Applied Thermal Engineering 98 (2016) 532540

Contents lists available at ScienceDirectX

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www. elsevier. com/locate/apthermengX

Research Paper

Prediction of CaCO3 scaling in water injection wellbore

Xiaoxi Yang a, Wei Li a, *, Longjiang Guo a, Xiaojie Liu b, Hongqing Feng aX

a b
College of Pipeline and Civil Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Qingdao 266580, China China Petroleum Engineering Co.,
Ltd., Beijing Company, Beijing 100085, China

HIGHLIGHTS

A model for the prediction of CaCO3 scaling in water injection well was developed.

The scaling prediction software of water injection well was developed.

The prediction result is in good agreement with the measurement result.

The effect of some influence factors on scaling was studied.
of fluid flow and heat transfer on scaling
taken into consideration, a mathematical
Water
injection
model for predicting the scaling of CaCO3
A R T I C L E I N F O wellbore was developed, which is based on the
model for the calculation of deposition and
removal mass rates. The scaling prediction
Article history: software of water injection well was
developed. The soft-ware was used to
ABST predict the scaling in a water injection
Received 2 June 2015 Accepted 17 December 2015 RACT wellbore of low permeability reservoir in
Shengli Oilfield. The prediction result is in
Available online 29 December 2015 This good agreement with measurement result.
paper It is also found that the scale layer
conducts thickness increases with the increase of
Keywords: water injection time and scale-forming ions
a study
on the concen-tration, while it decreases with the
Scaling
increase of daily water injection rate. As a
CaCO3 consequence, in order to reduce scaling in
CaCO3 scaling in the wellbore, it is reasonable to shorten the
water water injection times, increase water in-
injection jection rate and purify the injection water.
Prediction model wellbore.
With the
Heat and mass transfer combine 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
d effect
as production [3].X mixed sulfate fouling deposition and removal
a prediction method. model for scaling
res Among formation is developed
1. Introduction Corresponding author.
ult Tel.: +86 15666699546; thesemethods,Ryznarmet by Kern and Seaton [6].
of fax: +86-532-86981882. hodandLangeliermethod The model holds the view
Although water-injection in mature wa
E-mail address:
predictthescaling of that scaling is the
upcliwei@126.com (W.
reservoirs is a promising low-cost method of ter carbonate by calculating combined results of
Li). X
enhanced oil recovery (EOR), in the process fla saturation index. deposition and removal.
of development in the oilfield, scale can be sh- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Bourland and Jacques The total mass rate is
applthermaleng.2015.12.0
produced in water injec-tion wellbore [1]. off 48 1359-4311/ 2015 method predict the calculated as a dif-
Scale is the deposition of inorganic minerals, int Elsevier Ltd. All rights
scaling tendency by ference between
reserved.
which is mainly composed of CaCO3. The o calculating sulfate deposition and removal
produced scale in the wellbore will seriously the solubility product mass rates [7]. Based on
damage the process of oil production and gas constant. But in these models for the
increase the production cost [2]. Therefore ph
Scaling is a complex process of prediction methods, the calculation of deposition
the ability to accurately predict and prevent ase effects of tem-perature, and removal mass rates,
mass transfer and energy
the deposition of scale in water injection as
conver-sion. There are many pressure and water the crystallization
wellbore is crit-ical to the ecient recovery of pre
factors affecting the scaling of injection rate on scaling fouling of calcium sulfate
crude oil from hard environments.X s- injection water, such as water are not taken into on flat heat transfer
sur quality, temperature and consideration. These surfaces was simulated
The water injected into the reservoir e pressure [4,5]. Therefore it is methods cant accurately by Fahmi Brahim [8].
contains lots of ions. In the process of water dec a chal-lenge to predict scaling calculate the quantity or The simulation results
injection, the injection water is heated by the rea accurately. At present, scaling the position of are in good agreement
for-mation. The ions in the water result in ses prediction at home and scaling.X with the measurement
calcium carbonates deposition in the water du abroad mainly divides into two values.X
injection wellbore due to the reduced halite rin methods: one-component Based on the law of
solubil-ity of calcium carbonates as the g fouling prediction method and conservation of mass, the
temperature increases during production or
X. Yang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 98 (2016) 532540
533
Fig. 1. Processes of scaling on heat transfer surfaces.
removed by the fluid.
Therefore the process of
scaling is the combined result
of deposi-tion and removal.X
According to the model for the calculation of
deposition and removal mass rates, this
The total mass rate per dt
paper developed a scaling prediction model
surface area is calculated as a
to calculate the amount of scale in the water
differ-ence between
injection wellbore, which relates scaling with
deposition and removal mass
the fluid flow process and heat transfer
rates:
process of injection water along the
wellbore. The changes of water injection The thickness of the scaling
rate, temperature, pressure, ion mass dm layer is then calculated as the
concentration were also taken into = total deposit mass per surface
consideration. dmd area divided by the density f
of the scaling layer:
The following assumptions are made to dmr
simplify the scaling pre-diction model in (1)
water injection wellbore:

