulation is called the hot spot and the temperature is called
hot spot temperature (HST). During the circulation, the
surface fluid is pumped into wellbore and heated up in the
path traveling to the bottom by gaining heat from annulus
fluid. After the fluid reaches the bottom hole it turns into the
annulus and flows up to surface. The annulus fluid will gain
heat from formation and loses heat to the workstring fluid at
the same time. In the near bottom hole section, the annulus
fluid will gain more heat than it loses, resulting in being
heated up and temperature increases. At a certain depth, the
heat gained and lost by the annulus fluid reaches a balance and
the fluid temperature reaches its maximum, or hot spot
temperature. The hot spot is initially at bottom hole and will
move up during circulation. After circulating a certain amount
of fluid, such as one wellbore volume, the hot spot will
stabilize and remain at roughly the same depth. Fig. 10 shows
5
typical wellbore temperature profiles with static, and the
workstring, and annulus temperature profiles at the end of
circulation. The actual hot spot depth is a function of fluid
property, hole size, pump rate and circulation time. It will be
in the depth of to 1/3 of total depth from the bottom when it
is stabilized6, 7, 8. During the cement placement operation it is
important to realize that the bottom hole temperature may not
be the highest the cement will encounter in the annulus.
Sensitivity Analysis
To investigate the effects of variables, including pump rate,
hole size, fluid rheology on BHCT, a standard case was
used as starting point and only one parameter was allowed to
change each time. The standard case was a vertical well
10,000 ft. deep, 1.9 oF/100 ft. of temperature gradient, bottom
temperature of 270 oF, 10-in. hole, 4-in. workstring, and 6
BPM pump rate. Circulation fluid is water-based mud and
circulation volume was 1.5 hole volume.
The results from the investigation shows that the fluid
rheology, pump rate, hole size, and drill pipe size had different
impact on the BHCT and should not be ignored. The BHCT
can deviate from that of standard case by 10%. Fig. 11
plotted the normalized BHCT when pump rate, fluid rheology,
hole size, and workstring pipe size were changed. The
normalized BHCT was defined as the actual BHCT over
BHCT of standard case.
The sensitivity: the effect of fluid properties on BHCT had
the greatest impact of the tested parameters. Fluid properties
include viscosity, heat conductivity, and heat capacity. Three
typical fluids, water, water-based mud, and oil-based mud,
were used in the comparison run. Water resulted in the highest
BHCT and oil-based mud the lowest. The reason behind this
phenomenon is that water has lower viscosity and higher heat
conductivity than those of oil. The second biggest effect on
BHCT was the hole size. At the same pump rate, a smaller
hole implies bigger annulus fluid velocity. Hence, more heat
was gained from formation due to the larger heat transfer
coefficient, which is a function of fluid velocity and fluid
properties. The effects on BHCT by pump rate and workstring
size were smallest of the four. The BHCT is the ultimate result
of heat transfer between workstring and annulus fluids,
annulus fluid and formation. Any parameter change that will
alter the heat transfer behavior will alter the final BHCT.
Conclusions
The finite difference temperature simulator was developed
from rigorous heat transfer governing equations. Based on the
validation performed in this paper for both offshore and
onshore cases, and the parameters sensitivity study, the
following conclusions are made:
1. The techniques and methodology used in developing the
simulator are appropriate. Both onshore and offshore
wellbore temperature profiles predicted by the FDM
closely match actual measured temperature profiles.
2. The simulator has rich built-in features for both onshore
and offshore well configurations.
3. The BHCT is the ultimate results of heat transfer between
circulation fluid and formation. Fluid viscosity, fluid
6 SPE 84583

