PAPER 2009-005

A Semi-Unsteady State Wellbore

Steam/Water Flow Model for
Prediction of Sandface Condition
in Steam Injection Wells
M. BAHONAR, J. AZAIEZ, Z. CHEN
University of Calgary

This  paper  is  accepted  for  the  Proceedings  of  the  Canadian  International  Petroleum  Conference  (CIPC)  2009,  Calgary, 
Alberta,  Canada,  16‐18  June  2009.    This  paper  will  be  considered  for  publication  in  Petroleum  Society  journals. 
Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre‐print and subject to correction. 

Abstract
A numerical nonisothermal two-phase wellbore model is
developed to simulate downward flow of a steam and water
mixture in the wellbore. This model entails simultaneous
solution of coupled mass and momentum conservation
equations inside the wellbore with an energy conservation
equation for the fluids within the wellbore, surrounding
medium, and formation. A new drift-flux model that accounts
for slip between the phases inside the wellbore is employed. In
addition, a two-dimensional implicit scheme that allows for
heat transfer in both the axial and radial directions in the
formation is developed. Furthermore, a rigorous nonlinear
temperature- and depth-dependent overall heat transfer
coefficient is implemented. The model predictions are validated
against real field data and other available models. The model is
useful for designing well completion and accurately computing
the wellbore/formation heat transfer, which is very important
for estimating oil recovery by using steam injection.
Introduction
Modeling of steam injection wells for continuous estimation
of pressure, temperature, and different phase velocities and
densities as functions of depth and time is crucial for well
design, steam injection projects planning and data gathering for
continuous reservoir management and real time well
monitoring. Once steam is injected in the well, both pressure
and temperature of the injected steam and accordingly the
densities of water and steam phases will change. These changes
are due to the heat exchange between the steam and cold
formation surrounding the well, the friction between the steam
and inner tubing surface and the change of the hydrostatic
pressure with respect to depth,. More importantly, the injected
steam quality will drop due to the heat loss from the wellbore
system towards the cold formation. The steam quality in the
formation can be much worse than that in the wellhead because
of an improper wellbore design, no tubular insulation, and/or
the deep well location. The multiphase nature of the flow inside
the wellbore, the complex heat transfer mechanisms between
the wellbore and the surrounding medium, and the unsteady
state nature of the flow and transport processes make the entire
system intricately coupled and extremely difficult to solve.