The scale is entirely composed of CaCO3. xf

=
The physical properties of scaling layer are m
t+t
constant.
(3)

The roughness of scaling layer is not taken

into consideration.

The fluid physical properties are constant. dtdtdt f

The induction period of scaling is not taken

into consideration.

Model for the calculation of deposition The crystal mass per surface
and area at a determined time t +
t is calculated as a sum of
the total mass per surface
removal mass rate area at time t added

An analytical description resulting from to the calculated mass rate

complex combina-tions of different scaling during the new computing
mechanisms is not yet possible. Models time step 2.1. Calculation of the
have been developed at the University of
deposition mass rate
Braunschweig for single scaling mechanisms
t:
such as crystallization ( Fig. 1) or
The deposition of CaCO3 not
sedimentation [8].X only results from
mt + t = mt +
dm crystallization but also results
t from the particle produced in
It shows in Fig. 1 that there are two the solution due to over-
opposite steps in the process of scaling. On (2)
saturation [9,10]. Sometimes
the one hand, Ca2+ and CO32 in the solution
particle scaling is more
combine into CaCO3 and the CaCO3 is serious than crystallization
deposited on the heat transfer surface. On scaling, especially when the
the other hand, some of the scale will be
solution is of high hard-ness [9]. Therefore, m
the deposition of particle must be taken into dtdtdt
consideration in order to accurately predict
the scaling in water in-jection wellbore. The
deposition mass rate is calculated as a sum
of the crystallization deposition mass rate
and the particle depo-sition mass rate:X 2.1.1. The deposition mass
rate of crystallization
dmd
= By calculation of the
crystallization deposition mass
dmc
rate dmdtc the mass transfer
+
resistance between bulk and
dmp interface salt solution/ crystal
(4)
layer was considered [11,12].
Thus the concentration profile
in the bulk and in the laminar
boundary layer can be
presented as shown in Fig.
2.X
Fig. 2. Concentration and
temperature profile in the vicinity of
the scaling layer (scaling by
crystallization).
534 X. Yang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 98 (2016) 532540

Table 1
Model coecients for the calculation of the diffusion coecient Eq. (14). X

a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
a6
a7
a8

16
3.923 10
15
2.333 10
12
7.153 10
10
1.049 10
16
2.539 10
13
1.087 10
11
1.036 10
10
2.769 10

In the first step the calcium and sulfate ions are transported from

A semi-empirical approach according to Lammers [15] was usedX

the bulk to the interface by diffusion [13]. The mass transfer process X
for calculating of the Sherwood number:

is caused by the concentration difference

c1=cFcf:
Sh = 0.034 Re 0.875 Sc0.333
(12)

dmc
=(cFcf)

(5)
with

dt
In the second step the ions are built into the crystal lattice. The
Re =
w d0

,
Sc =

(13)

concentration difference
c 2 = c f cs is responsible for the build-

ing process. Investigations of Konak [14] showed that the order of X

In order to determine the diffusion coecient of calcium

the surface reaction corresponds to the number of ions (Ca 2+ und

CO32) that take part in the crystallization reaction. The mass flux
carbonate in water solution a computational model based on

can therefore be calculated as follows:

calculated results of Lammers [15] was developed by Brahim et al. X

[8]. This model describes the dependency of the diffusion coe- X

dmc
=kR(cf

cs )2

(6)
cient
on
the
two parameters: temperature and concentration

( Table 1): X

dt
kR is the surface reaction rate constant. It can be calculated
D ( T , c) =
a1 T 3 + a 2 T 2 + a 3 T + a4
+ a5 T 3 + a6 T 2 + a7 T + a8
(14)

using the Arrhenius approach:

c+1

E
kR=kR0e
RTf

(7)
2.1.2. The deposition mass rate of particle

The following values were taken for the constant of the con-

According
to the KernSeaton model [6], the deposition X

mass rate of particle is calculated as a function of the concentra-

cerned reaction kR0 and the reaction activation energy E [7]: X

tion of particle in the solution and the particle deposition

kR0 = 7.07 m 4 kg 1
s1

rate:
 mol1

dmp

E = 37143 J

= C p Vd

(15)

