THERMAL

OPERATIONS

Over-all Heat Transfer Coefficients in Steam

And Hot Water Injection Wells
G. PAUL WILLHITE
JUNIOR MEMBER AIME

Abstract

Casing temperatures and wellbore heat losses are critical

variables in steam and hot water injection welts. Several
papers have been written presenting methods of estimating
these parameters if the over-all heat transfer coefficient is
known. The over-all heat transfer coefficient for a wellbore is developed from its component terms to promote
a better understanding of the concept. Specific methods
have been selected from the heat transfer literature for
estimating the size of each heat transfer component. Simplified calculation procedures are suggested for determining the over-all heat transfer coefficient. Comparison of
calcul'ated and measured casing temperatures during steam
injection confirms the basic formulation and appl'icability
of the suggested procedure for engineering calculations.

CONTINENTAL OIL CO.

PONCA CITY, OKLA.

ture difference6.T j Subscript j in Eq. 1 identifies the surface upon which these quantities are based. In theory, any
radial surface could be used to determine the characteristic area. Some choices are more convenient to work with
than others. For example, if hot fluid is injected down
tubing it is preferred to let A j be the outside surface area
of an incremental length of injection tubing, 27rr to AL. and
Iet6.T j be the difference between the temperature of the
flowing fluid T, and the temperature at the cement-formation interface (the drill hole) T h Then V j = Va. referring to
the outside tubing surface area, and Eq. 1 would be
.

If the fluid is injected down the casing or casing annulus,

the characteristic area could be the inside surface area of
the casing, and Eq. 1 would be written as
(3)

Introduction
The design of steam and hot water injection projects
requires estimation of casing temperatures and well bore
heat losses. Several authors have shown that wellbore heat
losses and casing temperatures can be calculated if the
over-all heat transfer coefficient is known.'-' This article
discusses methods of determining the over-all heat transfer coefficient from the process variables.
Development
The steady-state rate of heat flow through a wellbore
Q Btu/hour is proportional to the temperature difference
between the fluid and the formation, and the cross-sectional
area perpendicular to the direction of heat flow. The proportionality factor, called the over-all heat transfer coefficient, represents the net resistance of the flowing fluid,
tubing, casing annulus, casing wall and cement sheath to
the flow of heat. Thus, we can write
Q

= V j Aj /),.T

(1)

Eq. 1 defines V j , the over-all heat transfer coefficient based

on the characteristic area Aj and a characteristic temperaOriginal manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office
April 4, 1966. Revised manuscript received Jan. 20, 1967. Paper (SPE
1449) was presented at SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting held in
Denver, Colo., May 23-24, 1966. Copyright 1967 American Institute of
Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
lReferences given at end of paper.
MAY. 1967

(2)

Subscript ci refers to the inside casing surface.

An expression for the over-all heat transfer coefficient
for any well completion can be found by considering the
heat transfer mechanisms between the flowing fluid and
the cement-formation interface. A brief derivation of the
over-all heat transfer coefficient is presented in the following paragraphs for the case of a hot fluid flowing
through tubing insulated with a dry air annulus. Other
cases can be derived easily once the basic concepts are
understood. Fig. 1 shows the well bore model which will
be used to derive V to
Heat Transfer Mechanisms
The rate of heat transfer between the flowing fluid and
inside tubing waH is given by Eq. 4.

= 27rr" h, (T,-T

ti )

6.L

. (4)

h, is defined by Eq. 4 and is the film coefficient for heat

transfer based on the inside surface area of the tubing
(SUbscript ti) and the temperature difference between the
flowing fluid and the inside tubing wall T, - T ti.
Heat flow through the tubing wall, casing wall and the
cement sheath occurs by conduction. Fourier" discovered
that the rate of heat flow through a body is directly proportional to the temperature gradient in the medium. The
607

proportionality factor k" is termed the thermal conductivity of the medium. In the radial system of the wellbore,
dT
Q = - 2-rrr k" dr 6L .

(5)

vection and conduction) and hr (radiation). These coefficients are based on the outside surface area of the tubing
(27rr,o ,6L) and the temperature difference between the
outside tubing surface and the inside casing surface. Thus,
Q = 2-rrr" (h,+h,) (T,,,-T,,) ,6L .

Integration of Eq. 5 with Q constant gives Eqs. 6 through

8 for conduction through the tubing wall, casing wall
and cement sheath.
.
Q -_ 27rk'nb. (Tti-T'o)b.L
T Ublllg,
In~
r

We can now "assemble" V to from its component terms.