1
 Numerous investigators have worked on the modeling of
both injection and production wells. One of the first papers goes
back to Ramey(1) in 1962, which has been referred to by many
subsequent works modeling the wellbore heat loss and pressure
drop. In that paper, the author simplified the heat balance
equation to solve it analytically. The steady-state flow of
incompressible single phase, with fixed fluid and formation
properties with respect to depth and temperature, was analyzed.
A simple procedure was presented to couple the steady-state
heat loss of the wellbore fluid with a transient heat flow in the
formation via an overall heat transfer coefficient. Moreover, it
was assumed that the overall heat transfer coefficient was
independent of depth, and the frictional loss and kinetic energy
effect were neglected. In 1965, Satter(2) improved Ramey’s
analytical model by considering a depth-dependent overall heat
transfer coefficient and phase- and temperature-dependent fluid
properties. A year later in 1966, Holst and Flock(3) added the
friction loss and kinetic energy effect to Ramey’s and Satter’s
models. Somewhat later in 1967, Willhite(4) proposed a method
for the estimation of an overall heat transfer coefficient that
since, has been widely used and will be also used in this paper.
Pacheco and Farouq Ali(5) (1972) and Herrera et al.(6) (1978)
considered various wellbore models, but only limited to single-
phase flow in tubing. In 1980, Shiu and Beggs(7) proposed an
empirical correlation for oil producing wells to estimate the
relaxation distance that Ramey defined. This correlation
approximates the already approximated Ramey’s relaxation
distance.
In 1981, 1982, and 1985, respectively, Farouq Ali(8),
Fontanilla and Aziz(9), and Yao(10) presented two simultaneous
ordinary differential equations for estimating the steam pressure
and quality, and solved these equations by using the fourth-
order Runge-Kutta method. The major differences between
these models were the type of correlations used to describe the
multiphase flow inside the wellbore and the techniques to
evaluate the formation temperature. In 1989, Sharma et al.(11)
modified Ramey’s model for production wells with a downhole
electrical heater, and in 1990, Wu and Pruess(12) suggested an
analytical solution for wellbore heat transmission in a layered
formation with different thermal properties without Ramey’s
assumptions. In 1991, Sagar(13) presented a simplified two-
phase method for hand calculations using field data. In a 1992
comparative study, Alves et al.(14) reported that all existing
models up to then suffered from serious assumptions on the
thermodynamic behavior of fluids, and thus were applicable
only for limited operational strategies. These authors developed
a unified equation for temperature prediction inside the
wellbore. In 1994, Hasan and Kabir(15) developed an analytical
model to determine the flowing fluid temperature inside the
well. They started with a steady-state energy balance equation
and combined it with the definition of fluid enthalpy in terms of
heat capacity and the Joule-Thompson coefficient. Using some
simplifications, they then converted the original partial
differential equation to an ordinary differential equation and
solved it with appropriate boundary conditions. They have been
modifying their original model in several recent publications in
2002(16), 2005(17), and 2007(18). In 2004, Hagoort(19) did a
comprehensive study on Ramey’s model in order to find
applicable scenarios for this model. Many researchers
(including Hagoort) found that Ramey’s model works for late
times (more than a week) temperature estimation but can cause
serious errors for early time temperature distribution. In 2008,
Livescu et al.(20-22) developed a comprehensive numerical
nonisothermal multiphase wellbore model. After their initial
attempts to solve the fully coupled conservation equations, they
2
decoupled the wellbore energy balance equation from the mass
balance equation in most of their investigations. They reported
that the decoupling can be justified when the change in density
of each phase with respect to temperature is much less than that
with respect to pressure. Additionally, they found that this
decoupling approach can decrease the computational time of the
simulations without violating stability. They further showed that
if several simplifying assumptions were imposed, their model
reduced to Ramey’s model.
This paper presents a numerical transient wellbore model
for computing the wellbore fluid temperature, pressure, density
and velocity profiles in steam injection wells. This model
couples mass, momentum, and energy balance equations and
provides all the necessary data in the well with respect to depth
and time for a predetermined surface condition. While the
model is designed for steam injection wells, with some minor
modifications it can be extended to modeling the injection of
other fluids (e.g., hot water injection). This model has some
important features for accurate and fast prediction of wellbore
conditions. First, a new drift-flux model (Hasan et al., 2007(23))
is incorporated into the model for multiphase flow that enables
this model to capture the slip phenomenon between the phases.
Second, instead of using a fully implicit treatment for the entire
wellbore system, we solve this system by using a sequential
solution procedure that, in addition to its stability and
programming simplicity, increases the speed of simulation. To
stabilize the numerical solution procedure, the formation part is
solved with a fully implicit scheme that enables us to use
irregular grids. Third, a simple iterative procedure is
incorporated into the model to predict accurately the depth and
time dependence of the overall heat transfer coefficient.
Validation and predictive capabilities of this model are
determined through comparisons with both field data and other
available models.
Model Formulation
In this section, the problem and all the corresponding
formulations are defined. Then in the next section, the solution
scheme for solving this complex problem is presented. The
entire wellbore/formation system to be solved can be divided
into three parts (cf. Fig. 1).
First Part: Wellbore Tubing
Wellbore tubing involves the downward flow of a steam and
water mixture. In this part of the wellbore system, the governing
equations include a mass balance equation for the water
component, an energy balance equation, and an equation for the
pressure drop. The unknown parameters are the saturation
pressure, psat , saturation temperature, Tsat ( psat and Tsat are
related since two-phase flow for one component exists),
superficial velocity of each phase, vsL and vsg , in situ-gas
volume fraction, f g , density of each phase, ρ L and ρ g ,
enthalpy of each phase, hL and hg , and heat loss rate per unit
depth to the surrounding medium, Q& loss .
Mass Balance Equation
Since only one component (water) and two phases (water
and steam) are present in the tubing, the mass conservation
equation is given by
 ∂ ∂
−
∂z
( ∂t
)
ρ g vsg + ρ L vsL = (ρ m ) ..........................................................(1)
fluids will go through this series of heat resistances and be
finally absorbed by the cold formation that surrounds the
wellbore system. In other words, Q& loss is the linkage between
where ρ m is the mixture density, defined the wellbore system and the formation. The heat loss can be
( )
as ρ m = f g ρ g + 1 − f g ρ L , and the in-situ gas volume fraction
expressed as

f g is the ratio between the area occupied by the gas phase

( )
Q& loss = 2πrtoU to T f − Twb ....................................................................(4)
(steam) and the total cross-sectional area of the tubing
( f g = Ag Ati , f g + f L = 1 ). The superficial velocity of each
where rto is the outer tubing radius, U to is the overall heat
phase is defined by the product of the in-situ phase volume
fraction and phase velocity ( vsg = f g vg , vsL = f L vL ). The left- transfer coefficient based on rto , T f is the fluid temperature