Tf defines the surface temperature of the scaling layer ( Fig. 2).X

dt
cs is the saturation concentration and was calculated as a

The experiment by Quan et al. showed that the concentration

function of Tf :

of CaCO3 particle in the solution had a little change throughout

log( cs ) =

H
L 0

cp
log( T f ) + C

the experiment [17]. The concentration of CaCO3 particle can be X

+

(8)
described as a function of the supersaturation degree of the

2.3 R Tf

solution:

(16)
where LH0 is solution enthalpy, cp is the difference of heat ca-pacity, R is molar gas constant, C is
a parameter given by J. Lammers [15].X The supersaturation degree of the solution is
calculated as:
If it is assumed that all ions transported to the phase boundary participate in the surface reaction, the Sb =
equations can then be used for the calculation of the mass rates of transport and incorpora-tion into the C ( Ca 2+ ) C ( CO3

fouling layer by eliminating the unknown concentration c f at the phase boundary [16]. The combination
of Eqs. (5) and X 2 )
(17) where Kspb is the solubility product of CaCO3 at
(6) leads to the model equation for the calculation of the deposi-tion mass rate: X the solution temperature.
The dimensionless relaxed time of particle is
K
spb defined as:
C p = 16.647 + 1.667 Sb

2
1

1
dmc
2

 (V *)2
(18)

2 kR

c

dt kR

(9)
18

where

c is the total where dp represents the

concentration
4 mean diameter of particle.
difference:
p represents the density of
particle. V * represents the
= c= c1+
friction velocity of the fluid at
c2=cF
cs the solid wall surface.

kR (10) According to Quan et al.

+
c tp =
+
[17], the particle deposition
dp 2 p rate is stated below as:X

+

23
< 20(
The mass transfer coecient can be determined as a function of 0.07 Sc , diffusi
the Sherwood number and the diffusion coecient: d0 on-
inerti 0.18,
+ a)
tp < 0.02(
Sh D (19)
diffusion)
= 3.5
Vd
+
tp >
=
10 20(inertia)
4

(11) (t p ),
+
V* 2
0.02 < tp

dm dt

X. Yang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 98 (2016) 532540

535

= 3

2.2. Calculation of the removal mass rate

f (1+
The following approach was used in the calculation of the removal mass rate [18]:X T ) d P ( g )
2

dmr
x f w2
K (20)

1
 T = Tw T f = R f q
(23)
dt P

According to Krause [7], an average value of 36 m was

used for the mean crystal diameter.X

2.3. Calculation of scaling layer Fig. 3. The structure of the wellbore.

thickness and heat resistance

w describes the mean flow velocity above the scaling layer. P describes the intercrystalline
The total mass transfer rate is calculated as the difference
adhesion forces. K is a parameter that is equal to the number of fault points in the fouling
layer. Based on his own measurements Krause suggested the following approach for the
calculation of P K [7]: X between the deposition and removal mass rates (Eq. (1)). X 3.1. Model for the calculation of flow in
water injection wellbore

P K = 83.2 w0.54 The calculation of the average total thickness of the fouling
layer until the time t + t is similar to the calculation of the The following approach was used in the calculation of the
(21)
total mass per unit area (Eq. (2)). It is calculated as the pressure along the wellbore:

sum of the average total thickness from time t and the new
dP
f is the mean density of the fouling layer. It can be deter-mined as a function of the growth within the time stepX =g
total calculated mass per unit area and the calculated mean thickness xf of the t: f

fouling layer:
w2

f =
m

(22)

xf (27)

dz

d0

(1+ T ) describes the temperature stresses in the scaling

layer. is the linear expansion coecient and

T the tempera-

ture difference in the fouling layer.

x
f ,t + t
dt
x
= f ,t +
dm
f

t
(24) drag coecient, it can be calculated by Beggs and [22]. The mean flow velocity w is calculated as a function of theX
Brill approach
defines the injected water density.
f defines frictional
 transfer in water injection

below as:

2 f

wellbore
With the determined total thickness and assuming w=
constant
water injection flow rate Q and the hydraulic diameter of (28)
d0 = d1 2xf
the flow
Rf =
thermal conductivity, the scaling resistance can then
d1 (26)
be calcu-
The heat transfer per unit length along the wellbore q is calcu-
channel d0 :
d1

d0
lated as:

d02

d0
ln is the hydraulic diameter of the flow
4Q lated below as:
channel, it is shown
3.2. Model for the
(25) calculation of heat

cause of scaling [19,20]. relate scaling with fluid gradient.