Note that
Tf-T"

(Tf-T ti ) + (T" -T t,) + (T,,,-T,,)

+(T'i-T",) + (Lo-T h )

(6)

ti

(7)

(9)

In~

27rk,."", (T,,, - T,,) b.L

Cement, Q = - - - - - - - -

(8)

In~

(10)

Since heat flow in the well completion is assumed to be

steady state at any particular time, the values of Q in
Eqs. 4 and 6 through 9 are equal. Solving for the respective temperature differences in these equations and substituting them into Eq. 10 gives Eq. 11.
Q
1
r"
1
T f - T , , = -[ - - - + - - +
27rb.L rt;h f
k'nh.
r,.,(h,,+h,)

In~

rei
+-k",,,.

rco

Three modes of heat transfer are present in the casing

annulus. Heat is conducted through the air contained in
the annulus. Radiation and natural convection also occur.
When a body is heated, radiant energy is emitted at a
rate dependent on the temperature of the body. The
amount of radiant energy transported between the tubing
and casing depends on the view the surfaces have of each
other and the emitting and absorbing characteristics of
their surfaces. Heat transfer by natural convection in the
annulus between the tubing and casing is caused by fluid
motion resulting from the variation of density with temperature. Hot fluid near the tubing wall is less dense than
the fluid in the center of the annulus and tends to rise.
Similarly, the fluid near the casing wall is cooler (and
denser) than in the center of the annulus and tends to
fall. Fig. 2 is an interpretation of fluid motion in the casing annulus.'
Radiation, natural convection and conduction are independent heat transfer mechanisms. Thus, the total heat
flow in the annulus is the sum of the heat transferred by
each of the above mechanisms. In practice, it is convenient to define the heat transfer rate through the annulus
in terms of the heat transfer coefficients h, (natural con-

Inr"r,,,

(11)

k('('lll.

Comparison with Eq. 2 shows that

V, = [ ~
"
rUh f
I'

rt
rt" In-'
1
r" +
k'nb.
(h,+h,)

1',.

rto In_c--_r_'_i
k,,,,.

'0 In -"-I' ] - '

roo

(12)

k cem

In a similar manner, an expression for V'o can be written

to include the case when the injection tubing is insulated
with commefCiial insulation of th'ickness AI' and thermal
conductivity kin, .. Let rin,. - 1"0 = b.r. Then,
[ ~+
r"h f

r,,,ln~
rti
k'nb.

r'ns.

r to In - 1', 0
kins.

+ _-:c;-r-;,0c-;-;-;-;:
Tins.

(hc'+h/)

r,o In _1"_'
r,o In _r_" ]_'
rei + _.....,._r,_,,,
k("Ufl.

(13)

k("(>IlL.

TUBING

FLOWING
FLUID

VELOCITY
DISTRIBUTION

Tt

',: - ..." .... FORMATION

~

.:-

-j

.,

VELOCITY
D I STR I BUT ION

Fig. I-Temperature distribution in an annular completion.

608

Fig. 2-Natural convection in the casing annulus.'

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

The coefficients he' and he' in Eq. 13 are based on the

surface area 27Trins. 6.L and the temperature difference
(T'ns. - T,,).
V t " can be calculated from Eqs. 12 or 13 once k'nb ..
k ins ., kens., k wn ., hf' he and h,. are determined. Representa-

tive values of the thermal conductivities of wellbore materials are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that thermal conductivity of the tubing
and casing steel is considerably higher than for the other
materials in the well bore. These terms thus constitute a
small part of V ta and can be deleted from Eqs. 12 and
13. This is equivalent to the assumption that T" = T tn
and Te; = Too.
Film coefficients for water in turbulent flow are generally
high enough (500 to 2,000 Btu/hour sq ft OF) that the assumption of an infinite film coefficient can be applied (i.e.,
T f = Ttl). Condensation coefficients for steam are also
large (500 to 4,000 Btu/hour sq ft OF). Thus, Eqs. 12 and 13
simplify to Eqs. 14 and 15.

rtoln
)-'
-----,-'f'O

- - -_ __

k(.f'Ul.

rtoln~

V to

r to

kins.

(14)

r to
rins.(h/+h/)

rto In..'::..

+ __r_,_o
k nlll .

"'

(16)

The asterisk refers to absolute temperature in OR (T +

460) and (J' is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (1.713 X
10-> Btu/sq ft hour OR'). Ftci 'is the view factor representing the fraction of the radiation emitted from the external
surface area of tubing A too which is intercepted by the
inner casing surface area A'i' This term relates the geometry of the wellbore and the emitting properties of the
tubing and casing surfaces to the radiant heat flux. The
emitting property of a surface is expressed in terms of its
emissivity, a measure of its ability to absorb radiation.
For a concentric annulus,

_1_= -J-+ (_1__ 1) + Ato(~_ 1) .

-

Eto

ACi

Q,.