hand side in equation (1) is the convective flux of the water and inside the tubing, and Twb is the temperature at the boundary of
steam mixture and the right-hand side is the mass accumulation the wellbore and formation (i.e., the temperature behind the
of the water component (liquid water and steam). cementing and start of the formation). The overall heat transfer
coefficient is given by
Momentum Balance Equation
1 r r ln (rto rti ) rto ln (rins rto )
The total pressure drop inside the tubing is the sum of the = to + to + +
pressure drops due to hydrostatic, frictional, and acceleration U to rti h f kt k ins
(kinetic) effects(8, 16-18, 20-24): rto r ln (rco rci ) rto ln(rwb rco )
+ to +
rins (hc + hr )
......................(5)
k cas k cem
dp ρ g cos(θ ) f m vm2 ρ m ρ m vm dvm
− 144 =− m + + .......................(2)
dz gc 2d ti g c g c dz where the various parameters are defined in the nomenclature.
The convective heat transfer coefficient for the steam/water
where g is the gravitational acceleration, θ is the local angle mixture, h f , is usually very high (500-2000 Btu/(hr ft2 oF)(4)) so
between the well and the vertical direction, g c is the the first term on the right-hand side can be ignored and it is
gravitational conversion constant, d ti is the inner diameter of assumed that the tubing fluid temperature is equal to the tubing
inner-wall temperature. All the other remaining terms are heat
the tubing, vm is the mixture velocity ( vm = vsL + vsg ), f m is a conduction transfers except the annulus part that involves both
friction factor (an empirical factor that depends on the pipe convection and radiation (depending on both the type of gas or
roughness and Reynolds number), and the number 144 is the liquid that exists in the annulus and the annulus pressure, each
conversion factor for pressure (1 psi (lb/in2) = 144 psf (lbf/ft2)). plays an important role in the heat loss; in the case of a
vacuumed annulus, only radiation will be present). Conduction
Energy Balance Equation can also be present in the annular space; its effect, however, has
been absorbed into the convective heat transfer coefficient, hc .
The energy balance equation for multiphase flow at the
steady-state condition can be expressed as follows(8, 16-18, 20-22): The radiation heat transfer coefficient, hr , is calculated by the
Stefan-Boltzmann law and the convective heat transfer
⎛ ⎞ ρ v g cos(θ ) .....................(3)
coefficient is attributed to the Grashof and Prandtl numbers.
Q& loss ∂
2
1 vp
3600 × Ati
=−
∂z
∑ρ v ⎜ hp +
⎜
p sp
2 gc J c
⎟ + ∑ p sp
⎟ p gc J c
p ⎝ ⎠
Third Part: Formation
where Ati is the inner tubing area, α is the phase index (liquid The formation surrounds the wellbore system and absorbs
or gas), J c is the mechanical equivalent of heat (788 ft- the heat from the tubing fluids. A two-dimensional heat
conduction transfer formulation in the formation is employed:
lbf/Btu), and 3600 converts hour to seconds. In this equation the
conductive heat transport (it may become important in the shut-
1 ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ∂T
in wells) and the work done on the fluids by the viscous force ⎜ ker r e ⎟ + ⎜ kez e ⎟ = ρeC pe e ..................................(6)
are assumed to be small and thus ignored. The first term on the r ∂r ⎝ ∂r ⎠ ∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎠ ∂t
right-hand side is an energy flux due to convection and the work
done by the pressure force, and the second term is the work
where Te is the formation temperature, ker the conduction
done on the fluids by the gravitational force. The term on the
left-hand side is the rate of heat loss to the surroundings. coefficient in the radial direction, kez the conduction coefficient
in the z-direction, ρ e the formation density and C pe the heat
Second Part: Series of Heat Flow capacity of the formation. In the case where ker = kez = ke , this
Resistances from Wellbore Tubing to equation can be written as
Formation
1 ∂ ⎛ ∂Te ⎞ ∂ 2Te ∂ 2Te 1 ∂Te ∂ 2Te 1 ∂Te
These resistances include the tubing wall, possible insulation ⎜r ⎟+ = 2 + + 2 = ....................(7)
around the tubing, annular space (possibly filled with a gas or r ∂r ⎝ ∂r ⎠ ∂z 2 ∂r r ∂r ∂z α e ∂t
liquid but is sometimes vacuum), casing wall, and cementing
behind the casing as illustrated in Fig. 1. The heat lost from the where α e is the formation thermal diffusion coefficient:

3
αe =
ke
.......................................................................................... (8) Numerical Implementation
ρ eC pe
A grid system for both the tubing and formation is first
explained, and then all the formulas presented in the previous
To solve equation (6) or (7), one initial and four boundary section are discretized using the finite difference method.
conditions are needed. The initial condition given by equation As seen from Fig. 2, a staggered grid is used for the tubing
(9) is simply a linear increase in the temperature of the part. This means that all of the variables are assigned to the
formation from the surface to the reservoir with a slope of g z center of each grid block except the superficial and mixture
that is the geothermal gradient of the formation: velocities that are assigned to the boundary of the grid block.
Important advantages of staggered grids are that the transport
rate across the faces of control volumes can be computed
Tei = Teiwh + gT z cos(θ ) ....................................................................... (9)
without interpolation of velocity components and that mass is
conserved across the boundary of each grid block. The steady-
The four boundary conditions as depicted in Fig. 1 are given state condition is assumed for this part. For the formation part,
by equation (7) is discretized with a fully implicit scheme over an
irregular grid, where the grid uses an equal spacing in the
Te = Tsurface at z = 0, r ≥ rwb ...................................................... (10) vertical direction (except near the wellhead and bottomhole
where a more refined grid is used to capture the boundary
effects) and a geometric spacing in the radial direction. The
unsteady-state condition is assumed for the formation and the
Te = Treservoir at z = L, r ≥ rwb .................................................... (11) resulting equation is solved by using BiCGSTAB with an
appropriate pre-conditioner.
Now, equation (1) with the steady-state assumption can be
simplified as
∂Te
= 0 at 0 ≤ z ≤ L, r → ∞ ............................................... (12)
∂r ∂
∂z
( )
ρ g vsg + ρ L vsL = 0 ...................................................................... (16)

∂T
Q& loss = −2πrk e e at 0 ≤ z ≤ L, r = rwb ........................... (13) or
∂r
w&
ρ g vsg + ρ L vsL = =constant
That is, the top and bottom boundaries of the formation 3600 × Ati
remain at a constant temperature, there is no heat flux at the
right boundary, and the heat flux is prescribed at the left w& (3600 × Ati ) − ρ g vsg ( ) k+
1

boundary. ⇒ vsL 1 = 2
............................... (17)
k+
2 ρL k+
1
To have a closed system, two more auxiliary equations are 2
necessary. The first one is the equation of state (EOS) that
calculates enthalpy, internal energy, and density of each phase:
where w& is the total mass injection rate of the steam/water
mixture in lbm/hr and the number 3600 converts hour to
EOS:
seconds. The values of the phase densities at k+1/2 are
Input ( T , P , Composition) → Output ( ρ L , ρ g , hL , hg , etc.)....... (14)
unknown; they can be found either via an appropriate iteration
procedure or the simple upwind approximation:
The second one is the drift-flux model for estimation of the
in situ-volume fraction:
ρ k + ρ k +1
ρ = ≈ ρ k ...................................................................... (18)
vsg k+
1
2
fg = ................................................................................. (15) 2
Co vm − v∞
For the discretization of both the momentum and energy
where Co is a profile parameter (or distribution coefficient), balance equations, equations (2) and (3), the standard Godunov
first-order upwinding scheme is implemented:
which describes the effect of the velocity and concentration
profiles and depends on the flow regimes and velocity direction
n
(upward or downward and/or cocurrent or countercurrent flow), ⎛ dp ⎞
pkn = pkn−1 + Δz 1⎜ ⎟ .............................................................. (19)
vm is the average velocity of the mixture and v∞ is the drift
2 ⎝ dz ⎠ k −1 2
k−

velocity of the gas describing the buoyancy effect. We use the

drift-flux model of Hasan et al.(23) due to its simplicity,
continuity, and differentiability. Beggs and Brill’s method(24) is
also implemented into the model for comparison of the results. ⎛ dp ⎞
n
ρ mn g cos(θ ) f mnk −1 2 ρ mn k −1 2 vkn−1 2 ( ) 2

− 144⎜ ⎟ = − k −1 2 + +
⎝ dz ⎠ k −1 2 gc 2d ti g c
ρ mn k −1 2
vmn k −1 2 vmn k − vmn k −1
....... (20)
gc zk − zk −1

4
and Conclusions
In this paper, a numerical nonisothermal two-phase
⎧⎡ n
Q& loss
n
1 ⎪ ⎛ 1 v 2p ⎞⎤ wellbore flow model has been developed and tested against both
=− ⎨⎢∑ ρ p v sp ⎜⎜ h p + ⎟⎥ −
k

3600 × Ati Δz ⎪⎢⎣ p ⎝ 2 g c J c ⎟⎠⎥ field data and the prediction of other models. This model entails
k−
1
⎩ ⎦k the spatial and temporal discretization of the wellbore and
2