3. Model for the Meanwhile, the scaling flow and heat transfer Te = Te ,0 + a z k is the overall heat transfer
calculation of flow and coecient. It can be
heat transfer in water makes a difference to the along the wellbore. A q = d 1 k ( T Te ) (30)
calculated
injection wellbore flow and heat transfer in typical structure of the (29)
as:
the wellbore [21]. There- water injection wellbore where a = 0 .035 K
The change of temperature along the fore, it is necessary to is shown in Fig. 3.X T defines the water temperature which changes along the wellbore. m is geothermal
water injection wellbore is the main Te is formation temperature, it can be calculated as:
536
X. Yang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 98 (2016) 532540

k=

(31)

The combination of Eqs. (29) and (32) leads to the model equa-X
tion for the calculation of the temperature field along the water

R1
+ R2 + R3 + R4 + R5 + R6
+ R7
injection wellbore:

with
dT
=
d1
k ( T Te )
(33)
dz

d1

, R2 = R f , R3
=

d1

d2
=

d1

d3

cpQ

R1

ln

, R
4

ln

,
2 tub

2 a

h f d0

d1

d2
4. The solution and application of the scaling prediction

d1

d4

d1

d5

d1
f (t).
model

R
5

ln

R6 =

ln

, R7 =
2 cas

2 cem

2
f

d3

d4
4.1. The solution of the scaling prediction model

R
7

represents the formation unsteady heat conduction resis-

tance. f (t) represents the dimensionless time function, according

The combination of Eqs. (1)(33) leads to the scaling predic-X

to K. Chiu [23], it can be calculated as f (t) = ln (X

4 t

) 0 .29.
tion mathematical model. Based on the scaling prediction model,
d
5

The thermal balance along the wellbore is stated below as:

the scaling prediction software of water injection well was developed.

c p Q dT = q dz

(32)
The principle of the scaling prediction can be described more clearly

with the help of the flow chart in Fig. 4.X

 Fig. 4. Explanation of the calculation steps for the
simulation of the scaling growth.
X. Yang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 98 (2016) 532540
537
Fig. 5. The scaling layer in water injection tube at
different well depth (m).
4.2. The application of scale prediction
model
The scale prediction model was used to
simulate the scaling in the water-
injection well Shi 3-6-7 of Shengli Oilfield
by program-ming. The water-injection
well went into operation in 2006. The
inlet water temperature is 35 C and the
inlet pressure is 25 MPa. The water
injection rate is 35 m3. After 3 years
operation, scaling is very serious in the
wellbore. The scaling layer in water
injection tube at different well depth is
shown in Fig. 5.X
4.2.1. The analysis of the injected water
Through the analysis of water quality (
Table 2) it is found that the Ca+ and
HCO3 in the sample is high, whereas
the content of SO42 is very low. The
HCO3 takes a large advantage in the
medium pH. Therefore a higher pH tends
to form more precipitation of calcium
carbonate. One of the reasons to form
calcium carbonate deposi-tion is the pH
of injection water which is 7.52.X
4.2.2. The simulation results of the
scaling prediction model
The practical scaling thickness of the
water-injection well was measured after
3 years operation. The predicted scaling
thickness after 3 years operation was
calculated by the scaling prediction
model through computer programming.
Thus, the variation of the prac-tical and
predicted scaling thickness with the well
depth is shown in Fig. 6.X
It shows that the prediction result is in
good agreement with the measurement
result when the well depth is at a range
between 1800 m and 3000 m, where the
scaling is quite serious. Also, we ob-
served that the scale in the first 1500 m
is thin and uneven and easy to shed, so
it is hard to accurately measure the
thickness of the scale layer in actual
case. Though there is a difference
between measure-ment and prediction
around 1500 m, overall the prediction
model agrees well with the actual data.
Therefore it is reasonable to use
18

Scaling
6

10

16

Measurement

Prediction

layer
8

thickness(mm)
14

12
 8
400d

0 14
300 50d
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
2400
2700
3000

0 100d

layer

thickness(m)
12
150d

Well depth(m) 200d

Scaling

Fig. 6. The variation of the practical and predicted scaling thickness with 10
the well 250d

depth.