27Tr, "h,. (T'n*-T,.,*)6.L

= 27Tr'nh,.(T'o-T,;)6.L
he

= (J'F tci (Tto*'+Tci*2) (Tto*+T,,*)

Dry

(21)

Literature concerning natural convection coefficients indicates the difficulty of their evaluation. Although natural
convection has been studied between enclosed vertical
plates, little work has been done using vertical concentric
cylinders. Results of vertical plate studies can be used for
estimating he between vertical concentric cylinders if the
effect of curvature is negligible.
Heat transfer by conduction and natural convection between the inside casing surface and the outside tubing surface is given by Eq. 22.
Qc

27Tk (Tci -T ) 6.L

rei
In -

hc
tn
= ---'---'-'--"""':":':"'--

. (22)

heat transfer rate due to conduction and natural convection, Btu/hour

khe = equivalent thermal conductivity of the annular fluid, Btu/hour ft OF.

When natural convection is small, k hc = k"a, the thermal
conductivity of the fluid in the annulus. Since,
(23)

h C = -k"c
---

(24)

rtf)ln~
rto

Dropkin and Sommerscales9 measured values of k hC between enclosed vertical plates. Their data were correlated
as a function of the Grashof number Gr and the Prandtl
number Pr of the annulus fluid. Eq. 25 is the correlation
of Dropkin and Sommerscales in terms of the nomenclature of the well bore,

(17)

k/tn

0.049 (GrPr)"""" Pr"'"

(25)

where
(26)
and
Cun f.LUlI

(27)

Thermal Conductivity
(Btu/hr ft . F)

Eq. 25 is valid for 5 X 10' < GrPr < 7.17 X 10'. The
product of GrPr in wells with high-pressure gas in the
annulus ranges from 10' to 10", so the extrapolation error
should not be large.

25.0
0.02 to 0.06

Calculation Procedure

0.5 to 0.6
0.2 to 0.4

Calculation of the radiation and natural convection coefficients from Eqs. 16 through 27 requires knowledge of

TABLE I-THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF WELLBORE

MATERIALS

Steel
Insulation (calcium silicate)
Cement:
Wet (at completion)

(20)

Natural Convection (h,)

Pr = - - - .
k ha

Material

(19)

h, can be calculated if T tn and T e-i are known.

CCi

In Eq. 17, eto and eci are the emissivities of the external
tubing and internal casing surfaces, respectively. Ftci is the
over-all interchange factor between the two surfaces. Ftc;
can usually be taken as 1.0 for wellbore heat transfer, and
Eq. 17 reduces to

where

where Qe

The radiant heat flux Qr between the outer surface of

the tubing at temperature T to and the inside surface of
the casing at Tci can be calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann law.' That is,

F tci

A heat transfer coefficient for radiation h, can be defined by factoring Eq. 16 and substituting as shown in Eqs.
19 through 21.

(15)

Estimating hr and he

Ftci

(18)

609

the tubing and casing temperatures. Assume that the tubing temperature is known or can be calculated. This assumption will be discussed later. The casing temperature
is calculated using Eq. 28, which was derived by combining Eqs. 2, 7 and 8.

T ..

~ + C:<~" + ':,:.::}"
T.

9.0'r---...,--;----,r--,...---.---r--.------.
8.0

TUBING SURFACE

7.0t_.J~!:t\!.!:I.:!:I.JS~C~A,!;;I.S:.----U" (T, - T.) (28)

6.0

l.:

By neglecting the thermal resistance of the film, tubing and

casing, Eq. 28 reduces to Eq. 29.

Nt-'

u.

Ii

:I:

....

::>

T e , = Th

Iii

. . . (29)

3.0

An expression for T. is needed to use Eq. 29. In developing the wellbore heat transfer model, the heat flow in
the well completion (Eq. 2) is equated to the radial heat
flow into the formation at the cement formation interface.
Using Ramey's procedure' the radial flow of heat at the
cement formation interface is approximated by Eq. 30.
Q =

27rk. (T,,-T e ) llz

I(t)

Equating Eqs. 2 and 30 with llz

br T" gives

k,
T fl(t) +-U-Te
T,,= _______r_t_o~t-o--

1(1)+~u'
r
to

o
700

llL and then solving

. . . . . . (31)

to

ke = thermal conductivity of the formation at the

depth z, Btu/hour ft of

= transient

1.0

(30)

where Te = undisturbed temperature of the formation at

depth z, of

I(t)

4.0

-5'

heat conduction function.

The transient heat conduction function l(t) enters into

well bore heat loss calculations because heat flow in the
surrounding formation varies with time. Heat losses to
these formations are large initially, but decrease with time
as thermal resistaiice to the flow of heat builds up in the
f{)rmation. Methods of evaluating I(t) have been discussed
in detail by Ramey' and the reader is referred to his paper for background material. I(t) can be obtained from
Table 2 for sho~t injection times. Table 2 was prepared
using the data and calculation procedure of Jessop.'O,il It

Fig. 3-Variation of U to with tubing temperature for

parameters of Table 3.

is believed that values of I(t) are accurate to three significant figures. An approximate value can be calculated using
Eq. 32 for longer times. Short injection time is usually
considered to be less than 7 days.
2 Voil
I(t) = In ~-- 0.29.