⎫ formation domains and the solution of the discrete wellbore

1 v p ⎞⎟⎤ ⎪ ⎡ ρ p v sp g cos(θ ) ⎤
n
⎡ ⎛ 2 n
equations for mass, momentum, and energy balance. A drift-
− ⎢∑ ρ p vsp ⎜ h p + ⎥ ⎬ + ⎢∑ ⎥ ...(21)
⎢⎣ p ⎜ 2 g c J c ⎟⎠⎥ ⎪ ⎢⎣ p gc J c ⎥⎦ k flux model has been used to capture the slip phenomenon
⎝ ⎦ k −1 ⎭ between the phases, and the time- and depth-dependent overall
heat transfer coefficient has been incorporated into the model to
The solution of the resulting equations is complicated due to capture the heat loss to the surroundings. The wellbore system
the nonlinear thermodynamical behavior of steam with the has sequentially been solved with a triple-iterative procedure,
change of the temperature and pressure of the wellbore system and the formation system has been solved in a fully implicit
with respect to both depth and time. Another complexity is due manner. Implementation of the drift-flux model of Hasan et
to the wellbore and formation heat interaction where the al.(23) into our model for multiphase flow gives a good
wellbore loses heat to the formation. agreement between the prediction of our model and field data
As noted, within each time step for the solution of the but Beggs and Brill’s method(24) for multiphase flow over-
formation temperature equation, the steady-state condition is predicts the steam pressure and temperature.
assumed for the tubing and surrounding system (up to the To see which model works the best, more field data are
formation). An iterative procedure that involves updating the required. Having only measured the field steam pressure and
nonlinear coefficients and overall heat transfer coefficient at temperature with respect to time and depth is not sufficient to
each iteration is used for the entire fluid flow and heat transport decide about the models. Steam quality measurement (that is
computation. The numerical algorithm works with a triple- hardly available) is also necessary to check whether a model
iterative scheme on the formation temperature, gas superficial precisely represents the heat loss around the wellbore; there
velocity, and fluid pressure in order to solve the three may be two models that match the steam temperature (or
conservation equations in a sequential manner. pressure) in the tubing but show different steam quality
The drift-flux model of Hasan et al.(23) needs a friction factor predictions.
that is a function of the unknown phase velocities. Therefore,
after assuming some acceptable number for the friction factor,
its computation is iterated until an appropriate convergence is NOMENCLATURE
achieved. Additionally, for the estimation of the overall heat
Ag = area occupied by gas [ft2]
transfer coefficient that is a function of the unknown inside-
casing temperature and outside-tubing (or insulation) Ati = inside tubing area [ft2]
temperature, an appropriate iterative procedure is also employed Co = distribution coefficient in the drift-flux
to estimate the overall heat transfer coefficient as a function of
both time and depth. model [dimensionless]
C pe = formation heat capacity [Btu/(lbm oF)]
d ti = internal tubing diameter [ft]
Results fg = gas insitu volume fraction [dimensionless]
Due to the sparseness of field data available in the literature fL = liquid insitu volume fraction
on steam injection wells, only two sets of field data from
[dimensionless]
reference (25) (Field Tests 1A and 1B from a test on the 61-0
Martha Bigpond well and Field Test 2 from a test on the 14-W fm = Moody friction factor [dimensionless]
Sallie Lee well, which were also summarized in reference (9)) g = acceleration due to gravity [ft/s2]
are selected for our model validation. The field data are reported gc = gravitational conversion constant,
in Table 1. For Field Test 1A, the steam temperature is 32.17 (ft lbm)/(lbf s2)
measured after 71 hours of the steam injection, and for Field
gT = geothermal gradient [oF/ft]
Test 1B and Field Test 2, the steam pressure is measured after
117 and 308 hours of the steam injection, respectively. hc = convective heat transfer coefficient of fluid
Figs. 3, 4, and 8 show the prediction of our model, the inside annulus [Btu/(hr ft2 oF)]
prediction of Fontanilla and Aziz’s model(9), and the measured hf = convective heat transfer coefficient of fluid
field data. For Field Test 1B, we also compare our results with
[Btu/(hr ft2 oF)]
those of Farouq Ali’s model(8) as depicted in Fig. 5. All of these
figures indicate that our model is in a good agreement with the hg = gas enthalpy [Btu/lbm]
field data. From Figs. 6 and 7, for Field Test 1A there are 3% hL = liquid enthalpy [Btu/lbm]
and 4% differences between the lowest and highest predictions hp = enthalpy of phase p (water or steam)
of the models at the bottomhole condition for the heat loss and
steam quality, respectively. These numbers become 8% and [Btu/lbm]
10% for Filed Test 2. Since there is no field steam quality hr = radiative heat transfer coefficient of fluid
measurement, it is impossible to determine which model works inside annulus [Btu/(hr ft2 oF)]
better in this regard. Note that the flow regimes depicted in kcas = thermal conductivity of casing
Figs. 3 and 8 are predicted by our model using the multiphase
[Btu/(hr ft oF)]
drift-flux flow model of Hasan et al.(23).