300d

16
 the scaling prediction model to predict
scaling in water-injection wells.
2 0

5. Discussion

5.1. The variation of scaling layer

thickness with well depth

When the water injection time changes

from 50 days to 400 days, the variation
of the predicted scaling thickness with
0 the well depth is shown in Fig. 7. It
500 shows that the predicted scaling
Well depth(m)
1000 thickness in-creases with the increase of
1500 the well depth until it reaches a peak.
2000 Fig. 7. The variation of the predicted scaling And after that, it decreases with the
2500 thickness with the well depth at dif-ferent water
injection time. increase of well depth. We canX
3000
Water type CaCl2
pH 7.52
+ +
K , Na
2+
Table 2 Ca
2+
Mg

Cl
The ionic composition of the water sample in 2
well Shi 3-6-7. SO4

HCO3
2
Well number CO3
Cationic(mg/L)

Shi 3-6-7
Anion (mg/L) 12,421.52
607
98.67
20,406.44
0
741.39
0

Salinity(mg/L) 34,461.73
538 X. Yang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 98 (2016) 532540

3000m
18

16

1500m

Scaling
6

12

2000m

10

thickness(mm)
14

2500m

layer
8
 Scaling
8
0
100
200
300 35m3/d
400
500
600
700

4
thickness(mm)
0

16
40m3/d

Water injection time(days)

0
1500
2000
2500
3000

Fig. 8. The variation of the scaling layer

thickness with the water injection times. 1000

12
24

Well depth(m)
layer
Fig. 9. The variation of the
scaling layer thickness with well
20 depth at different water injection
30m3/d rate.

scaling 3000 m is increases increases, the

thickness presented in slowly and effect of
also find that, as the
eventually formation
water injection time Fig. 8.X reaches to the temperature on
increases, the well depth The predicted
plateau. With scaling
of the corresponding scaling layer
the increase of becomes weak
peak increases. That the thickness at It demonstrates
well depth, the due to the
scale thickness in- different water that the scaling
time needed for increase of
crease with the depth injec-tion time layer thickness
the scaling heat transfer
first and then decrease is calculated by increases
layer thickness resistance,
is due to the variation of programming. rapidly with the
to reach to the whereas the
water temperature, The predicted increase of
plateau mean flow
velocity and ion scaling layer time in its
increases. velocity
concentration. thickness at the infancy. As time
increases due
depth of 1500 passes, the
to the narrowed
m, 2000 m, scaling layer As the scaling
5.2. Effects of water cross section.
2500 m and thickness layer thickness
injection time on the As a result of
the increased mean flow increase of the
velocity, the removal deposition
mass rate of the scaling mass rate due
increases according to to the increase
Eq. (20). Finally, the of c . Thus the
0
in-creasing
scaling layer thickness 1500
24 concentration
achieves stability as the 2000
of scale-
deposition mass rate is 2500
forming ions
equal to the removal 3000
leads to the
mass rate.X increase of
scaling layer
thickness,
5.3. Effects of water 1000
which is shown
injection rate on the
scaling thickness in Fig. 10.X
12
20
When the water injection 600mg/L Conclusions
rate is 30m3/d, 35m3/d and
and 40m3/d, the recommendati
predicted scaling layer ons
thickness at different
well depth is presented Based on the
in Fig. 9.X layer
Well depth(m)
calculation of
It can be concluded that deposition and
the scaling layer removal mass
Fig. 10. The rate, the
thickness decreases 650mg/L variation of the
with the increase of scaling layer CaCO3 scaling
thickness with well prediction
water injection rate ( Fig. depth at different model of water
9). As a result of the scale-forming ions injection
increase of water mass
concentration. wellbore was
injection rate, the established
removal mass rate of Scaling according to
scaling increases due to thickness(mm) 8 the flow and
the increase of mean heat transfer
flow velocity. Thus the predicted
scaling layer process of
scaling layer thickness injection water
decreases with the thickness at
different well along the
increase of water wellbore. The
injection rate. But the depth is pre-
effects of water
small water injection rate sented in Fig. injection rate,
results in the deposition
10.X temperature,
of solid particles and pressure, ion
other impurities in the 4 mass con-
liquid, particularly at the The centration on
po-sition where concentration CaCO3 scaling
streamline or flow rate 700mg/L of scale- were also taken
suddenly changes.X forming ions in into
the injection consideration.
water has an
5.4. Effects of the important effect
concentration of scale- on scaling. The scaling
forming ions on the According to prediction
scaling thickness software of
Eq. (9), the in-
16 water injection
creased well was
When the concentration 750mg/L concentration developed. The
of scale-forming ions in of scale- thickness of
the injection water is 600 forming ions
mg/L, 650 mg/L, 700 CaCO3 scaling
results in the
mg/L and 750 mg/L, the layer along the
X. Yang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 98 (2016) 532540
539