. . . . . . . . (32)
r"
Examination of Eqs. 29 and 31 shows that the casing
temperature is a function of U to As previously noted, Tel
is used to calculate he and hro the natural convection and
radiation heat transfer coefficients for the casing annulus.
Hence, a trial-and-error or iterative solution is required
to determine the proper combination of U to and Tel when
radiation and natural convection are the primary heat
transfer mechanisms. The iterative solution assumes a
value for Tci to calculate U to A new value of T et is calculated using this value of U to in Eqs. 29 and 31. This procedure is repeated until convergence is obtained. Normally,
three calculations are sufficient to determine T e , and U to
for a particular tubing temperature and injection time.
The calculation procedure discussed in the preceding

TABLE 2-TIME FUNCTION f(t) FOR THE RADIATION BOUNDARY CONDITION MODEL

rtaU to

~-

0.01

0.02

0.05

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.313
0.423
0.616
0.802
1.02
1.36
1.65
1.96
2.39
2.73

0.313
0.423
0.617
0.803
1.02
1.37
1.66
1.97
2.39
2.73

0.314
0.424
0.619
0.806
1.03
1.37
1.66
1.97
2.40
2.74

0.316
0.427
0.623
0.811
1.04
1.38
1.67
1.99
2.42
2.75

0.318
0.430
0.629
0.820
1.05
1.40
1.69
2.00
2.44
2.77

0.323
0.439
0.644
0.842
1.08
1.44
1.73
2.05
2.48
2.81

---

1.0

2.0
----

5.0
---

--

---

20

50

100

00

0.330
0.452
0.666
0.872
1.11
1.48
1.77
2.09
2.51
2.84

0.345
0.473
0.698
0.910
1.15
1.52
1.81
2.12
2.54
2.86

0.373
0.511
0.745
0.958
1.20
1.56
1.84
2.15
2.56
2.88

0.396
0.538
0.772
0.984
1.22
1.57
1.86
2.16
2.57
2.89

0.417
0.568
0.790
1.00
1.24
1.58
1.86
2.16
2.57
2.89

0.433
0.572
0.802
1.01
1.24
1.59
1.87
2.17
2.57
2.89

0.438
0.578
0.806
1.01
1.25
1.59
1.87
2.17
2.58
2.89

0.445
0.588
0.811
1.02
1.25'
1.59
1.88
2.17
2.58
2.90

10

at
rh:!.

0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
20.0
50.0
100.0
610

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

paragraph was used to prepare Fig. 3, a plot of V to vs

tubing temperature for several modifications of an annular
completion. Steam was assumed to be injected down 2%in. tubing in 7-in. casing for 14 days. The casing was
cemented to the surface in a 9% -in. hole with a high-temperature resistance cement. Parameters used to calculate
V t " are summarized in Table 3.
The five completions presented on Fig. 3 were selected
to illustrate the heat transfer mechanisms in the annuli of
stearn and hot w~ter injection wells. A standard completion is 2% -in. tubing (mill-scale surface) set on a packer
with the annulus open to the atmosphere. Radiation is the
primary heat transfer mechanism in this completion. Since
radiation varies with the emitting properties of the tubing
surface, the radiation heat transfer coefficient hr can be
lowered by coating the tubing surface with a highly reflective material. This is shown by the curve for aluminum
paint which was assumed to have an emissivity of 0.4.
Another completion technique is to use high-pressure air
or nitrogen to eliminate the down-hole packer. The radiation coefficient is nearly the same value as when a packer
is used. However, the natural convection coefficient is
larger by one or two orders of magnitude because the
density of the gas in the annulus increases. The effect of
natural convection is illustrated by comparing the curves
with annulus pre3sures of 0, 1,000 and 2,500 psig.
Radiation and natural convection can be minimized by
insulating the injection tubing. Commercial insulation has
such a low thermal conductivity (0.02 to 0.06 Btu/hour ft
OF) that conduction through the insulation controls wellbore heat transfer. Radiation and natural convection coefficients based on the outer surface of the insulation can
be large, but their effect on V to is small since they are in
series with the high thermal resistance of the commercial
insulation. The lower curve on Fig. 3 was calculated for
calcium silicate insulation 1 in. thick.
Fig. 3 is useful in estimating the over-all heat transfer
coefficient for wells with parameters other than those in
Table 3. The following procedure is suggested.
1. Select a value of V tu corresponding to the temperature of the fluid or tubing from Fig. 3 for the corresponding well completion.
2. Determine I(t) from Table 2 or Eq. 32.
3. Calculate T. using Eq. 31.
4. Calculate Tci from Eq. 29.
5. Then estimate h" (Eqs. 18 and 21) and h, (Eqs. 24
through 27).
6. Determine a new value of V ta from Eqs. 14 or 15.
7. Compare the calculated value of V ta with the value
used in Steps 2 through 5 and repeat Steps 2 through 6 until agreement is obtained between two successive trials.
Normally, three sets of calculations are sufficient. A sample calculation is presented in the Appendix.
Variable Tubing Temperature

Fig. 3 relates V to to the fluid or tubing temperature

when the formation temperature is 80F. Fluid temperatures may vary considerably with depth when hot water
or superheated st~am is injected.,,4 The over-all heat transfer coefficient will also vary with depth. In tbis case the
depth step method discussed by Satter' can be used to determine the tubing temperature at each depth in the well.
This calculation procedure involves two successive iterative
solutions because both tubing and casing temperatures depend on the over-all heat transfer coefficient.
MAY. 19fi7

TABLE 3-PARAMETERS FOR FIG. 3

Hole size:

9.625 in.