5
kcem = thermal conductivity of cementing ρL = liquid density (water density) [lbm/ft3]
[Btu/(hr ft oF)] ρm = mixture density [lbm/ft3]
ke = thermal conductivity of formation θ = local angle between well and the vertical
[Btu/(hr ft oF)] direction [radian]
k er = radial thermal conductivity of formation
[Btu/(hr ft oF)] Subscript
k ez = vertical thermal conductivity of formation k = grid discretization index in the z direction
[Btu/(hr ft oF)] p = phase p, p=L (liquid) or p=g (gas)
kins = thermal conductivity of insulation sat = saturation
[Btu/(hr ft oF)] wh = wellhead
kt = thermal conductivity of tubing
Superscript
[Btu/(hr ft oF)] n = time discretization index
L = total depth of well [ft]
p = wellbore pressure [psia]
SI Metric Conversion Factors
Q& loss = heat loss rate to surroundings [Btu/(hr ft)]
r = radius [ft]
Btu × 1.055056 E+00 = kJ
rti = inside radius of tubing [ft] o
F (oF-32)/1.8 = o
C
rto = outside radius of tubing [ft]
ft × 3.048* E-01 = m
rins = radius of the outside insulation surface [ft] lbm × 4.535924 E-01 = kg
rci = inside radius of casing [ft] lbf × 4.44822 E+00 = N
rco = outside radius of casing [ft] psia × 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
rwb = cementing / formation interface radius [ft] ft2 × 9.290304* E-02 = m2
t = time [second (hour)] *
Conversion factor is exact
Tf = fluid temperature inside tubing [oF]
Te = formation temperature [oF]
Tei = initial formation temperature [oF]
REFERENCES
Teiwh = initial wellhead temperature [oF]
1. Ramey, H.J., Wellbore Heat Transmission; Paper SPE
Treservoir = reservoir temperature [oF] 96-PA, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 14, No.
Tsurface = surface temperature [oF] 4, pp. 427-435, April 1962.
Twb = cementing/formation interface temperature 2. Satter, A., Heat Losses during Flow of Steam down a
Wellbore; Paper SPE 1071-PA, Journal of Petroleum
[oF] Technology, Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 845-851, July 1965.
U to = overall heat transfer coefficient 3. Holst, P.H. and Flock, D.L., Wellbore Behavior during
[Btu/(hr ft2 oF)] Saturated Steam Injection; Journal of Canadian
vg = gas velocity [ft/s] Petroleum Technology, pp. 184-193, October-December
1966.
vL = liquid (water) velocity [ft/s]
4. Willhite, G.P., Over-all Heat Transfer Coefficients in
vm = mixture velocity [ft/s] Steam and Hot Water Injection Wells; Paper SPE 1449-
vsg = superficial gas (steam) velocity [ft/s] PA, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 19, No. 5,
pp. 607-615, May 1967.
vsL = superficial liquid (water) velocity [ft/s] 5. Pacheco, E.F. and Farouq Ali, S.M., Wellbore Heat
v∞ = drift velocity of gas (steam) in liquid Losses and Pressure Drop in Steam Injection; SPE
(water) [ft/s] Paper 3428-PA, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol.
w& = mass flow rate [lbm/hr] 24, No. 2, pp. 139-144, February1972.
6. Herrera, J.O., Birdwell, B.F. and Hanzlik, E.J., Wellbore
x = steam quality [fraction]
Heat Losses in Deep Injection Wells, SI-B Zone, Cat
z = wellbore direction [ft]
Canyon Field; Paper SPE 7117-MS, SPE California
Δz = distance interval [ft] Regional Meeting, San Francisco, California, USA, 12-
14 April 1978.
αe = formation thermal diffusivity [ft2/hr] 7. Shiu, K.C. and Beggs, H.D., Predicting Temperatures in
ε ci = emissivity of inside casing surface Flowing Oil Wells; Journal of Petroleum Technology,
[dimensionless] Trans., AIME, Vol. 215, pp. 635-640, 1980.
ε to = emissivity of outside tubing surface 8. Farouq Ali, S.M., A Comprehensive Wellbore
Stream/Water Flow Model for Steam Injection and
[dimensionless] Geothermal Applications; Paper SPE 7966-PA, SPE
ρe = formation density [lbm/ft3] Journal, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 527-534, October 1981.
ρg = Gas density [lbm/ft3] 9. Fontanilla, J.P. and Aziz, K., Prediction of Bottom-Hole
Conditions for Wet Steam Injection Wells; Journal of

