4.5 Article

An in-well heat-tracer-test method for evaluating borehole flow conditions

期刊

HYDROGEOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 1817-1830

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10040-015-1304-8

关键词

Fracture flow; Borehole flow; Distributed temperature sensing; Tracer tests; USA

资金

  1. University of Wisconsin Water Resources Institute through Wisconsin Groundwater Research and Monitoring Program [WR12R001]
  2. Geological Society of America Student Research Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An improved method is presented for characterizing vertical borehole flow conditions in open boreholes using in-well heat tracer tests monitored by a distributed temperature sensing (DTS) system. This flow logging method uses an electrical resistance heater to warm slugs of water within bedrock boreholes and DTS monitoring of subsequent heat migration to measure borehole flow characteristics. Use of an electrical resistance heater allows for controlled test initiation, while the DTS allows for detailed monitoring of heat movement within the borehole. The method was evaluated in bedrock boreholes open to Cambrian sandstone formations in south-central Wisconsin (USA). The method was successfully used to measure upward flow, downward flow, and zero flow, and to identify changes in borehole flow rates associated with fracture flow and porous media flow. The main benefits of the DTS-monitored in-well heat tracer test method of borehole flow logging are (1) borehole flow direction and changes in borehole fluid velocity are readily apparent from a simple plot of the field data, (2) the case of zero vertical borehole flow is easily and confidently identified, and (3) the ability to monitor temperatures over the full borehole length simultaneously and in rapid succession provides detailed flow data with minimal disturbance of the borehole flow. The results of this study indicate that DTS-monitored in-well heat tracer tests are an effective method of characterizing borehole flow conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据