water injection well Shi 3-6-7 of Shengli Oil field was In order to reduce the quantity of The authors acknowledge the Shengli
predicted by using the software. It shows that the predic- CaCO3 scaling in water in-jection Oil Field for collection of field data.
tion result is accordant with the practical situation. wellbore, it would be better to shorten
the water injection times, increase daily Nomenclature

It can be concluded that the scaling thickness increases water injection rate and purify the
injection water. a geothermal gradient, Km1 a1 a8
with the increase of water injection time, scale-forming
constant
ions con-centration, while it decreases with the increase of
the daily water injection rate. Acknowledgements
Cp concentration of particle, kgm3 C(Ca2+) concentration total mass rate, kgm
2
of Ca2+ ions, molL1 C(CO32) concentration of CO32
s
ions, molL1 1

cp heat capacity of injection water, J kg1K1 cF concentration of 2

salt solution, kgm 3 s

1
cS saturation concentration, kgm 3

cf concentration in the vicinity of the scaling layer, kgm 3 dt

deposition mass rate of crystallization, kgm
D diffusion coecient, m s 2 1

d0
dt
hydraulic diameter, m

d1 inner diameter of water injection tube, m d2 external

diameter of water injection tube, m d3 inner diameter of dmp

casing tube, m deposition mass rate of particle,

kgm2s1
d4 external diameter of casing tube, m d5 inner diameter
of cement sheath, m dp mean crystal diameter, m
activation energy, Jmol1
friction drag coecient

gravitational acceleration, ms2 dt

hf convective heat transfer coecient, Wm2K1 i the

wellbore segments number dmd

deposition mass rate, kgm

2
P/K cohesion coecient, kgms Kspb solubility product of CaCO3
2
s
1
total number of wellbore segments

overall heat transfer coecient (clean heat exchanger P intercrystalline adhesion

surface), Wm K 2 1 force, N
water injection mass rate, kgs1
kf
q heat transfer per unit length
overall heat transfer coecient (fouled heat exchanger dt
along the wellbore, Wm1
molar gas constant, Jmol1K1

R1 convective heat transfer resistance,

surface), Wm2K1
m2KW1 R2 scaling heat resistance,
m2KW1

R3 water injection tube thermal resistance,

m2KW1 R4 annulus thermal resistance,
dm m2KW1
removal mass rate, kgm s
2 1
R5 casing thermal
resistance, m KW1 2

R6 cement sheath thermal

resistance, m KW1 2

kR
surface reaction rate constant, m4kgs1 R7 formation thermal
r
dt
resistance, m2KW1
Rf scaling thermal
resistance, m KW1
2

m T temperature of injection water, K

total mass per unit area, kgm2
Te formation temperature, K
Te land surface temperature, K

dmc
Tf temperature of scaling layer
surface, K
Tw temperature of heat
dm
transfer surface, K References the fouling process, Int. J.
water injection time, s Therm. Sci. 42 (2003) 323334.

G. Jing, S. Tang, X. Li, H. X

Wang, The analysis of scaling
Vd particle deposition rate, ms V* friction velocity, ms
1 1 N. Andritsos, A.J. Karabelas,
mechanism for water-injection The influence of particulates on
pipe columns in the Daqing
CaCO3 scale formation, J. Heat
xf thickness of scaling layer, m w injection water velocity, Oilfield, Arab. J. Chem. (2015) Transfer 121 (1999) 225227.
ms1 (in press). X X
well depth, m