6
 Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 82- 25. Bleakley, W.B., Here are Case Histories of Two
88, March-April 1982. Thermal Projects; Oil & Gas Journal, pp. 123-130,
10. Yao, S.C., Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer in Steam October 26, 1964.
Injection Wells; MSc Thesis, The University of Tulsa,
1985.
11. Sharma, Y., Shoham, O. and Brill, J.P., Simulation of
Downhole Heater Phenomena in the Production of
Wellbore Fluids; Paper SPE 16904-PA, SPE Production
Engineering Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 309-312, August
1989.
12. Wu, Y.S. and Pruess, K., An Analytical Solution for
Wellbore Heat Transmission in Layered Formations;
SPE Paper 17497-PA, SPE Reservoir Engineering
Journal, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 531-538, November 1990.
13. Segar, R.K., Dotty, D.R. and Schmidt, Z., Predicting
Temperature Profiles in a Flowing Well; Paper SPE
19702-PA, SPE Production Engineering Journal, Vol. 6,
No. 4, pp. 441-448, November 1991.
14. Alves, I.N., Alhanati, F.J.S. and Shoham, O., A Unified
Model for Predicting Flowing Temperature in Wellbores
and Pipelines; Paper SPE 20632-PA, SPE Production
Engineering Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, November 1992.
15. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S., Aspects of Heat Transfer
during Two-Phase Flow in Wellbores; Paper SPE
22948-PA, SPE Production & Facilities Journal, Vol. 9,
No. 3, pp. 211-216, August 1994.
16. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S., Fluid Flow and Heat
Transfer in Wellbores; SPE Book, Richardson, Texas,
2002.
17. Hasan, A.R., Kabir, C.S. and Lin, D., Analytic
Wellbore-Temperature for Model for Transient Gas-
Well Testing; Paper SPE 84288-PA, SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.
240-247, June 2005.
18. Hasan, A.R., Kabir, C.S. and Wang, X., A Robust
Steady-State Model for Flowing-Fluid Temperature in
Complex Wells; Paper SPE 109765-MS, Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Anaheim, California, USA, 11-14 November 2007.
19. Hagoort, J., RameyWellbore Heat Transmission
Revisited; Paper SPE 87305-PA, SPE Journal, Vol. 9,
No. 4, December 2004.
20. Livescu, S., Durlofsky, L.J. and Aziz, K., Application of
a New Fully-Coupled Thermal Multiphase Wellbore
Flow Model; Paper SPE 113215-MS, Presented at the
SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA, 20-23 April 2008.
21. Livescu, S., Durlofsky, L.J. and Aziz, K., A
Semianalytical Thermal Multiphase Wellbore Flow
Model for Use in Reservoir Simulation; SPE Paper
115796-MS, Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-
24 September 2008.
22. Livescu, S., Durlofsky, L.J., Aziz, K. and Ginestra, J.C.,
A New Model for Simulating Nonisothermal Multiphase
Flow in Wellbores and Pipes; Submitted to Elsevier,
http://pangea.stanford.edu/~slivescu/research/, 2008.
23. Hasan, A.R., Kabir, C.S. and Sayarpour, M., A Basic
Approach to Wellbore Two-Phase Flow Modeling;
Paper SPE 109868-MS, Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim,
California, USA, 11-14 November 2007.
24. Beggs, D.H. and Brill, J.P., A Study of Two-Phase Flow
in Inclined Pipes; Paper 4007-PA, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 607-617, May 1973.

7
 r
z

T = Tsurface

No Heat Flux Boundary

Qloss
Cementing
Formation

T = Treservoir
Insulation
Wellbore

Annulus
Casing
Tubing

FIGURE 1: Schematic representation of the discretized wellbore system and formation, and formation boundary
conditions with geometric spacing in radial direction for the formation part.

8
 Wet Steam

k-1

Staggered Girding Scheme

Z
P sat , T sat , hL , hg , ρ L , ρ g , f g
k

vsL , vsg , vm

k+1

FIGURE 2: Schematic representation of the discretized tubing and staggered grid definition (see the
positions where different parameters were defined).

TABLE 1: Field data parameters for Field Test 1A, 1B and Field Test 2.