thermal property, pump rate, and hole size all have impact References
on BHCT and should not be ignored. The deviation of 1. Holmes, C.S., Swift, S.C.: Calculation of Circulating
actual hole size and pumping schedule from those of the Mud Temperatures, JPT(May 1970) 670 - 674.
standard case can result in as much as 10% difference 2. Arnold, F.C.: Temperature Variation in a Circulating
in BHCT. Wellbore Fluid, J. Energy Resource Tech. 112 (June
4. Proper cement placement job design should take into 1990) 79-83.
account the BHCT and also hot spot depth and 3. Ramey, H.J., Jr: Wellbore Heat Transmission,
temperature. JPT(April 1962) 427-35.
5. Offshore wellbore temperature profiles are significantly 4. Edwardson, M.J., Griner, H.M., Parison, H.R., Williams,
different from those of onshore wells. A proper well C.D., and Matthews, C.S.: Calculation of Formation
temperature simulator is needed to determine the correct Temperature Disturbances Caused by Mud Circulation,
temperature to aid cement placement operation design. JPT(April 1962) 416 - 426.
5. Tragesser, A.F., Crawford, P.B., Crawford, H.R.: A
Acknowledgements Method for Calculating Circulating Temperatures,
The authors would like to thank Mr. Dan Mueller and Mr. Lee JPT(Nov., 1967) 1507 - 1512.
Dillenbeck for their input and assistance, and to the 6. Raymond, L.R.: Temperature Distribution in a
management of BJ Services Company for their permission to Circulating Drilling Fluid, JPT(March 1969) 333-41.
prepare and present this paper. 7. Kabir, C.S., Hasan, A.R., Kouba, G.E., and Ameen, M.:
Determining Circulating Fluid Temperature in Drilling,
Workover, and Well Control Operations, paper SPE
Nomenclature 24581, presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical
API = American Petroleum Institute Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, Oct. 4-7.
BHCT = bottomhole circulation temperature 8. Mitchell, R.F., Wedelich III, H.F.: Prediction of
BHST = bottomhole static temperature Downhole Temperatures can be Key for Optimal
ERD = electrical resonating diaphragm Wellbore Design, paper SPE 18900, presented at the
FDM = finite difference model SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
Ft. = feet OK, March. 13-14, 1989.
gpm = gallon per minute 9. Goodman, M.A., Mitchell, R.F., Wedelich, H., Galate,
HSD = hot spot depth J.W., and Presson, D.M.: Improved Circulating
HST = hot spot temperature Temperature Correlations for Cementing, paper SPE
In. = inch 18029, presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical
PV = plastic viscosity Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Oct. 2 - 5.
T.D. = total depth 10. Galvert, D.G., Griffin, Jr. T.J..: Determination of
WOC = wait on cementing Temperatures for Cementing in Wells Drilled in Deep
YP = yield point Water, paper SPE 39315, presented at the 1998
Ap = drill pipe or workstring cross section area IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, March 3 - 6.
Aa = annulus cross section area 11. Atkinson, P.G., Ramey, H.J.: Problems of Heat Transfer
Cf = formation heat capacity in Porous Media, paper SPE 6792, presented at the 1977
cf = fluid heat capacity SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
G = temperature gradient Denver, Colorado, Oct. 9 - 12.
H = wellbore bottom boundary depth 12. Kenyon, D.E..: Model for Hot Oil Jobs, paper SPE
kf = formation heat conductivity 52133, presented at the SPE Mid-Continent Operations
ma = mass flow in annulus Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, March. 28 - 31, 1999.
mp = mass flow in drill pipe or workstring 13. Ravi, K., Biezen, E.N., Lightford, S.C., Hibbert, A.,
r = radial distance from wellbore Greaves, C.: Deepwater Cementing Challenges, paper
ra = annulus radius SPE 56534, presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical
rp = drill pipe or workstring radius Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Oct. 3 - 6.
= formation density 14. Merio, A., Maglione, R., Guillot, F., Bodin, D.:
f = fluid density Temperature Field Measurements and Computer
Ta = annulus temperature Program Predictions Under Cementing Operation
Tf = formation temperature Conditions, paper SPE 28822, presented at the 1994
Tp = drill pipe or workstring temperature European Petroleum Conference, London, U.K., Oct. 25-
Ts = surface static temperature 27.
t = time 15. Karstad, E., Aadnoy, S.: Optimization of Mud
Ua = overall annulus heat transfer coefficient Temperature and Fluid Models in Offshore Applications,
Uf = heat transfer coefficient at fluid-formation interface paper SPE 56939, presented at the 1999 Offshore Europe
Up = overall pipe heat transfer coefficient Conference, Aberdeen, U.K., Sept. 7-9.
va = annulus fluid velocity 16. Marshall, T.R., Lie, O.H.: A Thermal Transient Model
vp = drill pipe or workstring fluid velocity of Circulating Wells: 1. Model Development, paper SPE
z = length in wellbore direction
SPE 84583
24290, presented at the 1992 SPE European Petroleum
Computer Conference, Stavanger, Norway, May 25 - 27.
17. Rawat, P.C., Agarwal, S.L., Malhortra, A.K., Gulhati,
S.K., Venkatappa Rao, G.: Determination of Thermal
Conductivity of Soils: A Need for Computing Heat Loss
Through Buried Submarine Pipelines, SPEJ(Aug., 1982)
558 - 562.
18. Keller, H.H., Couch, E.J., and Berry, P.M.: Temperature
Distribution in Circulating Mud Columns, SPEJ(Feb.,
1973) 23-30.
19. Belrute, R.M.: A Circulating and Shut-In Well-
Temperature-Profile Simulator, JPT(Sept. 1991) 1140-
1146.
20. Willhite, G.P.: Over-all Heat Transfer Coefficients in
Steam and Hot Water Injection Wells, JPT(May 1967)
607 - 615.
21. Skyes, R.L., Stehle, D.E., Venditto, J.J.: Temperature
Data From Cement Interval Extremities Give Reduced
WOC Time, paper SPE 16210, presented at the SPE
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,
March. 4-7, 1987.
22. Zacarias, D., Maraven, S.A.: Determination of Design
Temperature for Cementing Slurries, paper SPE 23714,
presented at the Second Latin American Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, March 8
11, 1992.
23. Kabinoff, K.B., Ekstrand, B.B., Shultz, S., Tilghman,
S.E., and Fuller, D.: Determining Accurate Bottomhole
Circulating Temperature for Optimum Cement Slurry
Design, paper SPE 24048, presented at the SPE Western
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, March. 30 April 1,
1992.
24. Hasan, A.R., Kabir, C.S., Ameen, M.M. and Wang, X.W.:
A Fluid Circulating Temperature Model for Workover
7
Operations, paper SPE 27848, presented at the 1994
Western Regional Meeting, Dallas, TX, March 23-25.
25. Romero, J. and Touboul, E.: Temperature Prediction for
Deepwater Wells: A Field Validated Methodology,
paper SPE 49056, presented at the 1998 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 27-
30.
26. Dillenbeck, R.L., and Mombourquette, I.G.: Real-Time
Measurement of Downhole Annular Cementing
Temperature for Precise Cementing Design and
Application, paper SPE 71386, presented at the 2001
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, LA, Sept. 30- Oct. 3.
Appendix A
Finite Difference Model Assumptions
1. Only heat conduction (vertical and horizontal) is
considered in the formation model. Convection (fluid
flow) in the rock is not included.
2. The problem is assumed to be symmetrical around the
vertical well axis.
3. Well fluids are assumed to be incompressible and
movement is piston-like.
4. No phase change is considered in the workstring, annulus
and formation.
5. There are no sources or sink of heat in wellbore and
formation. Cement hydration heat is not included.
6. Only convection and radial conduction across the
formation face and the casing wall are considered for the
wellbore fluids.
8 SPE 84583