Casing (7 in., 26 Ib, J55):

OD

/D
Tubing

OD

7.000 in.
6.276 in.
(2~

in., 6.4 Ib, J-55):

ID

ke:
kt'I'Ill.:

killS.:

a:
lOci (mill scale):
(aluminum paint):

eto =
eto

L:

2.875 in.
2.441 in.
1.4 Btu/hrft OF
0.51 Btu/hr ft F
0.0256
(T-50) (3.67 X 10-')
Btu/hr ft OF
0.04 sq ft/hr
0.9
0.4
80F

Well bore heat losses and casing temperatures for the injection of wet steam are often calculated by assuming that
T f , Tti and T to are equal to the inject:ion temperature. A
single value of Uto evaluated at the injection temperature
and at the average formation temperature is used in these
calculations.
This is an approximation because the temperature of
the flowing fluid may be lower, equal to or higher than
the injection temperatures. The actual value depends on
the relationship between well bore heat loss, two-phase frictional pressure drop and the pressure change due to density variations. In many projects, operating conditions are
such that the difference between the sand face temperature
and the injection temperature is less than 10 percent. Thus,
a single value of V ta may provide sufficient accuracy for
engineering calculations. This can be checked by varying
the fluid temperature in accordance with rough estimates
of the pressure changes. If approximate calculations indicate large temperature changes, simultaneous solution
of the total energy and mechanical energy equations may
be required for good estimates of heat losses and casing
temperatures.
Practical Application of the Over-all Heat Tmnsfer
Coefficient in Engineering Calculations

Casing fa'ilure is a known problem in production wells

stimulated with steam. While it is not always possible
to determine exactly when a casing will fail, a knowledge
of the casing temperature is essential to estimate and minimize thermal stresses in the casing. Casing temperature~
were calculated for the injection of steam at 650F using
the parameters of Table 3. These temperatures are plotted
against injection rime on Fig. 4 for the five completions
of Fig. 3.
The cement sheath does not remain wet at shallow
depths during steam or hot water injection. As the casing
temperature increases, the boiling point of water in the
cement may exceed the prevailing hydrostatic pressure.
The water is either superheated in situ or driven from the
cement into the surrounding formation by vaporization.
The latter proces, allows the cement sheath to dry, and
its thermal conductivity will decrease to the values in
Table 1. When drying occurs, V to is approximated by reducing the thermal conductivity of the cement to the lower values. Then the over-all heat transfer coefficient represents the conditions after drying for all injection times.
As an example, casing temperatures for the low-pressure
annulus of Fig. 4 were recalculated using 0.2 Btu/hour ft
F for the thermal conductivity of dry cement. The temperatures are shown as the dashed curve on Fig. 5. The
611

corresponding curve from Fig. 4 was reproduced on Fig.

S for comparison.
Drying may also extend into the formation if the formation is porous and the temperature of the drill hole Th
exceeds the boiling point of water at formation pressure.
To investigate this phenomenon, a dry zone was included
in the over-all heat transfer coefficient. Fig. 6 is the dry
zone heat transfer model. The radius of the dry zone ra
is defined as the point where the temperature of the dry
zone T d is equal to the boiling point of water at hydrostatic pressure. This adds another conduction term to the
over-all heat transfer coefficient so that Eqs. 14 and 15 become
rto In 2
r,o
k""""

V'O=(-h
Ih +
(-r /'

r to In _r_" )-'

+ _~_r_"

r to Inr'B',
-V to

T" =

T"

<J>

__ __----------------------O
~

I" COMMERCI AL INSULATION

10

12

14

Fig. 4-Calculated casing temperatures when 650F steam

is injected down tubing.
I

700INJECTION TEM PER ATURE

600-

Calculations were made to estimate the effect of a dry

zone on casing temperature. An unconsolidated sand was
used as the formation because it shows the effect of a
large difference between the wet and dry thermal conductivities; i.e., 1.6 Btu/hour ft OF for the wet zone and 0.152
Btu/hour ft OF for the dry. These values correspond to the
data of Woodside and Cliffe" for Ottawa sand (l00 lb/
Cll ft). Calculated casing temperatures were 50 to 75F
higher than the dry cement curve of Fig. 5 when Ta =
212F and ra was evaluated at the maximum injection time.
The value of rd for T" = 212F was found by plotting calculated values of Td against assumed values of rd'

T,

1-__..:JTt.yi4

300 II . 4 BTU/HR. FT oF.

ke

200

to

This model assumes that the dry zone forms at time

zero, although it is known that drying will not begin until
the drill hole temperature T" is at least 212F. The dry zone
radius is not constant but will change with time. As a result, the model does not represent the vaporization and
condensation which occurs during the formation of the
dry zone. It will indicate the maximum effect of a dry
zone. A numerical solution would provide a better representation if the problem is severe enough to warrant further investigation.