M. Salman, H. Qabazard, M. B. Bansal, H. Muller-

linear expansion coecient, K1 t computing time Moshfeghian, Water scaling case Steinhagen, X.D. Chen, Effect of
suspended particles on
step, s studies in a Kuwaiti oil field, J.
Pet. Sci. Eng. 55 (2007) 4855. crystallization fouling in plate
heat exchangers, J. Heat
X X
T temperature gradient, K LH0 solution enthalpy, Jmol1 Transfer 119 (1997) 68574.
N. Wang, D.Z. Chen, L.S. Zou,
Influence of non-thermal plasma M. Haghshenasfard, G.H. Yeoh,
M. Dahari, K. Hooman, On
cp difference of heat capacity, Jmol1K1 density of pre-treatment on the scaling
injection water, kgm3 characteristics of viscous oil numerical study of calcium
wastewater during evaporation, sulphate fouling under sub-
cooled flow boiling conditions,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 75 (2015)
f density of scaling layer, kgm3 p density of particle, Appl. Therm. Eng. 81 (2015)

kgm3
779788. X 1827. X
S.M. Peyghambarzadeh, A.
f thermal conductivity of scaling layer, Vatani, M. Jamialahmadi, J.E.P. Monteagudo, L.F.L.R.
Silva, P.L.C. Lage, Scaling laws
Wm1K1 Application of asymptotic model
for the prediction of fouling rate for network model permeability:
of calcium sulfate under application to wellbore oil flow
tub thermal conductivity of water injection tube , subcooled flow boiling, Appl. simulation with solid deposition,
Wm1K1 a corrected thermal conductivity of annulus, Therm. Eng. 39 (2012) 105113. Chem. Eng. Sci. 58 (2003)

Wm1K1 cas thermal conductivity of casing, X 18151829. X

Wm K 1 1 Y. Fu, W. van Berk, H.M.
Schulz, Temporal and spatial
cem thermal conductivity of cement sheath, Wm1K1
development of scale formation:
formation average coecient of heat transfer, m 2s1 one-dimensional
hydrogeochemical transport
M. Bohnet, Influence of the
transport properties of the
crystal/heat transfer surface
interfacial on fouling behavior,
Chem. Eng. Technol. 26 (2003)

mass transfer coecient, ms1 modeling, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 112 1055 1060. X
(2013) 273283. X A.R. Konak, A new model for
kinematic viscosity, m2s1 surface reaction-controlled
D.Q. Kern, R.E. Seaton, A
theoretical analysis of thermal growth of crystals from solution,
dynamic viscosity, kgm s 1 1 Chem. Eng. Sci. 29 (1974)
surface fouling, Br. Chem. Eng.
Re 15371543. X
Reynolds number
4 (1959) 258262. X J. Lammers, Zur Kristallisation
S. Krause, Fouling of heat
Sh von Calciumsulfat bei der
transfer surfaces by
Verkrustung von Heizflchen
Sherwood number crystallization and sedimentation,
(Doctoral dissertation),
Sc Int. Chem. Eng. 33 (1993) 3. X Technische Universitt Berlin,
Schmidt number F. Brahim, W. Augustin, M. 1972. X
Bohnet, Numerical simulation of
540 X. Yang et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 98 (2016) 532540

X. Bai, T. Luo, K. Cheng, F. Chai, Experimental

study on fouling in the heat exchangers of

surface water heat pumps, Appl. Therm. Eng. 70
(2014) 892 895. X

Z. Quan, Y. Chen, C. Ma, Heat and mass

transfer model for CaCO3 scaling on heat

exchange surface, Sci. Technol. 38 (2008) 773
780. X

M. Bohnet, Fouling of heat transfer surfaces,

Chem. Eng. Technol. 10 (1987) 113125. X

B.O. Hasan, G.J. Nathan, P.J. Ashman, R.A.

Craig, R.M. Kelso, The effects of temperature

and hydrodynamics on the crystallization fouling
under cross flow conditions, Appl. Therm. Eng.

36 (2012) 210218. X

S.J. Dyer, G.M. Graham, The effect of

temperature and pressure on oilfield scale

formation, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 35 (2002) 95107.
X
O.P. Arsenyeva, B. Crittenden, M. Yang, P.O.

Kapustenko, Accounting for the thermal

resistance of cooling water fouling in plate heat
exchangers, Appl. Therm. Eng. 61 (2013) 53

59. X
D.H. Beggs, J.P. Brill, A study of two-phase flow

in inclined pipes, J. Petrol. Technol. 25 (1973)

607617. X
K. Chiu, S.C. Thakur, Modeling of wellbore heat

losses in directional wells under changing

injection conditions, Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/ 22870-MS, 1991. X