Fig. 1 FDM (Finite Difference Model) simulation grid

1000

2000
Depth, ft

3000

4000 Static
Inner pipe
5000 Annulus

6000
35 45 55 65 75
Temperature, F

Fig. 2 Static temperature, pipe and annulus temperature at end of simulation (offshore well #1)
SPE 84583 9

60

55

Temperature, F
50

Simulation
45
Measured

40
0 20 40 60 80
Time, min

Fig. 3 Measured and predicted temperatures at circulation depth (offshore well #1)

55
54
53
Temperature, F

52
51
50
Simulation
49 Measured

48
47
0 20 40 60 80
Time, min

Fig. 4 Measured and predicted annulus temperatures at 4786 ft. (offshore well #1)
10 SPE 84583

80

Simulation
Measured
75
Temperature, F
70

65

60
0 20 40 60 80
Time, min

Fig. 5 Measured and predicted return surface fluid temperatures (offshore well #1)

1000 Static
Pipe
2000
Annulus
Depth, ft

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000
60 65 70 75 80 85
Temperature, F

Fig. 6 Static temperature, pipe and annulus temperatures at end of simulation (offshore well #2)
SPE 84583 11

80

78

76
Temperature, F
74

72

70 Simulation
Measured
68

66
0 50 100 150 200
Time, min

Fig. 7 Predicted and measured BHCT (offshore well #2)

90

85
Temperature, F

80

75

70
Simulation
65 Measured

60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time, min

Fig. 8 Predicted and measured annulus temperatures at 1500 ft. (onshore well #1)
12 SPE 84583

200
Simulation
180 Measured

Temperature, F
160

140

120

100
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time, min

Fig. 9 Predicted and measured annulus temperatures at 9500 ft. (onshore well #2)

Fig. 10 Typical well annulus hot spot depth and hot spot temperature
SPE 84583 13

1.25
Fluid viscosity
Drill pipe size
1.15 Hole size

Normalized BHCT Pump rate

1.05

0.95

0.85
Variable value

Fig. 11 Sensitivity of a typical well normalized BHCT