INJECTION TIME, DAYS

(36)

f(t)+~v'
Tto

UJ
I-

0,

+ _k_,-T
r to Uto (
= ------,---T f I(t)

::Il

.'"

(34)

(33)

__-------------------0

0.

r"

kd

400

_roJ ]-'

Now the over-all heat transfer coefficient is based on

the outside surface area of the tubing and the temperature difference between the injected fluid and the dry zone
interface. The radius of the dry zone is substituted for r"
in the calculation of I(t) from Eq. 32 or Table 2. With
these changes the equations for the casing temperature
and the dry zone interface temperature are

____-------------------o

0:

In

+ ___r~,..:..o___ +
rjns. (he' + hr')
~--;--k,e-m-,

k"

psiq
~M~IL:L:~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::P=RFoE$~URE
1000

k ins .
r to

r,o

+-~-

600~T~U~B~IN~G~S~U~R~~~CE~---.~--~-----r----~--~A~NN~U~L~US~

UJ
II:

WET

FORMATION
100

00

FORMATION TEMPERATURE

I
10

ANNULUS

FLOWING
FLUID
15

TIME. DAYS

Fig. 5-Comparison of casing temperatures for dry and

wet cements.
612

Fig. 6-Dry zone heat transfer model.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Field Results
Casing temperatures were measured during steam injection in one of our steam injection projects. Steam was
injected down tubing set on a packer in 7-in. casing. Casing temperatures were calculated for these conditions using k, = 1.0 Btu/hour ft P, k ecm . = 0.2 Btu/hour ft o f and
a drill hole diameter of 12 in. Measured and calculated casing temperatures are compared on Pig. 7. The long-term
agreement is well within the accuracy required for engineering calculations.
There was a large difference between the calculated and
measured temper~ltures during the first 48 hours of injection, part of which was due to lower injection temperatures (50F) during this time. The remainder of the difference includes unsteady-state effects in the wellbore. It was
previously stated that the well bore model represents a
quasi-steady system. That is, steady-state equations are
used to describe heat transfer through the region included
in the over-all heat transfer coefficient. Transient effects
such as vaporization of water in the cement and surrounding formation are not included. Thus, a significant difference between calculated and measured casing temperatures should be expected during the short transient period
after injection begins.
Conclusions
It has been shown that the over-all heat transfer coefficient can be estimated from the process variables. A brief
derivation was presented to indicate how various heat
transfer mechani~ms are included in an over-all heat
transfer coefficient. A simplified calculation procedure was
outlined for determining the over-all heat transfer coefficient. Comparison of predicted and field casing temperatures confirms the basic formulation and applicability of
the suggested procedures for engineering calculations.

Nomenclature
Aj

= characteristic surface

area, sq ft (subscript j identifies the surface)

A c ' = inside surface area of the casing, sq ft
At, = outside surface area of the tubing, sq ft
Ca. = heat capacity of the fluid in the annulus at the
average annulus temperature, Btu/lb OF
f(t) = transient time function, dimensionless

.
..:

..; 400 - - CALCULATED

!i
Ii0:

...