Field Test 1A and 1B Field Test 2

rti 0.088500 0.083150
rto 0.104167 0.098958
rins No Insulation No Insulation
rci 0.166667 0.166667
rco 0.187500 0.187500
rwb 0.600000 0.600000
ke 1 1
αe 0.0286 0.0286
gT 0.0283 0.0196
kcem 0.2 0.2
ε to 0.9 0.9
ε ci 0.9 0.9
w 4850 2800
x 0.8 0.8
pwh 250 520
Twh 50 71
Depth 1600 1700
Annulus Pressure 14.7 14.7

9
 0
Fontanilla & Aziz (Aziz et al. for Multi-
Phase Flow)
200 Interpolated Field Data (Fontanilla &
Aziz)
Field Data
400 This Study (Hasan et al. for Multi-
Phase Flow)
This Study (Beggs and Brill for Multi-
600 Phase Flow)
Fontanilla & Aziz (Beggs and Brill for
Depth, ft

Multi-Phase Flow)
Annular
800
Flow

1000

1200

1400

1600
340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
Temperature, oF

FIGURE 3: Validation of numerical results against Field Test 1A and comparison of predicted steam temperature
with other models after 71 hours of steam injection.

0
Fontanilla & Aziz (Aziz et al. for Multi-
Phase Flow)
200 Interpolated Field Data (Fontanilla &
Aziz)
Field Data
400
This Study (Hasan et al. for Multi-Phase
Flow)
600 Fontanilla & Aziz (Beggs and Brill for
Multi-Phase Flow)
Depth, ft

This Study (Beggs and Brill for Multi-

800 Phase Flow)

1000

1200

1400

1600
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Pressure, Psia

FIGURE 4: Validation of numerical results against Field Test 1B and comparison of predicted steam pressure with
other models after 117 hours of steam injection.

10
 0
Field Data (Bleakley, 1964)

200
This Study (Hasan et al for Multi-
Phase Flow)
400 Farouq Ali (Duns and Ros for Multi-
Phase Flow
This Study (Beggs and Brill for Multi-
600 Phase Flow)
Depth, ft

800

1000

1200

1400

1600
350 360 370 380 390 400 410
Temperature, oF

FIGURE 5: Validation of numerical results against Field Test 1B and comparison of predicted steam temperature
with Farouq Ali’s model(8) after 116 hours of steam injection (Farouq Ali in his paper (page 529) reported the
injection time as 116 hours).

0
Fontanilla & Aziz (Aziz et al. for Multi-
Phase Flow)
200
This Study (Hasan et al. for Multi-
Phase Flow)
400 Fontanilla & Aziz (Beggs and Brill for
Multi-Phase Flow)
This Study (Beggs and Brill for Multi-
600 Phase Flow)
Depth, ft

800

1000

1200

1400

1600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Heat Loss, %

FIGURE 6: Comparison of predicted heat loss for Field Test 1A with other models after 71 hours of steam injection.

11
 0
Fontanilla & Aziz (Beggs and Brill for
Multi-Phase Flow)
200
Fontanilla & Aziz (Aziz et al. for Multi-
Phase Flow)
400 This Study (Beggs and Brill for Multi-
Phase Flow)
This Study (Hasan et al. for Multi-
600 Phase Flow)
Depth, ft

800

1000

1200

1400

1600
0.68 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 0.82
Steam Quality, Fraction

FIGURE 7: Comparison of predicted steam quality for Field Test 1A with other models after 71 hours of steam
injection.

0
Fontanilla & Aziz (Aziz et al. for Multi-
200 Phase Flow)
This Study (Hasan et al. for Multi-Phase
Flow)
400 Interpolated Field Data (Fontanilla &
Aziz, 1980) Annular
Field Data Flow
600
This Study (Beggs and Brill for Multi-
Depth, ft

Phase Flow)
800 Fontanilla & Aziz (Beggs and Brill for
Multi-Phase Flow)
1000

1200
Churn
1400 Flow

Slug
1600 Flow

450 470 490 510 530 550

Pressure, Psia

FIGURE 8: Validation of numerical results against Field Test 2 and comparison of predicted steam pressure with
other models after 308 hours of steam injection.

12
 0
Fontanilla & Aziz (Beggs and Brill for
Multi-Phase Flow)
200
Fontanilla & Aziz (Aziz et al. for Multi-
Phase Flow)
400 This Study (Beggs and Brill for Multi-
Phase Flow)
600 This Study (Hasan et al. for Multi-
Phase Flow)
Depth, ft

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Heat Loss, %

FIGURE 9: Comparison of predicted heat loss for Field Test 2 with other models after 308 hours of steam injection.

0
Fontanilla & Aziz (Beggs and Brill for
Multi-Phase Flow)
200
Fontanilla & Aziz (Aziz et al. for Multi-
Phase Flow)
400 This Study (Beggs and Brill for Multi-
Phase Flow)
600 This Study (Hasan et al. for Multi-
Phase Flow)
Depth, ft

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Steam Quality, Fraction

FIGURE 10: Comparison of predicted steam quality for Field Test 2 with other models after 308 hours of steam
injection.

13