Eothermal gradV dH = c p dT + [V – T p ]dp
Eothermal gradV dH = c p dT + [V – T p ]dp T(19)Geosciences 2021, 11,9 ofc p C J = -[V – Television T]p(20)For liquids where may be the liquid density, volume expansivity () is usually calculated as: ( 1 V 1) p (- ) p V T T (21) (22) (23)dH = c p dT + V (1 – T )dp c p C J = -V (1 – T ) As a 2-Bromo-6-nitrophenol web result, the final output temperature in the wellhead is going to be: Tout = m c p T dz m c p dz(24)Within this text, we regarded 3 wells: GPK-3 and GPK-4 as two injection wells and GPK-2 as a production effectively. In GPK-3, the wellbore leakage was assumed involving 1282 and 4852 m depth measured in the surface. Inside the case of GPK-2, the wellbore leakage was modeled between 1264 m to 4244 m depth measured from the surface. The fluid is single phase water flow along with the model parameters are continual precise heat capacity of water as 4200 J g-1 K-1 , L R = 0.00001 m-1 , and = 0.00345 Km-1 , respectively. Here, L R and accounts for the casing properties, cement properties and their thicknesses. The coupling among the reservoir as well as the wellbore model is Fmoc-Gly-Gly-OH Biological Activity achieved through a sequential strategy. Initially, the temperature drop because of heat exchange in between the injection wellbore and the rock matrix is calculated by means of the analytical model. From this, the final wellbore bottom temperature is obtained, that is utilised as an input for the very first iteration with the numerical reservoir model (heat exchange among the rock as well as the fluid). Inside the next stage, the wellbore heat exchange impact is implemented by means of the updated values for the reservoir temperature measured in the production wellbore bottom. The wellbore heat exchange impact is defined analytically along with the temperature alongside the wellbore is obtained. Wellbore radius is extremely small in comparison with the reservoir size, and is considered as a line with the calculated temperature profile by way of the analytical model inside the reservoir simulation. The total quantity of components inside the geometry is 142,051, whereas boundary components quantity 8305 and edge elements quantity 666. three. Outcomes and Discussions In this section, initially we present the benchmark for our numerical model. Then, the hydrothermal numerical modeling results are compared using the operational information measured at Soultz-sous-For s for three years of operation. Additionally, new injection scenarios are proposed that will be adopted with all the current industrial setup to boost the power extraction capability. Lastly, we execute sensitivity evaluation on ten governing parameters and estimate their impact around the production temperature. 3.1. Benchmarking For benchmarking the numerical model, we utilized the approach adopted by Cheng et al. [38] and Bongole et al. [39] by using a simplified 1D heat transfer challenge for any single fracture system. This approach is employed inside the earlier studies to benchmark the models. The analytical equation for heat transfer considers that the geometry is infinitely extended in both directions (see Figure 5), there is no flow boundary circumstances for heat exchange, steady state fluid flow happens only via the fracture and the rock permeability is zero, plus the thermophysical properties of water are continual all through the simulation. The temperature distribution for the fluid is identical to that of the rock matrix resulting from the neighborhood thermal equilibrium assumption. The analytical resolution for the fluid temperature distribution is [38,39]:Geosciences 2021, 11,thermal equilibrium assumption. The analytical answer for the fluid temp ten of 19 bution is [38,39].