Ftc<

= view

factor based on outside tubing and inside

casing surfaces, dimensionless

= over-all

interchange factor between the outside

tubing and inside casing surfaces, dimensionless
g = acceleratIon due to gravity, 4.17 X 108 ft/hr'
Or = Orashof number, dimensionless
he = heat transfer coefficient for natural convection
based on the outside tubing surface and the
temperature difference between the outside tubing and inside casing surfaces, Btu/hr sq ft 0p
he' = heat transfer coefficient for natural convection
based on the outside insulation surface and the
temperature difference between the outside insulation and inside casing surface, Btu/hr sq ft
OF
hI = film coefficient for heat transfer or condensation
coefficient based on inside tubing or casing surface and the temperature difference between the
flowing fluid and either of these surfaces, Btu/
hr sq ft 0p
he = heat transfer coefficient for radiation based on
the outside tubing surface and the temperature
difference between the outside tubing and inside
casing surfaces, Btu/hr sq ft OF
h/ = heat transfer coefficient for radiation based on
outside insulation surface and the temperature
difference between the outside insulation and inside casing surfaces, Btu/hr sq ft OF
kess. = thermal conductivity of the casing material at the
average casing temperature, Btu/hr ft OF
k eem . = thermal conductivity of the cement at the average
cement temperature and pressure, Btu/hr ft OF
kd = thermal conductivity of the dry zone, Btu/hr ft OF
k. = thermal conductivity of the formation, Btu/hr ft OF
k,. = thermal conductivity, Btu/hr ft OF
kha = thermal conductivity of the fluid in the annulus at
the average temperature and pressure of the
annulus, Btu/hr ft OF
khC = equivalent thermal conductivity of the annular
fluid with natural convection effects, evaluated
at the average temperature and pressure of the
annulus, Btu/hr ft OF
kin . = thermal conductivity of the insulation at the average temperature of the insulation, Btu/hr ft OF
k'Ub. = thermal conductivity of the tubing material at the
average tubing temperature, Btu/hr ft OF
Pr = Prandtl number, dimensionless
Q = heat flow through the well bore, Btu/hr
Qc = heat flow in the annulus by natural convection and
conduction, Btu/hr
Q,. = heat flow in the annulus due to radiation, Btu/hr
r = radius, ft
r = inside radius of casing, ft
rco = outside radius of casing, ft
ra = radius of dry zone (distance where Td is equal to
the boiling point of water at formation pressure)
r" = radius of drill hole, ft
rins. = radius of the outside insulation surface, ft
r ti = inside radius of tubing, ft
rto = outside radius of tubing, ft
t = time, hours or units consistent with IX
T = temperature, OF
'Ftc<

cj

:11300

LOW PRESSURE ANNULUS

100

INJECTION TIME, HOURS

Fig. 7-Comparison of field data with calculated results.

613

T* = absolute temperature, oR = of + 460

Ta. = average temperature of the fluid in the annulus,
OF

3. Leutwyler, Kurt and Bigelow, H. 1.: "Temperature Effects on

Subsurface Equipment in Steam Injection Systems", J. Pet.
Tech. (Jan., 1965) 93-101.

Te; = temperature of inside casing surface, of

Teo = temperature of outside casing surface, of
T. = boiling point of water at formation pressure, OF
T, = temperature of flowing fluid, of
T, = undisturbed temperature of the formation, of
T" = temperature at cement-formation interface, OF
T'ns. = temperature of the outside surface of the insulation, of
Ttl = temperature of inside tubing surface, of
T to = temperature of outside tubing surface, OF
Vel = over-all heat transfer coefficient based on the inside casing surface and the temperature difference between the fluid and cement-formation
interface, Btu/hr sq ft OF
U j = over-all heat transfer coefficient based on the
characteristic surface area Ai and characteristic
temperature difference t::..T;, Btu/hr sq ft OF
V ta = over-all heat transfer coefficient based on the outside tubing surface and the temperature difference between fluid and cement-formation interface, Btu/hr sq ft OF
z = depth, ft
IX = thermal dlffusivity of the earth, sq ft/hr
f3 = thermal volumetric expansion coefficient of the

4. Satter, Abdus: "Heat Losses During Flow of Steam Down a

Wellbore", J. Pet. Tech. (July, 1965) 845-851.

fluid in the armulus, R- =

gas, or generally = -

1
-;;::

T ~n * for an ideal

(oPon
)
~

where P

is the annulus pressure

t::..L = increment of tubing or casing length, ft
t::..r = insulation thickness, ft
t::..T; = characteristic temperature difference related to
V j and the surface area A;, of
eta = emissivity of outside tubing surface, dimensionless
ee' = emissivity of inside casing surface, dimensionless
u = Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 1.713 X 1O-'/sq ft hr
oR'
pan

p.o.

density of the fluid in the annulus at Tao and pressure P, lb/cu ft

viscosity of the fluid in the annulus at Too and P,
lb mass/ft hr
Acknowledgments

The author wishes to express his appreciation to the

management of Continental Oil Co. for permission to
publish this article. The comments of W. L. Martin with
Continental in Ponca City, Okla., and the assistance of W.
K. Dietrich with Continental in Denver in obtaining the
field data are gratefully acknowledged. J. A. Sievert, Continental, Ponca City, assisted in the evaluation of f(t).

5. Leutwyler, Kurt: "Casing Temperature Studies in Steam Injection Wells", J. Pet. Tech. (Sept., 1966) 1157-1162.
6. Fourier, J. B. J.: "Theorie Analytique de la Chaleur", Gauthier-Villers, Paris (822); English tramlation by Freeman,
Cambridge (1878).
7. Eckert, E. R. G. and Carlson, W. 0.: "Natural Convection in
an Air Layer Enclosed Between Two Vertical Plates with Different Temperatures", Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer (1961) 2,
106-120.
8. McAdams, W. H.: Heat Transmission, 3rd Ed., McGraw Hill
Book Co., New York (1954).
9. Dropkin, D. and Sommerscales, E.: "Heat Transfer by Natural
Convection in Liquids Confined by Two Parallel Plates Inclined at Various Angles with Respect to the Horizontal", J.
Heat Transfer; Trans., ASME, Series C (Feb., 1965) 87, 7784.
10. Jessop, A. M.: "Heat Flow in a System of Cylindrical Symmetry", Cdn. J. of Physics (1966) 44, 677-679.
11. Personal communication.
12. Woodside, W. and Cliffe, J. E.: "Heat and Moisture Transfer
in Closed Systems of Two Granular Materials", Soil Science
(1959) 87, No.2, 75-82.

APPENDIX
Sample Calculation

Steam at 600F is injected down 3Vz -in. tubing set on

a packer in 9% -in., 53.5-1b/ft, N-80 casing. The annulus
contains a stagnant gas at 14.7 psia and the casing is cemented to surface in a 12-in. hole. A temperature survey
in the well indicates a mean subsurface temperature of
100F. The reservoir is at 1,000 ft. Estimate the over-all
heat transfer coefficient, average casing temperature and
wellbore heat loss after 21 days of continuous injection.
Data

= 0.146 ft
rel = 0.355 ft
rca = 0.400 ft
r" = 0.500 ft
IX = 0.0286 sq ft/hr
k, = 1.0 Btu/hr sq ft OF /ft
eta = Ed = 0.9
kcem . = 0.2 Btu/hr sq ft OF /ft
rIO

Step I-estimate V,,, from Fig 3 for an injection temperature of 600F and the low pressure annulus: V,,, =
4.05 Btu/hr sq ft OF.
Step 2-calculate f(t). Since t = 21 days, Eq. 32 can be
used: f(t) = In 2 V(0.0~~6) (504) -0.29 = 2.43.
Step 3-calculate T" (Eq. 31):
(600) (2.43)

1.0
(100)
(0146) (4.05)
= 395F .
1.0
2.43 + (0.146) (4.05)
Step 4-calculate TOi neglecting casing and surface resistances (Eq. 29):
T" =

References
1. Boldizar, T.: "The Thermal Field of the Earth's Crust and Its
Influence on the Ventilation of Deep and Hot Mines", Acta
Technica Acad. Scient. Hung., XVI Fase 3-4, 415-427.
2. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Wellbore Heat Transmission", J. Pet. Tech.
(April, 1962) 427-435.
614

T e,

395

(0.146) (4.05) In 0.5 (600 - 395)

0.2
0.4

530F.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Step 5-estimate h, (Eqs. 18 and 21):

F

t
"

k hc = 0.046 Btu/hr ft of;

1
= _1 + 0.146 (_1__ 1.0) = 0.865
0.9 0.355 0.9

then,

0.146 I 0.355
n 0.146

Btu/hr sq ft of .

0.5)-'
0.146 In 0.4

Uta

= ( 6.39 + 0.36 +
= 3.22 Btu/hr sq ft

0.2
of.

Step 7-since the assumed and calculated values of U t "

do not agree, repeat Steps 2 through 6 until agreement is
obtained between two sl-.ccessive trials. Results of successive iterations are tabulated below.

_1_
T(,n*

= 9.75 X 10-' R-';

Assumed

calculate Pr using Eq. 27:

Pr - (0.245) (0.069) = 0.66
0.0255

Trial
1

= 0.209 ft;

2
3

calculate Gr using Eq. 26:

G _ (0.209)" (4.17 X 10')(0.0388)' (9.75 X 10-') (600 - 530)
r -

0.046

--------;;~-=-

Step 6-calculate Uta (Eq. 14):

estimate h, (Eqs. 24 through 27):

Tan = 565F
po. = 0.0388 lb/cu ft
fta. = 0.069 lb mass/ft hr
Ca. = 0.245 Btu/lb of
k"a = 0.0255 Btu/hr sq ft OF /ft

rei -r tu

= 0.36

h, = (0.865) (1.713 X 10-') [(600 + 460)'

+(530+460),] [(600 + 460) + (530 + 460)]
= 6.39 Btu/hr sq ft of;

f3 =

he

Uta
(Btu/hr
sq ft OF)

4.05
3.22
3.15

Calculated
h,
U to
he
T,; (Btu/hr (Btu/hr (Btu/hr
T"
(OF) (OF) sq ft OF) sq ft OF) sq ft OF)

395
367
364

530
487
485

6.39
6.00
5.97

3.22
3.15
3.14

0.36
0.42
0.42

The weHbore heat loss can be calculated using Eq. 2:

Q = (27T) (0.146) (3.14) (600 - 364) (l ,000)= 680,000 Btu/hr.

***

(0.C69)'

= 8.26 X 10';
calculate k he from Eq. 25:
A
kk'" = (0.049) [(8.26 X 10') (0.66)]""33' (0.66),074

"a

MAY, 1967

= 1.81

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH AND PHOTOGRAPH OF

WILLHITE APPEAR ON PAGE

21

OF THE JAN.,

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY.

1967,

G.

PAUL

ISSUE OF